Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #404 - Judge CAUGHT Someone Filming Rittenhouse Jury, But Did NOTHING w/Steve Hilton

Episode Date: November 10, 2021

Tim, Ian, Luke and Lydia join Fox show host, podcast host, and author Steve Hilton to analyze the most recent news surrounding the Rittenhouse jurors being filmed and the judges' muted response to this infraction, how the witness appeared to believe Kyle Rittenhouse was a cop and chose to attack him, possibly because of this misconception, the entirety of woke cancel culture is illogical, chaotic, and destructive, and the FBI's raid of Project Veritas properties is a clear attack on the freedom of the press and the first amendment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another exciting day in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, and the craziest thing that's happened started right in the morning when the judge announces right away someone was at the bus pickup for the jury filming them. And this is where I got really let down. The judge was like, oh, but the deputies told him to delete the footage, so we should be good, and then we'll take precautions so it doesn't happen again. And I'm just thinking to myself, that's it. They got the jury. There's no deleting video footage. For all we know, they could have stored it in two locations on their phone and said, yeah, here, I deleted it.

For all we know, they immediately downloaded an app to recover the deleted video. For all we know, they were streaming it. That's it. Someone knew where the jury was going to be and filmed them. And the judge was just like, all right, we're good. And look, with all due respect to the judge, he seems like a good guy, but he doesn't know tech. He doesn't understand this compromise. So we'll talk about that for sure. We've got a bunch of other stories, more subpoenas from January 6th. And what I really, really want to get into, because I did talk about this on my other channel

this morning, the mainstream media's lies about what's happening in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, some of the most egregious lies. It's shocking. MSNBC completely editing what was testified to about Kyle Rittenhouse, claiming that Gage Grosskreutz testified he had his hands up when he was shot, which never happened. NPR doing the same thing, making these posts on social media, overtly lying. We'll talk about California and how screwed up that place is. We can talk about Project Veritas. We've got a lot of stuff to go through. And joining us today is Steve Hilton. Great to be with you. Do you want to introduce yourself? So I'm Steve, as you mentioned. I've got a British accent. What is that about? How can you have some ridiculous

British-accented person on your show? So I'm now an American, I'm proud to say, recently because I'm an American citizen. I live in California. I host a show on Fox News called The Next Revolution on Sunday nights and have recently started a podcast called California Rebel Base. I can understand getting out of the UK, but then going to California. So it's a long story. It's mainly family-related in terms of what my wife was doing at the time. I love California. It is totally great totally great very screwed up as you mentioned um so we got a big fight on but i'm not i'm not

one of the people leaving i'm not planning to move to austin like everyone else seems to be or um i agree with that i think austin's not we're going to be in austin next week but i think it's a bad move that everyone's trying to move there but we'll we'll get into everything we can definitely talk about uh you know your show We can definitely talk about your show. We definitely should talk about California because Gavin Newsom disappeared for two weeks, and then he came back, and no one believes him. But we'll get into all that stuff. Okay.

We got Luke chilling. Bullocks, I have to say, especially with the California news. Howdy. I am your glorified and very humble T-shirt vendor. Today I am wearing what I think is a fair depiction of what Build Back Better means with a nice depiction of Klaus Schwab implementing the Great Reset with the headline, You Will Own Nothing and You Will Be Happy, which you could exclusively get on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. Thanks for having me.

I'm excited for this discussion. By the way, just mentioning Klaus Schwab. I'm very surprised to hear his name. I haven't heard it in a long time. He actually tried to sue me at one point. We really need to talk about that. I haven't heard it in a long time. He actually tried to sue me at one point. So maybe I'm a great writer. We really need to talk about that. I'm super excited about that.

I'm, as a layman, very, when you showed me the video earlier, Tim had mentioned that the, that mainstream media was lying about the dude walking towards Kyle Rittenhouse with his, with his arms up. Dude,

to hear those videos back to back, that's just, it's just mind blowing. We have two videos we're going to play. One is where MSNBC says, he testified his hands were up when he was shot. And you play the actual video and the defense is like, it wasn't until you pointed the gun at Kyle that he fired on you. And he goes, that's correct. How the media can just lie this way.

It is amazing. We were just chatting about this. And to be honest, I haven't followed the trial. And I'm really interested in talking about it and understanding all the different things about it that make it interesting and important. And when you played me, I mean, this is like a very extended tease for what you're going to be playing. Because it is truly unbelievable. And the post on Facebook. When you just played me what you're about to play, I just couldn't believe.

You know that phrase, jaw-dropping you were like something's wrong no no you must be true like this must be there's some mistake because we'll get we'll get into it we'll get into it yeah i mean even ian's shocked because yesterday you were saying you thought the media was being uh what did you say like that they were um giving like yeah relative to if the dude had been a black dude that kyle rittenhouse had killed and there was like religious fervor. They've been relatively, you know, neutral. Well, now I'll show you these video clips.

I just want to say I'm definitely not shocked. I expected this. And yeah, it gets way worse than you could even imagine. Yes. And I am also here in the corner pushing buttons trying to fix our sound from last night. At least we have sound tonight. That's a nice plus. I'm excited to go.

Yeah, it'll be interesting. Once we interesting once we have the mobile studio is basically done and we're going to be sending the advance team to Austin. Then we're going to fly out, build this mobile studio in the RV. It should be a lot of fun, but hopefully we get sound working in there. Before we get started and all the news, make sure you go to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access

to exclusive members-only segments. We're going to have a members-only segment coming up. We usually post them around 11 p.m. every night. That's basically when they go up. And we have a whole library of content. But also as a member, you're helping support all of our journalists who – they have independent – they're editorially independent. They report on what they want to report on. And I just – I basically try to look for if I see something wrong.

But for the most part, they do a great job. And with your support as a member, we can fund more journalists, do more shows. And that's what we've been doing. So thank you all so much for your support. Don't forget to like this video right now. Smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. And take that URL up top.

Post it everywhere. Tell people to come and hang out. Say, come hang out. We're talking about stuff and news and Kyle Rittenhouse. And don't forget, you can get in your super chats because we read them around 930 or so. That being said, let's pull up the first story. And this is the one that actually kind of freaks me out. From Timcast.com, Rittenhouse jury was recorded outside of the courthouse, trial judge says. Wisconsin judge Bruce Schroeder announced that someone had recorded the jury in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial

getting off the bus this morning. The identities of the 18 members of the jury in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial getting off the bus this morning. The identities of the 18 members of the jury have been sealed and kept anonymous during the trial. On the morning of November 9th, someone was observed recording the group before they arrived by bus. Quote, at pickup, there was someone there and video recording the jury, which officers approached the person and required them to delete the video and return the phone to him. Schroeder said, I've instructed that if it happens again, they are to take the person and required them to delete the video and return the phone to him. Schroeder said, I've instructed that if it happens again, they are to take the phone and bring it here. Something like that should not have occurred. I'm frankly quite surprised it did. The news comes shortly after Cortez Rice, George Floyd's nephew, said in a live stream that he knew

there were cameras in the courtroom and that they were, quote, definitely people taking pictures of the jury and everything. Jury selection was difficult because the case extensive media coverage. At least 12 potential jurors were dismissed because they acknowledged they had strong feelings about the case. By November 2nd, 20 people had been selected, including nine men and 11 women. Of the selected group, 12 would serve as jurors while eight were alternates. Safety concerns were expressed by jury members during the selection process and mentioned fears of riots following the verdict. One juror was dismissed after making a joke.

A second juror was dismissed last week due to an issue with her pregnancy. Quote, Rittenhouse is on trial for fatally shooting two men and wounding a third. I think, you know, for the most part, we know a lot of the details about Rittenhouse and the trial, but we'll get into more of the trial details in a second. This is where I think this is where Kyle could lose. So we've been talking quite a bit about the trial. We've been talking about how for the past several days, and the latest news today is that the prosecution has, they've rested their case, or however the proper terminology is, their case has been rested rested and now it's going into the defense the defense's case in chief they're now bringing their witnesses they brought in the state so i know um you know steve you haven't been following this but i'll give you some some context the state brought in richie mcginnis there it was their witness and he made them

look miserable he said you know this guy was attacking Kyle. They brought in another witness who said one of the guys who got shot threatened to kill Kyle. And then they bring in Gage Grosskreutz, who testified that it wasn't until he pointed his gun at Kyle Rittenhouse that he got fired upon. After seeing all of that, you know, my answer is like, wow, my prediction is like he's probably going to get acquitted on most of these charges. He might get a misdemeanor gun charge. He might get a manslaughter charge. But all the murder stuff, it's all out the window. Then we hear that somebody is filming the jury.

And we know what that leads to. It's an amazing story. And actually, just as I'm sitting here listening to you and we were just talking about it it i'm seeing why it's so interesting um and how you've got this situation where there's a narrative and the narrative has to be upheld at all costs you know this is what happens with the media as we know and yet the facts just one by one start to the crazy way at it and when you talk about the jury i mean that is that's really scary that i mean why is that even allowed to happen i mean what what the details of that in terms of like where where they were filmed and shouldn't they be having the bus pickup yeah but the jury's being

picked up how do they know where that is what's that what's that about that right so we have this viral video where they're basically saying we know who the jury is this guy sounds like he's saying if the jury doesn't give them the verdict they want they're going to target them and we saw that during the chauvin trial with the george floyd cop you know derrick chauvin they they were riding in the streets people had to be brought into the courtroom with armed police someone one of the witnesses houses was was covered in blood like a pig's head or something but he had moved from there but they're they're targeting the jury they should uh with treat targeting jurors as targeting children for for legal purposes i'd love to see people there must

be some hammer down there must be big i mean when the judge says oh i'm surprised and what did he say disappoint i don't know what he said i'm surprised this happened you know i mean yeah to put it mildly i mean isn't there to your point isn't there a um isn't this a crime he doesn't get it intimidating a jury obstruction of justice isn't it i don't know absolutely but miles from being a lawyer there must be something it's interesting that he's surprised because i'm not if you're looking at this story online on social media there's a whole bunch of people threatening the jury there's a whole people threatening that there's surprised because I'm not. If you're looking at this story online on social media, there's a whole bunch of people threatening the jury. There's a whole people threatening that there's going to be rioting. There's going to be huge protests in response if they don't get the decision that they want to get in this specific trial. So, I mean, he shouldn't be surprised

because this is a high profile case that the world is watching right now. This is going to be significant because you see the party line split. You see the agendas. You see the narratives. And people are playing this off as a part of the larger political wars that are happening in this country that are becoming more dangerous to be played. I think it's sad to see the judge really doesn't know what's going on.

And it's not a judge's job to watch the news and understand politics in this country. But for him to be like, oh, somebody was filming the jury, that's strange. It's like, yo, these people were burning down buildings, smashing windows, and they were pushing a dumpster, a flaming dumpster towards a gas station. And this judge doesn't understand

that these are political extremists. You don't know that the the people doing that with the people filming but i mean the the fact is that they the fact that it was filmed at all by anyone is so like antithetical to everything that people think about how the justice system works should work yeah but these people these look you know and actually there's a broader point to your point which is that the revolution They keep saying over and over again Going back to the narrative That the right and the Trump

Trumpets Are undermining democracy And threatening violence And all this kind of stuff It's the exact opposite On so many occasions It reminds me of Do you remember

around the election night when it was always about um when they were boarding up the cities yeah um everyone's like boarding up you had those pictures of new york being boarded up in in in the event that there would be rioting on the on the election night well who were they boarding it up against yeah there's not a lot of trump supporters in new york and it was relatively the same sort of story it's always it's it's actually the louder they they push a particular message the more clear it is that actually is the direct opposite of what's really going on isn't it isn't that crazy i mean russiagate everything the democrats were saying where they were projecting what they had done on trump and trump supporters when it comes to the violence all day every day the media keeps saying the right wing and the far right and the white supremacists. And it's just like, where,

when? I mean, there's been a couple of bad, you know, really, really bad incidents with the fringe far right or whatever. But it's like you get Antifa riots for a hundred plus days of them firebombing a federal building. And yet we now know at the Rittenhouse trial, the FBI had evidence that these people had committed crimes, that the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case knew that one of Kyle Rittenhouse's attackers was illegally concealing a weapon. And the prosecutors instructed the police not to execute a search warrant against his phone. I mean, the whole thing is crooked and it's always been crooked. And the scariest part about is that when they come out and they lie about it, or more importantly, when the judge

doesn't understand, he's like, wow, I'm surprised someone was filming our jury. It's like, your honor, they will kill the jurors if they have the opportunity more. But, but, but I will stress that that is hyperbolic. What these people do, because they're smarter than this, as much as people don't want to give them credit, is they know that in order to effectively engage in terror, you can't take life. What the far left does is sustained low-tier terrorism, smashing windows, starting fires, beating people, things that won't get national headlines but will scare people into bending the knee and giving into their politics. So when Antifa can go out for a hundred plus days

in Portland, smashing windows and beating people, is guy gets punched in face a national headline? No. So Antifa and these far left extremists know they can go out, punch random people. Those people will then become scared to say anything because no one will tell their story and the police won't do anything about it then antifa is emboldened and the far left just keep doing more and more stuff like this so yeah what the purpose of filming the jury isn't actually to cause them harm it's to cause the fear of the fear no it's a total intimidation tactic. It's incredibly scary that that's actually going on. And it sounds like nothing's going to happen.

No, no. And the judge was like, oh, I told them to delete it. And it's like, so they still have the footage. I'll say one thing before I throw it to you, Luke. The fear of pain is actually more powerful in torture than the pain itself. So you'll read this about like the CIA torturing people. They know putting the fear that pain is coming is more likely to get results than actually inflicting pain on someone. When someone's feeling the pain, they're actually like, oh, okay, I can endure this before they receive it. So filming the jury is basically

the threat. They want these people to be living in fear so that they just say, I don't want to stick my neck out for this. Guilty, guilty, guilty. There was also many instances where the authorities stood down when there was widespread criminality, looting, burning, robbing people,

assaulting people, police officers, literally standing down, sometimes even seeing the incidences, not doing anything during this hot summer that we had, of course, last year during all the rioting. And, you know, there was even instances where people's civil rights were violated because someone had a different opinion. Police officers said, well, there's a mob here. They're rioting. We have to violate your civil rights because we don't feel like dealing with any problems, with any issues.

And we would like to think that public opinion doesn't sway juries, doesn't sway court proceedings. It does as much as money does because here in the United States, if you have a lot of money, if you have also the public opinion, if you have all the institutions behind you, you could buy a lot of justice. And the police will always err on the side of whatever's easier. So I said this years ago, and I warned all these back the blue conservatives, if Black Lives Matter or Antifa shows up to your house, the cop is going to look at the mob,

look at you and say, it's easier to arrest you in your own home than it is to deal with a violent mob or a riot. And we've actually seen that. There was a guy in Wisconsin, Black Lives Matter shows up to his house. The same group had previously set fire to another house and they're protesting. The police end up showing up. So this guy in his window brandishes a shotgun at the crowd. The police show up and arrest him to cheers of Black Lives Matter Antifa,

which is funny because they're the defund the police crowd. But when the police are coming and serving them and arresting a guy in his own home because they were protesting him they cheer for it that's like that's the power they want so i people need to realize this the cops will absolutely with a smile on their face kick you in the teeth if it means well i totally agree it's so funny you say that because i remember when when in in in the beginning of the pandemic and you had cops going around, you know, arresting people and being unbelievably aggressive towards moms with their kids in the playground, all that stuff. I said, well, actually, you know, this is just all of this kind of behavior, this kind of authoritarian behavior in any direction is going to undermine confidence in the police. And we all, you know, you want order. You want the police that you want going to undermine confidence um in the police and we all you know

you want order you want the police that you want everyone to have confidence in it and when you go around behaving like that um when you're not doing the central job which is to uphold the law equally with the same kind of approach to everyone people start to lose confidence and then you just everything starts to fall apart it It's actually a real disaster. It's just about what's easier. Can two cops who pull up in a squad car deal with 50 angry people throwing stones? No. But can they arrest you?

Yes. And then there's nothing to protest anymore. By the way, can I just ask on the jury thing? Would they know, just on the extent of the intimidation would they be aware that this happened i mean made with i don't think i'm seeing the person would they've seen this story you know how's it all played out so they're not the jury's instructed not to read news about the case not to discuss it with anyone and for the most part that typically works they're not sequestered but there you are getting onto a bus and someone walks up filming you and you know exactly what that means because the jurors know that their identities are kept anonymous they know why their

identities are kept secret so when someone films you you know it's no longer a secret no matter what the judge says and these people like like you know we mentioned in the story a lot of these people know the full weight of what's going on with with the rittenhouse trial and they have strong feelings about it so i think the jury is now so you never see the jury on we were talking about this it's all on the trials being you can watch the trial so you never see the jury you don't want any jury intimidation i mean these people are deciding the faith of kyle and if some of them are intimidated or harassed or extorted or even bought off yeah um or even you know threatened uh you have you know a legal system that of course it's actually a really shocking story or even you know threatened uh you have you know a legal system that of course

it's actually a really shocking story i mean you know like i mean npr just did yeah npr's headline about this on their facebook page was absolutely just astounding i couldn't believe it was true uh of course it was being shared around i had to go on their facebook page just to verify that this was real but their understanding of the court proceedings yesterday was just totally the opposite of reality. I want to pull that up, but I want to start with MSNBC because I want to show you this video. This is a video from MSNBC. Legal expert, Kyle Rittenhouse trial judge, statements call into question possible bias. I'm going to play two videos for you guys.

The mainstream media's coverage of this and then what was actually said during the trial. So let me play this clip. Gross cruts acknowledge that he was armed with a pistol, but says his hands were raised when he was shot by Rittenhouse. All right, I'm going to play that one more time for you. Make sure we get it. I think the audio is coming through. It's coming out of the TV. Sure, yeah. Grosskreutz acknowledged that he was armed with a pistol, but says his hands were raised when he was shot by Rittenhouse. Okay, just to

clarify, this is the readout show. I'm not sure who this particular guy is, saying that Grosskreutz... That's Jonathan Capehart, I believe. Is that his name? Yeah. Okay. He said that Grosskreutz testified his hands were up when he was shot. Here's the viral clip we all

saw. Hopefully the audio will come through pretty well. It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, and he fired. Right? Correct. Oh, shit!

Aside from the explanations from Rakedada Law and everybody, I mean, you can hear it. The defense says it wasn't until you pulled your gun, advanced on him, you know, put your hands down, pointed the gun at him, that he shot you. And Grosskreutz says, correct. How MSNBC reported on TV that he testified his hands were up when he was shot is insane. They just outright lied about what happened in that trial. So here's the crazy thing. If you're watching someone like Raquel Law and you're watching all their legal commentary, you're watching a show like this, I mean, we'll play for you the video. Here's what gets really, really crazy. In this video from MSNBC, after what he says,

they don't actually show the real testimony from Gage Grosskreutz. Here's what they show. I thought that the defendant was an active shooter. And like I mentioned earlier, anytime you add a firearm to the equation, like I said, the stakes are so much higher. Okay, I'm just going to stop right there. He's not talking about when he was shot. He's saying the stakes are higher because the defendant brought a gun. He brought a gun too, illegally, I might add.

Now, I'm not a big fan of the, you know, the legality, the statutory laws they have on restricting gun rights. But here's a guy who is criticizing Kyle Rittenhouse, who has actually a legal argument about whether or not he was allowed to carry the weapon. There's an exemption that the defense is claiming for someone under the age of 18 carrying a rifle in public. They say the law actually says 16, seven-year-olds are exempt. So maybe, but it's for the jury to decide. That's what the judge said. This dude had a concealed Glock.40 caliber in his waistband illegally. And he's criticizing Rittenhouse.

The most important thing, though, because we can talk about the Rittenhouse trial itself. This is MSNBC. Yeah. Lying. It's amazing. Then showing you a totally unrelated clip. This is not him talking about when he was shot. It's him criticizing someone else having a gun.

And they omit the fact that this dude was armed as well. I mean, well, I take that back. They did mention he was armed. They said his hands were up. And then if you actually watch the trial, if you are watching the full trial or people like Rakeda Law, actual trustworthy individuals,

you will know exactly what he said, that he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse. Now, let me pull up NPR because Luke brought up NPR. Look at this. On Facebook, yesterday at 1245 p.m., NPR posted, Gage Grosskreutz, the only person who survived being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse last year at a chaotic demonstration in Kenosha, Wisconsin, took the stand at Rittenhouse's homicide trial. He acknowledged that he was armed the pistol on the evening of August 25th, 2020, but that his hands were raised when he was shot by Rittenhouse. Never happened. He never testified that.

He approached Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand and he put his hands up. Rittenhouse then lowers the rifle. He then points the gun at Kyle and then Kyle fires in self-defense. All of that was testified to by Gage Grosskreutz and MSNBC and NPR both reported the opposite so that's what I wanted to get into here because the the details and the sequence because so I just want to really understand it because it's so shocking actually um even you know I watch a lot of this stuff because you know I have a show on cable news and you know i i keep an eye on all these shows and they you know there's a lot of stuff where

you can say well that's just propaganda and that's just the narrative that's being put this is really really uh dishonest in the in the most disgusting do you remember the covington kids yeah exactly but i just want before we get to that i just want to sort of make sure i've really understood the sequence here right this was it was it yesterday this was uh i believe this was testimony from yesterday right and that show clip that msnbc that was last night that actually there's no yes i just want to make sure we're being fair like there's no confusion where they're reporting on a i don't know a different day of the trial and there's no this is the thing that could be going on here this is from their show last night so the trial concludes around uh 5 to 6 p.m and msnbc and npr and that clip from the of that guy saying what he did was that day and that's how they reported yes and it

went viral can i just ask another question was there a point in the in his testimony where he where he also said his hands were up? But he never said that he was shot when his hands were up. No. So it's not literally untrue. He did say his hands were up. But he also said that at the point when he was shot, he was pointing the gun. He never testified that he was shot when he put his hands in the air.

He never, never said that. Right. He said, to get very specific, Gage Grosskreutz says he believed that Rittenhouse wasn't accepting his surrender and tried to fire a round, but the gun misfired. So he re-racked it, clearing the chamber and chambering a new round. And that's when he advanced on him with the gun. There was never a point where Gage Grosskreutz said, I approached him, put my hands in the air, and then he shot my arm. It just didn't happen.

I mean, he tried to dance on it for sure. When the defense asked him, like, you were pointing your gun at Kyle Rittenhouse and then he shot you, Gage Grosskreutz goes, no. And then the defense goes, here's a photo of you. What does that look like? And he's like, that's me getting my arm bicep vaporized. And he goes, and what, you know, what are you, where's your gun pointed? And he's like, it's pointed at the defendant or something that effect. And then he was like, and then Kyle Rittenhouse, you know, fired. He goes, correct. He goes, so it was only after you advanced on Kyle with your gun drawn point that he fired on you. Yes.

How they were able to report what they did is beyond me. An NPR is in a way – It's public – I'll tell you this. I'll tell you this. Shouldn't NPR at the very least – let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they made a mistake. Why didn't they delete the Facebook post? It's still up.

It's still live. Or issue a correction, which you're supposed to do as journalists when you get something wrong. So this is either one of two things. Either they're absolutely criminally negligent and just absolutely idiotic and stupid, which is possible because they are partly funded by the state the second they're criminally involved here with nefarious purposes trying to cover up the true reality of a situation denying people the truth in order to push an agenda that has previously caused chaos and riots in the streets of the united states either of those two cases they should be held accountable i just want to speak to that a bit because i just think that's that's the key point here which is the part I think they should be held accountable for. I just want to speak to that a bit because I just think that's the key point here, which is the –

you've got to assume that somebody there did watch the whole thing and saw what we just heard about the real – about the full picture that was described in that testimony and made an editorial decision not to include that incredibly important fact. They call it siding with the audience right so it's definitely i think it's you you've got to assume that it's a deliberate editorial decision to and and why because they as you said they want to uh they're pushing a narrative which is incredibly important this is the really really destructive thing i think is that they is that they're doing it knowing full well the tensions around this case how you know how kind of this whole issue anything like this everyone's just on eggshells you've got the threat violence all around in the air and the threats of it and yet they're they're making it worse by what's

deliberately distorting things i mean it's so irresponsible what but what's the old saying if it bleeds it leads it's just really perhaps reckless and irresponsible but this is not this is not bleeding this is this is torture i don't think it's reckless and irresponsible i think it's deliberate well but i mean the fact that they don't stop themselves from doing it um knowing full well they want the violence riot riots are good ratings for these people i don't i don't believe i don't i I don't really think that I think that they I think the judge and I think regular people underestimate the evil. And and it's it's a bold thing to say because I don't take the word evil lightly.

But when I when I watch this guy, Gage Grosskreutz testifying and you get the defense cross examining him and you really understand his motives, he's suing the city for $10 million. That means in order to win, he needs this conviction. And now he's up on testifying and lying nonstop. And the defense keeps catching him in lies. In fact, this is the state's witness. And one of the craziest moments in the trial, in my opinion, was when the state said they played a video and then the prosecutor goes, at this point, Mr. Grosskreutz, you have drawn your pistol. And Grosskreutz goes, no. And he's like, there's you on video holding the gun.

And he goes, yes. So at this point, you drew your pistol. And he goes, yes. I'm like, the dude was just outright lying the whole time. You know what I think? The prosecutor instructed the police not to execute a search warrant against them because they knew it would hurt their case against Kyle Rittenhouse. That was where the politics was swinging. The outrage was towards Kyle, not towards Gage Grosskreutz, who should actually be criminally charged for the gun, for the attack. And there's a lot to break down in, in, in what happened with this trial, but Gage Grosskreutz knows I'm not going to make myself look bad on the stand. He's not charging me. He won't be able to charge me. He's already thrown his hat, you know, in against Kyle

Rittenhouse. I'm not going to say anything to make myself look bad if I don't have to. So now the state is actually having to call out their own witness on lies because he has no obligation to support them in their case. And he's been lying nonstop. I mean, the craziest thing is when the defense said, you are suing, you're demanding $10 million from, I believe it's from the city. And he goes, that is correct. And then he's like, and the outcome of this trial will have an effect.

And he's like, yes. They stopped short of saying he wanted Kyle to be convicted because it would help him because then they objected, the state objected and the judge was like sustained, you know, don't, you know, speculate as to what he knows. But I think it's fairly obvious this dude, he knew what he was doing. I want to talk about something related to this trial too. Here's what people need to understand about Gage Grosskreutz and his attack on Kyle Rittenhouse. We are all approaching the story about Kyle with hindsight. From the moment the story happened, we had video footage of that night and we all heard, the first thing we heard was that people had been shot. So when we did this show with several of

the reporters on scene, including one of the key witnesses, Richie McGinnis, we already knew people had been shot and killed. Now think about what happened that night, however, and what these individuals were thinking as this event was going down. This is where the defense nailed the star witness for the prosecution, like actually just destroy. One of the things they did destroy the case from the state. They actually got him to testify. He did not have any reason to attack Kyle Rittenhouse. So again, I'll stress this point.

Hopefully, you know, some people I've tried to explain this who have been confused by it. I think most people are smart enough to get it. When we look at the story about Kyle Rittenhouse, it's with the benefit of hindsight. We know people had been shot. We know where they were shot. We know how it went down. We know who is chasing Kyle. We know Kyle was putting out a fire and then Rosenbaum threatened him and chased after him. Gage Grosskreutz testified. He was running after Kyle Rittenhouse. He really didn't like the word chasing. He asked Kyle what happened. Kyle said, I'm going to get the police. Gage Grosskreutz testified. He thought Kyle said, I'm working with the police. His own words. This is what he said.

He then said that Kyle said, I didn't do anything. Gage Grosskreutz, who is just for those that are familiar, key witness for the state and one of the people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, was running alongside and filming Kyle Rittenhouse and testified. He said, Kyle said, I'm working with the police. That's what he thought he said. He didn't say that, so he thought he said. Grosskreutz then turned back and ran the other direction. When everyone started chasing after Kyle Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz then turned around and ran back towards Kyle and is seen on video pulling back his shirt and drawing the pistol from his waistband. What's important here is at this point, the star witness testified that this person said he was working with the police.

And because of that knowledge or considering that knowledge, he was going to draw his pistol on this individual. If someone tells you they're a cop or working with the police, would you pull a gun on them? He ran away first, right? Rittenhouse. Yeah, so Rittenhouse is running. He's running alongside him. Grosskreutz runs back the other direction and at some point stops and turns around and runs back.

What the defense got Grosskreutz to acknowledge is that he had not seen a shooting. He had no evidence to believe that Kyle Rittenhouse shot anybody. He didn't know what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing or why. The only thing he knew, and this is his testimony, was that Kyle Rittenhouse was working with the police. He decided to chase after Kyle Rittenhouse, point a gun at him. It sounds like his intention was to kill a cop. Now, he was incorrect. In the video footage, Grosskreutz testified, in hindsight, upon watching the footage, I realize he said, I'm going to get the police. But he told the police he thought Rittenhouse was working with them.

If you thought someone was working with the police, not an active shooter, why would you charge at them with your gun drawn? This guy was not a hero. He was not trying to stop an active shooting. He was trying to kill someone he thought was a police informant or working with the police in some way. That strikes at the heart of what the prosecution has been saying, trying to push this narrative that it was a bunch of, you know, good Samaritans trying to stop an active shooter. The important thing here, just just to reiterate on the stand gross

kreutz testified he had no reason to believe rittenhouse was an active shooter in fact he believed he was working with the police that's crazy well all i can say is you really have been following it oh yeah amazing amazing kind of um summary but i mean i that's that's really really i mean everything about that is is just so interesting and i think that um i don't know it's it's showing me what you know this is so important because it's gonna you have to hope that a you know a legal process like this when you've got such a high profile um and you know a situation that is so ripe for exploitation and can go in such horrible directions is going to be conducted properly and fairly and according to the law that you've got to hope that the judge is doing a good job i think the judge is doing a

good job he he's dismissed you know uh he's denied some some motions by the defense he's been fair to the prosecution i believe And the extremists, the activists, the ideologues won't accept it. Well, the media is building a completely different story here. And if you're online, if you're in a certain echo chamber, you're getting a totally different perspective of this criminal court case than you would from any other perspective. So social media, just doubling down on this narrative that they're running is truly something that is going to be very important here because it may sway the jury.

It may sway this entire situation in a way where there isn't any justice. And Steve, just to address your point about the malice in the media here, we have to understand when there was rioting, the mainstream media, the corporate media, when there was rioting the mainstream media the corporate media that they were pouring fuel on the fire they were peaceful protests they were calling it yeah yeah they were calling them peaceful protests they were showing footage of george floyd dying over and over and over again they were psychologically programming and hyping people up to go out there into the streets and to riot and to create chaos.

Dozens of people died with the mainstream media applauding and cheering it on, looking the other way when people died. So when it comes to that element, when it comes to them being that malicious, I mean, look at WMDs. Look at so many times. The mainstream media has been malicious, and there's elements here that they need to be called out for their criminality. was driven by, I mean, it's actually part of the whole way in which the kind of woke ideology has just infected so much of America's establishment institutions and the media absolutely part of that. And so I think it was just this instant reaction, which was to say, the people that we see protesting, whether peacefully or violently, are protesting in the name of racial justice we have to be for racial justice we can't be against racial justice and therefore anything that happens in in that that

is in in the name of racial justice we have to support i support racial justice i support real things to advance racial justice like school reform whatever i don't want to get into that now but um they i think that's why that was the motivation. It was just this blanket sense of like, this is our side. We have to be on this side. So what does that mean? We totally amplify the peaceful protest part of it. And we kind of ignore the violent part of it.

I kind of disagree with you because if there was a person of color or a woman speaking out against the violence or the insanity they would viciously attack them ruthlessly in the most unfair ways imaginable they would send hate mobs against them on the line and and they would they would use them as an example of what you're not supposed to think what you're not supposed to say and it didn't matter if they were black if they were white they went after them if they countered the agenda and the narrative so the social justice warrior aspect is not something that that i believe they truly believe in i think they believe in power and i think they will do anything to achieve it's a good point i think that they okay let's be more precise so not like real racial justice it's the virtue signaling about racial justice that's actually what what what what what what is important to them.

And that's why they can't stand it when you have, for example, black conservatives making an argument. It's the thing they hate the most because it totally undermines the foundations of the new ideology that's infected them, which is this wokeism. And so when you have people making really smart arguments about how which i totally agree and i've given a platform to which is to say look if we really want to advance you know if we want to sort of fight racial um racial racially um clear gaps on uh wealth or income inequality poverty school then you know there's real policies you can advance to achieve that they happen to typically be conservative policies, and the evidence shows that. But that's not an argument they want to have,

because they lose it. They don't care about racial justice. Wokeism is not about racial justice. No, I totally agree. It's about... Well, I mean, I did a whole piece on my show about the history of it, which originally...

And I feel very strong about it, because my parents are Hungarian. All my family's in Hungary. They were refugees in the revolution very strong about it because my parents are Hungarian. All my family's in Hungary. My, my, everyone, you know, they, they were refugees in the revolution in 1956 against the, the,

the Soviet invasion. And so all my life I've been kind of steeped in, in that, you know, Hungary wasn't the worst example of communist control, but it was in many ways, Eastern Europe, the best,

but actually I've really spent a lot of time looking at that and studying it. And one of the most interesting things about wokeism is that when you actually trace it all back, you know, from the from the writers who've been pushing it now, right from, you know, Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo and then go back to Kimberley Crenshaw, where there was a bunch of Marxist philosophers who got together to say, well, why is it that Marxist theories didn't actually lead to the communist, the proletarian revolution that we thought actually maybe, apart from in Russia, where it kind of went slightly, you know, had to be imposed by force. Why hasn't everyone risen up all around the world? Well, it's because it's not just about economics. Here are the other things that the bourgeoisie used to keep the proletariat down, faith, family, and culture. So actually, those are the things we need to attack and undermine.

And that's the origin of all of this. And so exactly as you said, it's about power, because what they want is to have total control and power over you. They don't want you to be loyal to anyone except the state. They don't want you to be loyal to your family, to your community, to your church, or whatever it may be. It's all about the state. You see it literally being played out now in China. It's not now in China.

Well, it's being recreated by Xi. I'm talking about the Cultural Revolution. Everywhere you look, that is the motivation behind these kind of extremist communist ideologies and that this is playing out here with the with the wokeism when people say that you know it's oh it's you can't call them no they're not literally communist they don't want to confiscate your property but the intellectual origin of it is in that same place i i would agree with you, but I think wokeism has evolved into something meaningless. And so what the problem is, there are a lot of

more philosophically mature individuals who can look at the literature, look at the Frankfurt School, look at critical race theories, origins, Kimberly Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, et cetera, and the things they've said and try to make sense of it. The problem is, while these things may have been contributing factors to what wokeism has become, wokeism is more akin to a fire. It is reckless. It is wild. It spreads. It consumes and destroys. And if you take a look at a lot of the big cancel culture moments of the past decade they actually don't align towards any ideology so my favorite example of the contradictions of the woke are when there was a woman's organization that tweeted the word

wimixin oh yes i remember so by the way so did elizabeth warren that's the moment i thought oh my god like elizabeth sets herself up as this great intellectual, you know, policy person. And then what is she doing? Just total pandering madness. So this organization tweets the word W-O-M-X-N. I remember that. It's like. Adherence of wokeism, though, said that's offensive.

How dare you create a different word that implies trans women are not women. And so now you simultaneously have the word woman being non-inclusive and being inclusive and Wemixin being both simultaneously not exclusive and inclusive. There is no appropriate thing you can say that can be determined to be acceptable to woke other than to drop to your knees and adhere to the power structures. There's no moral framework. There's no logic guiding their principles. It is just we win, period. It is more like a swarm of wasps than any functioning ideology. And again, I'll stress, when we look at the Frankfurt School and we look at Weimar Germany and Antifa and the anti-fascist protection rampart, the Berlin Wall, and all of the history that leads today, smart people, mathematically oriented people are trying to calculate and analyze. And they're missing what's really going on, a chaotic destructive force that will say and do anything to

win. I think I agree with that and I think the other bit I'd add to it is the way that so many institutions have been co-opted into it in a totally superficial way. Particularly if you think about corporate

America, I think that's a really great example where the way that this has spread, like like wildfire your analogy is a good one through corporate america and they suddenly kind of announced we're going to have their training sessions and robin d'angelo's the set text and all this kind of stuff they haven't thought about it those you know the the hr departments and the city they haven't sort of bothered to read it's just like oh this you know we better do this because everyone's going on about it and our employees are going to you know and we've got this vocal minority of our employees who are saying why aren't we doing our training or whatever it may be or social media a few vocal people and so they're

all going for it without even giving it a moment's thought it's totally superficial and it's this that's why the virtue signaling i think is just such a big part of it it's meaningless it's it's just are you in line with the cult or not? And if you're a part of the cult, then the swarm will attack. I think a lot of this chaos is deliberate. The first thing that comes to mind is the famous saying, order out of chaos. And when you look at a lot of very prominent elites, whether it's Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller, they're the ones that were very instrumental in opening up China to the world and cheering on what was happening during the Cultural Revolution

and their population control efforts. And you see a lot of these very powerful individuals also now call for the Great Reset to build back better and implement similar policies that essentially are creating the Western world into being this kind of Orwellian Chinese social credit score system that I think that they've been trying to do here. And I think one way that they will be successful in doing that is by dividing and conquering, having people fight each other on trivial differences, on absolute nonsense as they get away with pulling off this this great reset as as everyone is chaotic and fighting each other. Can you just talk about it? I've heard that phrase, and I don't really know what you mean by it.

Which phrase? The great reset. I know. Is that a – what is that? Well, that's a phrase used by many powerful individuals, especially within the World Economic Forum, by individuals like Klaus Schwab. There's a lot of corporate heads. There's a lot of corporate heads. There's a lot of billionaires. There's, you know, even the Pope came out, said that he's making a corporate coalition

of people in industry that will put on the Great Reset. The World Economic Forum described it as people owning nothing, having no privacy, and being happier than ever. And this is, of course... It's their phrase. Yes, yes, yes. And then you see many prominent politicians say, we need to implement the Great Reset. We're here to build back better. Biden's policy, his, quote, infrastructure bill,

is literally called the Build Back Better Plan, where he talks about printing trillions of dollars and spending it on equity efforts and other social climate issues that, of course, are the absolute opposite of what they pretend to be. So, I want to go on. I'll give you this. I just get very excited every time I see the world. Davos, I get.

Anyway, here's a simple version. We have right here this website, worldeconomicforum.org slash great dash reset. This is something on their website. It's amazing the media that's why the media has tried covering it up claiming it was a conspiracy theory the gist of it is they saw i'll tell you they put out a video it said you will own nothing and you will be happy by 2030 they wrote an article where they said like your living room will be used for business meetings when you're not around you won't own things you'll just use things that

are available to you. You'll have no home or bedroom. People will come and use your stuff as however they see fit. What they're ultimately trying to say is they think – What does it say there? Global – what is it? Stakeholders to cooperate. Global – there's an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.

To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting the Great Reset Initiative. You will own nothing. Where are you getting that from? This is the World Economic Forum. No, no, no. You will own nothing. What's that about?

So that's a video they produced and ultimately deleted that said the famous line from... They put it on Twitter. You will own nothing. You will own nothing and you will be happy. Was that an opinion from one of their people? Yes. Or was that their corporate view?

It's their official view. It was an official World Economic Forum statement that was put out. So you take a look at what Joe Biden has been doing. He wants to shut down another oil pipeline. He shuts down Keystone. He bans fracking. With the crisis at the ports, with the crisis of inflation, with the constant lies from the media. First, they said there's no inflation.

Then they said there's some inflation. It's not a big deal. It's transitory. there's no inflation. Then they said there's some inflation. It's not a big deal. It's transitory. It's transitory. Then they said it's going to end. Now they're saying it's here to stay. Now they're saying inflation is actually a good thing. So what's happening is all across the board,

there's a labor shortage. There's a product shortage. There's an energy crisis in the US. And I got to tell you, it may be conspiratorial. But when they come out and say, build back better is the slogan of their project and the Great Reset, and then Joe Biden says we're going to build back better and this is the build back better bill, isn't it more absurd? Wouldn't Occam's razor suggest that to deny they're actively trying to destroy the economy would be the conspiracy? No, I don't think that.

I think that – look, I want to be fair to what I think they mean, which is. And actually, I suspect underlies this, even though they've I mean, I can't stand that. He tried to sue me because I wrote some piece about him being totally corrupt, which he is. He is. Yeah. And and I've had firsthand experience of it in terms of how they approach participants in the conference, you know, and how he's siphoned off the money. And I put it in a newspaper article, which I think the headline was like, attending Davos should be as shameful as running a sweatshop or something, whatever.

Anyway, he went nuts and the whole thing. But then with the build back, so I'm very happy to like have a go at Davos any moment of any day. With the build back, I think what they what certainly what they're getting i think and i would say not all of this is crazy is to say that what you've seen as a result of the pandemic um is all sorts of things that are broken about how we

organize the economy and and society that actually we could do with fixing one really obvious example of that i think is our dependence on China. The fact that so many of the pharmaceuticals are made in China and so on. I think that that's a great example of something that the pandemic has revealed to everyone. I mean, I've been making that argument for a long time. In my first book, I argued for decoupling from China.

Except now what Joe Biden's policies are bringing back. No, I'm not saying he's doing the right thing. It's actually bolstering and emboldening China. Okay, but let's just try and be fair so i think what they that's an example it sounds like we would agree about okay they would say um well another example is the kind of precariousness of people's working lives and therefore um we need to do things that will help that with and that that's a lot of the driving force behind some of the stuff in the spending bill. And even there, I'd agree with some of that. I'm just saying it's not the job of the federal government to do it.

You should be doing it at the state level or the local level, whatever. But I don't think that they... I don't know. What do you think? They're the ones that created their dependency on China. They're the ones that are creating the modern problems in this world. So the people that come and create the problem... By the way, literally, literally, they're the people like the guy steve rochetti who's who is the senior whatever he's called count like senior advisor i think is his title in um the white in in biden's team he's the number one guy right yeah he's been involved in putting all these bills together

he was there he was the guy who orchestrated try under the Clinton administration, China's entry into the World Trade Organization. And he's like totally corrupt. I mean, his brother's running a lobbying firm. Have you talked about all this? I don't know. We're on the show. I don't know. Literally, his brother's running a lobbying firm whose kind of clients have sort of spectacularly increased just in the last few months.

Surprise, surprise. But his brother's right there in the White few months surprise surprise because he's got his brothers right there in the white house with biden so you have the people causing the problem offering up the only solution yeah so when people are suffering because they can't find work they can't find enough they can't make enough money because because of inflation they're they're struggling with shortages across the board these are all problems created by the federal government And then they want to make you more dependent on that. And now they're coming out saying, here's the solution to all those problems. Problem reaction solution is something that people talk about a lot. It's the same people who created it, the same people who are coming in with a solution and the solution benefits them

even that much greatly. I mean, if you look at what they're doing, right, in the name of helping people, they're limiting people's ability to earn money they're limiting people's ability to have a family to have a happy productive life and what they're doing is we literally have witnessed one of the largest transfers of wealth in recorded human history during the lockdowns which helped out the billionaire class and screwed everyone else over And then we are seeing people's wealth literally be eviscerated, robbed right in front of them as billionaires have made off with the most amount of money almost in all of recorded human history. We're talking about trillions of dollars being transferred from poor middle class people

going to, of course, the Schwab's, the Bezos, the Gates's and all these other individuals that are living by a different set of rules that get to do whatever they want as they tell you that you are living beyond your means, that they're flying around in their private jets on their beachfront properties saying, I know what's right for you. I need more power. I need more money. I will tell you exactly how to live your life. And I refuse to be a slave or peasant under that kind of system because that's exactly the system that they want. They want you eating bugs. They want you in a pod they want you as a little unhealthy fat depressed

and i refuse to live like that's part is when these same people who there's there's two big ones obviously when they fly in private jets to climate summits but when they say the water levels are rising and then buy beachfront properties i'm I'm not – I think climate change is a big problem. I think humans are absolutely contributing to a lot of ecological collapse. But how am I supposed to support – you know what I think? I genuinely believe they use the urgency of ecological disaster, things we can see and measure like the windshield phenomenon, bug populations, colony collapse disorder, to scare people into giving up their power so they can buy beachfront property so they can get private jets so you know they're the ones causing the ecological disasters they're the ones

the military industrial complex is one of the biggest polluters in the world we haven't even had that discussion yet the corporations in china they're the elites on the titanic and they're stealing the fine china and then jumping into life before anyone knows what's happening. They're also building the glaciers with these neonicotinoid pesticides responsible for colony collapse. There's multinational corporations doing that. Ian just blew everyone's minds. What? Huh?

So look, the way I describe it is the Titanic hit the iceberg. These elites know it. They run around grabbing as much fine silverware as they can carry, and now they're running to the lifeboats before anyone realizes the ship is sinking. They're telling everybody, no, no, no, we're going to fix it. It's okay. It's okay. Then they buy beachfront property.

According to the World Economic Forum, this is their 2010 global redesign. They said, this is, quote, governments are no longer the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world economic forum this is their 2010 global redesign they said this is quote governments are no longer the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage and that the times come for new stakeholder paradigm of international governance essentially that corporations are better off running the world well that's the whole they already do run the world but that is the conceit of devil you know that's the whole thing i mean i just think that the i don't know there's so much of that i agree with right i mean especially on on climate if you look at look at their if they really really wanted to do something about it they would have had a meeting on zoom

just to be really practical about it well first of course but actually they wouldn't be shutting down nuclear power stations which is what they're doing like that's in like completely crazy that they're doing that and actually when you completely crazy that they're doing that. And actually, when you have the kind of, again, it's back to the narrative. There's this sort of clear narrative. You know, they demonize America. Look at the global thing now. They demonize America, even though for the last few years, our carbon emissions were falling.

And they kind of praise Angela Merkel in Germany, even though their emissions have been going up because she crazily shut down their nuclear power program. In California, where I live, he wants to shut down a nuclear power station in in new york state cuomo shut down i think it's 25 of new york's power i don't i can't remember the exact detail you know they and what's it going to be replaced with importing oil from saudi arabia how it's it's so insane the energy policy is so kind of completely incoherent um i just don't know whether that it seems to me that again it comes back to kind of much more of a just thoughtless virtue signaling rather than some kind of like evil master plan that's that's my sense of it and i think when you look at the attempt to make people dependent on the government which you absolutely see riddled through what

they're pushing forward now from the Biden regime at the center. I don't think I think, you know, it's this classic arrogance and hubris of the kind of technocratic elite who really, truly believe sincerely that if they could make all these decisions for people, then people would be better off. I think it's much more than old story. It's the same old theme we get from all of despots who believe that they're the smart ones who need to lead people. You can't think that these people know what's better for us or think what's going to make us happy. I don't think their happiness is... Our happiness is even in their consideration

as much as their kind of larger sociopathic goals and things that they want to achieve themselves. They treat people like chickens in a chicken coop. Well, there was a really interesting... Oh, yeah. Do you know Michael Schellenberger? Yeah.

So he's been on my podcast a few times. He's so great. Talking about homelessness as well as climate and so on, environmental stuff. He had a brilliant... We were talking about, particularly in California, like why... And his new book is San Francisco,

and the subtitle is Why Progressives Ruin Cities. And I was really interested in the why part of it. What is the motive here? And he had this brilliant phrase about, you know, the Democrats and the kind of the one party rule in California and how it's resulted in these absolutely inhumane. You know, they talk about humanity and Trump's inhumane this and that, and actually the inhumanity of what you see on the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles and actually throughout the state now, as a result of their policies, the direct result

after year after year of this stuff. What do they think they're doing? You know, there's no one else to blame. I mean, they've had complete control of everything. Why do they do this? Why are they pushing these policies that cause such a catastrophe in humanitarian terms and he used this phrase which was path it was they think they're being compassionate but they don't understand that you can't just be you know

give people that's wrong i disagree that's the phrase he used was pathological compassion they just like obsessed with looking like they're good people, looking like they're caring. And that's the only thing that matters rather than the actual outcomes. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes that moderate and conservative individuals make is trying, it's a mistake a lot of people make in general, believing that their worldview must be the same worldview of the other person, because everyone assumes that, you know, if I think something, other people must think something similarly. That's why they're like, oh, I can't imagine why these people would do the things they're doing. An independent or conservative looks at a Democrat who says, I want to help the homeless. And they say, if they really wanted to

help the homeless, why are they, or how about this? If they really wanted to reduce carbon emissions, why are they shutting down nuclear power plants? Because they just don't understand. The problem is, the saying goes that liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are misguided. When the inverse is true, that the establishment elites, people like Adam Schiff, are truly despicable, evil people who lie through their teeth, know they're lying. And a famous moment we talked about the other day when he held up the envelope saying, I have evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He was lying on TV for political power.

Conservatives have said he did say, I have the evidence, didn't he? And he never did. And now he was still out the other day. Was it yesterday or today? I don't know. Just going on about he was on The View. Right. And he was like, well, they lied.

They lied. They should be. They should be on this and he said and he and he kind of went well we we do know that he asked russia so he's kind of shifted over the we know that they asked russia for help with the election we know that paul manifold gave the polling results or whatever you know so he's still sticking to the story it's amazing there's a tendency uh the right has its problems they have their crazy cultists and their conspiracy theorists but these people aren't on msnbc or cnn they're not in congress there may be some people in congress that say kooky things and then ultimately get pushed out

the democrats have overtly for the past several years six seven years pushing non-stop lies crazy conspiracies and they know they're lying. Well, you mean the Russia hoax? I mean, that's the best example, but it's not the only one. Ukrainegate, January 6th, insurrection narratives. Look at Rittenhouse. It is endless lies. We played for a clip where MSNBC outright lied about the testimony. And what happens is now you do have these unsuspecting individuals who don't know better. They don't read the news. They don't watch the testimony. And what happens is now you do have these unsuspecting individuals who don't

know better. They don't read the news. They don't watch the news. They see a headline in passing, or they see CNN on at the airport. CNN is no longer at the airport. I understand, but you get the point. Hotel rooms. And they'll see the narrative and they'll hear it for a second and believe it. They don't do the independent legwork. They don't watch the source material. They don't come to more esoteric shows like this to get the actual proof and evidence. And then they believe the lies. And part of those lies from the establishment, from the cult, is to discredit us, to lie about us and about who we are and what we believe. They say that we are far right or whatever. When my policy positions are

actually center left, outright like universal health care. But policy isn't as important, in my opinion, as freedom and respecting individuals' right to vote and choose and the truth. And if you come out and say, here's the truth, and it contradicts the establishment, they'll call you right wing. For example, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Matei, and Matt Taibbi. I think that's exactly right. I think it's really, and it's disgusting. I think it's really disgusting the way's disgusting. I think it's really disgusting the way that they,

but funnily enough, I don't want to do the same to them that they do. No, that's a mistake. Well, hang on a second. Okay, well, let's talk about it. The thing I hate most is this smearing of people

with different views for having, you know, like the sort of obvious one where any position you take on anything that has counted them is obviously racist. You like it's so boring now it's completely lost towards me but they say all the time it's racist and they even do it to each other like the most incredible thing with the other day was um cory bush the did you see this when she called representative i can't remember where she's her district Democrat. And I don't know if she's officially a member of the squad or certainly part of that group.

And when Joe Manchin put out a statement, his latest view on the spending bill, saying he had worries about this or concerns about that and was holding it up again, she literally put out a statement, a fellow Democrat, and it wasn't about anything anything he said it was like it was just straight away joe manchin's opposition that he's anti-black anti-woman anti-family anti-critic on this list of insults i and it's just so to me disgusting the way that they immediately it's such a bad faith way of carrying out arguments to question the motives and hear the people that you're opposed to. And I don't want to get into that. I don't want to question their motives. I think that they sincerely believe that what they're arguing is right.

I just think that they're completely obsessed with the image they want to create of themselves as decent, bountiful, good people. This is the problem made by moderates and conservatives assuming they're acting in good faith when they lie nonstop all day, every day. Yeah, but they lie because they think the ends justify the means because they're – Because it's irrelevant. I know, but that's why they're doing it i think i think that they for example in relation to trump i think that that all i think trump sort of sent them into a complete deranged state as you know many people have said in that phrase became famous but i think what happened was that they they they they it really sent them crazy to the point where anything is justified because he is in their view built up to be this kind of mortal threat to democracy and everything.

It's irrelevant to policy debate, political debate, and moving forward. Of course it is, but that's what's in their head. So here's the issue. When you get moderates and conservatives saying, like, I'm going to have an honest and reasonable debate with this person who lies 24-7, I mean, at a certain point you're like, bro, you know they're cheating. Imagine this. Someone comes to you. They're lying without saying they're lying because they've got some evil scheme to, I don't know. It doesn't matter why they're lying.

What matters is that we can watch footage of Kyle Rittenhouse, and we can look at the facts. And what did we do on this show? We brought in, I think, four different witnesses, including one of the key witnesses, Richie McGinnis. And we played his footage and asked him to tell us what happened because we weren't there. And what do you hear from the establishment left, the witnesses? His hands were up or they repeat the same lies. Kyle Rittenhouse traveled over state lines with a gun to go and shoot protesters. Totally fabricated. Now, maybe it's that they're drones and they don't actually do the research. But I'm not going to talk about the regular people who are being tricked.

I'm going to talk about the media people who know they're lying. Look, Occam's razor would suggest that if these people saw enough of the trial to know that this guy testified he pointed his gun at Kyle and then got shot, they have to know when they say the opposite happened, they're lying. When Brian Stelter, for instance, tells you not to watch other media outlets, or when I think it was Cuomo who said, don't, you can't read WikiLeaks. It's illegal. They thrive on making sure your access to information is restricted. We do the opposite. I tell people all day and night, watch as much as you can. And you, you know, again, and the as you can. And the most obvious and egregious example of that was during the election, when they literally tried to stop working with the tech companies,

access to information that was highly relevant to people's choice in the election about Biden. And here's what we end up with. They say Russiagate for five years. We find out definitively it's false. They still make the claims. It's not just false. It's worse than false. It is the exact opposite of the truth, which is that it wasn't a Trump conspiracy to undermine democracy. It was a Clinton initiated conspiracy to overturn the election. So what happens when, for me, after years, during Russiagate, I was like, all right, well, the New York Times is reporting this. We'll take

a look at what happens and we'll entertain the investigation. And then I realized for years we were lied to overtly. The envelope. Oh, I've got the proof. Trump did it. And Adam Schiff made all of that up. Now he's subpoenaing people, targeting them and using the power of government. The process is the punishment.

Knowing that people can't afford to hire lawyers to be subpoenaed to testify for Congress. He's attacking people. He published private phone records of journalists, American journalists and government officials hire lawyers to be, you know, subpoenaed to testify for Congress. He's attacking people. He published private phone records of journalists, American journalists and government officials, because he is just trying to hurt people for political power. And now we're we're still in this position where people are like, but I don't want to label them. But, you know, I want to make sure we're being fair. No, no, no, no, no, no. If somebody is blinded by the lies, you can't engage with someone who believes nonsense about Rittenhouse, for instance.

There's no debate when you didn't watch the Rittenhouse trial. I'm going to tell you I watched the trial. I'm not a lawyer. Here's what they said. I've got to tell you, it's really interesting having this conversation with you and watching this because I would put myself in the category

of someone who hasn't paid attention to the Rittenhouse. having this conversation with you and and watching this because i would put myself in the category of someone who hasn't paid attention to the written you know i've got there's lots of things i get engaged in certain issues that you you focus on we were talking about earlier i spent a lot of time looking in what's going on in california because that's a big part of what i focus on so i just hadn't paid any attention to it um to be honest with you and so i had absorbed so many things that were just not true because it's so dominant that narrative is so dominant and if you hadn't played those things i'd never would have seen them a good example uh we had you know in the news business as it were

you know i hadn't seen it when we have uh actually i think it was hunter avalon came on this show and he argued with me about ukGate, which I covered extensively. I read the Ukrainian documents, the prosecutorial documents. I looked at the investigations. I looked at Matt Taibbi's reporting. And he was like, no, no, no, that's not true. That never happened. And then I was like, oh, you want to play games?

If you didn't actually investigate what happened with Ukraine, with Zlchevsky, with Burisma, Hunter Biden, and Victor Shokin. And then you're going to come and tell me, you know, see, this is the problem. I'm not going to sit here and be like, well, I'm not going to say anything, you know, accuse him. I'm going to say outright that dude had no idea what he was talking about. And he makes videos where he pushes misinformation without doing any research. That's a big part of the problem. We get things wrong all the time. And I can respect that he probably gets things wrong too. And as long as they're willing to correct the record and do right by their audience. But the problem we have is when it came to Ukraine gate, the impeachment of Donald Trump, I read everything. I was reading Russian

news. I was reading Ukrainian news. I was reading the history of Burisma. I was reading about the investigations from the, from when the European union froze his bank accounts. I was reading the history of Burisma. I was reading about the investigations when the European Union froze Zelensky's bank accounts. I was reading all of this to make sure I understood the full context. And then I go and talk to these people on the left, and they just said, well, you know, meet the press. Meet the press says Trump is wrong and you're lying. So I believe them. Well, very interestingly, those people don't get fact-checked. Those people don't face any retribution. They don't get censored. they don't get banned for a lot of their dribble for a lot of their nonsense and then we also have to understand here we are talking about generalized concepts and we're talking about the media now that msnbc clip we played it definitely looks like the

anchor's reading a script he almost read verbatim what was on npr and i and i do believe some of your your kind of references that there are some people that are just blind and they they're in a cult they want to push these ideas they don't know any better uh there there are elements of people being idiots in here but we have to understand who's writing the scripts that they're reading and when they're just blindly keep reading it over and over again and they see the real life harm that comes of it there comes a point where it's undeniable that pain and suffering that they're causing the average American, that they cannot deny.

It's so blatant. It's almost everywhere you look. But can I just ask you about that? That's an interesting... Whose pain and suffering are you thinking? What are you thinking of? Well, right now, when you look at that... The hundreds of thousands,

the hundred thousand plus small businesses who got destroyed. Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about Rittenhouse. No, no, no. Rittenhouse is one example of this. No, of course. I mean, my God, the pandemic.

Yeah, of course. The average, you know. It's insane. And the unbelievable kind of nonsense that is still repeated all the time, and not just unscientific, anti-science, the opposite of science, right? And they're just pushing it the whole time.

I mean, we were talking earlier. I came on the train today, right, to do this. And you're on the train, and they're sort of yelling at you over the intercom all the time. Put on your mask. And all of these things have been totally debunked. They call it safety. It's a safety violation if you only take your mask off. It's madness.

It's total nonsense. Fauci has flip-flopped on every position. There was actually a news cycle. One of my favorite examples of how people need to break away, why people need to break away from the manipulation. Fauci goes on TV. He gets asked. I think it was MSNBC.

I think it was CNN. They were like, if wearing a mask helps, then isn't it common sense that two masks would help? And he goes, yes, you know, two masks would be common sense. Then he comes out again saying, no, no, I never said wear two masks. And then a few days later, the CDC issues a guidance for double masking because people are not approaching this scientifically.

It is all tribal narrative. They changed the definition of vaccine, of herd immunity, like right in front of our eyes. And then it was going to be, of course. I mean, it's just so infuriating. And it's still being pushed, all this stuff. So here's the point I want to make about the establishment left and their dopey supporters.

If you are someone who's voting Democrat, and again, I don't like the Republican Party either. I don't know who you should vote for. But if you're voting establishment, okay, I don't care if it's, if it's Neocon, Project Lincoln, Bill Kristol types, or Democrats, and they're wrong for five years, every step of the way, every single thing they push is wrong, then at a certain point, I'm going to say it's your fault you're contributing to this, right? If you're with a guy, let's say your buddy calls you up and says, me and the boys are going to go have an end in the town, and you get in the van with them, and they drive to a bank, and they say, come inside the bank. And then they rob the bank. Okay, I'd understand if I was like, well, this dude clearly had no idea what was going on.

He was roped into this. I don't think we should blame him. But what happens if you're on the 10th bank? And they're like, I don't know. My friend said we were going to these banks, and they keep robbing them. I'm like, okay, you're contributing to their burglary spree, their robbery spree. So when you have voters after five, six years of watching the establishment play these dirty games, lie, cheat and steal and seriously undermine our institutions and you're like,

I'm going to vote for him anyway. I'm like, OK, you're complicit, right? You are contributing factor this. As for the pundits and other people in TV TV, now these are people who read the reports. They know they were wrong. They're still refusing to address it. There was no airtime for the indictments from the Durham investigation. People got indicted.

No, that's exactly right. The mainstream media doesn't cover it at all. And they know it. There's no way they didn't see the stories. So your only conclusion is after years of pushing lies, awarding, giving themselves awards. Who lit surprises. Exactly. And now when the truth comes out. Who lit surprises.

That's right. And now they don't report the truth. I'm sorry. I think that's evidence to indicate they are evil. They know that they're committing atrocity, that they're harming people and lying and cheating and stealing. And they'll never come clean because they're bad guys. I just think that's going a bit far. Like with the – you're going to – you just think I'm so soft.

But I think that like with the – those are the TV part of it. Someone like Rachel Maddow. Nearly cried when the story was debunked. Every single night. And she was at it again the other night I saw. She's like yet again leading her show with some Russia conspiracy madness. Can't give it up. It's so central to her identity.

I don't think, I just think like to be so wrong is so embarrassing that you just, you just, you can't come to terms. You can't acknowledge it. You can't acknowledge it because it's so much part of what she's been about for the last few years. Look, a starving person might rob a bank we still arrest them right if rachel maddow has lost her mind and i think it's a fair assessment she's not evil she's just insane you still take her on russia for sure i think that um well no but i mean it did people lapped it up i think that um the one thing to be fair we should say there was one guy.

I think, I can't remember his name. He's the, I don't know what he does. He's at the Washington Post. I think he's the media guy. Eric Wemple. Yes. Didn't he write a piece, to be fair? But basically, he was pretty mild.

And he's, you know, pointing out that actually these Durham indictments really do undermine a lot of what the media, including this newspaper, has been doing. He also wrote a really great piece about Joe Rogan and the medical treatments that he got from his doctor saying that CNN was acting like an advocacy activism organization, not journalists. He's done a good job. There's been a few people with the FBI raids on James O'Keefe. Yes. Ben Smith from the New York Times said media really should not be cheerleading this, like the FBI going after journalists. Yeah, interesting. That's a crazy story.

But right, right. So, I mean, actually, I mean, let's pull that up and talk about how dark and evil this stuff gets. We have a story from Fox News. Project Veritas' James O'Keefe speaks out after FBI raided home. This is an attack on the First Amendment. O'Keefe speaks out after FBI raided home. This is an attack on

the First Amendment. O'Keefe told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he was in a state of shock as FBI agents searched his apartment. Apparently, he's partially clothed. He says, I wake up to a pre-dawn raid, banging on my door. I went to my door to answer the door, and there were 10 FBI agents with a battering ram, white blinding lights. They turned me around, handcuffed me, threw me against the hallway. I was partially clothed in front of my neighbors. They confiscated my phone. They raided my apartment. On my phone were many of my reporter's notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to the story, and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization. He says, I've heard the process is the punishment. I didn't really understand what that meant until this weekend.

And Sean, I wouldn't wish this on any journalist. James O'Keefe does a really, really great job. Regardless of what you think about his politics, he is a guy who posts videos of people saying things. He does undercover reporting, and you might not like it, but that's all he does. For the FBI to go after him, we can truly see the depravity and the evil that is in the establishment. Not just that, Tim. I mean, in that interview, James O'Keefe detailed specifically how they were given this diary, they decided not to run with the story,

and they handed it over to the authorities, and then he got raided. So what in the world is the FBI doing when they're allegedly going after this diary that was already handed over to the police? This is clear intimidation. This is clear trying to scare the crap out of independent journalists who are actually

doing real muckraking journalism. But look what happens. The FBI white on rice on James O'Keefe, Larry Nasler, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein years ignoring the victims, ignoring children, ignoring women that were hurt in unspeakable

ways that we can't even mention here and let 30 years jeffrey epstein was able to do whatever he wanted with the fbi looking the other way and now and now let's talk about james and let's talk about how the how the establishment media apparatus handles these stories what how did how did we find out about epstein it was james o'eefe publishing leaked video of an ABC News reporter saying she had evidence and testimony on Epstein. And it was scuttled away by the media organizations. And it was James O'Keefe who did the hard work to break that story. And who's getting raided by the FBI? James O'Keefe.

Who was ignored by the FBI? Epstein. The victim. His victim is crooked. We're talking about thousands of children here. We're talking about the FBI broke into his safe where they had prominent people and politicians' names with videotapes. The FBI still has this in his possession. Epstein was hanging out with Bill Gates, was hanging out with billionaires, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, all the biggest names in politics.

He was hanging out. He had surveillance systems inside of his homes in almost every room. And the FBI has in their position all of the tapes, all of the videos of very prominent people in compromising ways. Why haven't they done anything with it? story the the the o'keefe raid um that i think is just so like unbelievably kind of tawdry is the way that you know obviously the reason they're doing it is because it's to do with biden and his family in the diary of the daughter and so on it's so kind of the banana republic you know the president kind of his family there's an issue there's a story and it's already been published and then they send it they send the cops to to harass the judge i mean it just feels like and again this is exactly the opposite of you know they constantly say oh well you know trump undermining democratic norms how many times

you heard all that stuff i mean what is this where you send the fbi in because the boss's daughter's been involved in something i mean it's just so embarrassing i think it's it's daughter's been involved in something. I mean, it's just so embarrassing. I think it's more evidence that the establishment is crooked, that it protects itself. Well, these are desperate actions by desperate people who are trying to hit anyone criticizing them. And when we look at Project Veritas, they have been releasing an onslaught of counter-narrative, whistleblowing information and documents and videos

that have exposed a lot of the bull crap in our entire establishment, in our entire system. This is retribution. This is payback. This is them hitting the nail that stood up because they're a hammer. And once you're a hammer, the only thing you do is you look for nails. And everyone who speaks out against them, everyone who criticizes them, it's a nail. That's the larger messaging that we're getting from this larger raid. They want you afraid.

They want to show you they're in power and that you should not speak out against them. But the opposite should be happening here. James O'Keefe was told, hey, this is an ongoing investigation. Don't even tell anyone this happened. He went on Sean Hannity just a couple hours ago last night and broke the whole story wide open and talked about the details here that are extremely important. But it's an interesting theme. I mean, we see it with the Rittenhouse story with this. And actually, the other one I'd add to that list is what they did, that disgusting letter.

And, you know, they're calling parents domestic terrorists, you know, from the National School Board Association, which then, you know, within days um the justice department endorsed and said yeah we're going to put the fbi onto parents protesting at their kids because absolutely no legal justification that's totally you know say it's unconstitutional they've got no business with the federal government it's not a federal law enforcement matter why are they doing it to intimidate the parents to stop them from actually thinking you know they won't know exactly what they're allowed to do or not with oh shit no we've got the fbi i better not do that i better not protest i don't want to get in trouble with the law completely i mean it's despicable actually yeah they're trying to stop they're trying to stop project vertas they don't want james o'keefe doing the work that he's doing

because i will stress probably one of the most important points that can ever be said we learned the epstein story broke the arrests occurred elaine maxwell is currently you know whatever is going on with her she's in custody because of james o'keefe now there are a lot of other reporters i just didn't follow that as again i'd love to just tell that explain that well so a lot of interest he's not the only journalist who was who was doing this work you know mike cern, there was the Miami, I think it was the Miami Herald, I'm not sure. But I'm just stressing the importance of James O'Keefe getting a hold of this footage. His organization, I think her name was Amy Rohrabach from ABC News, saying that ABC shut down the story on Epstein. That lit a spark over this story.

It ignited the story. Everyone starts talking about it. Again, not just James O'Keefe. A lot of the core investigative documents were released because of the work of Mike Cernovich and this other reporter. Cernovich, Miami Herald, even the Daily Mail, surprisingly, they were on it and actually talking about this in a fair and honest way. And even the Daily Beast.

There's a lot to criticize them, but when it comes to this reporting, they were doing a lot of good stuff. But I want to stress the importance of what James O'Keefe did in publishing that evidence from a major news organization withholding facts, withholding testimony. And now the FBI, who ignored Epstein for decades, is going after James O'Keefe. James O'Keefe, he's doing journalism. Epstein? Yeah, we know what he was doing. And who does the fbi target yeah they'll go to they'll go find a garage pull rope at nascar but they'll ignore

the riots throughout the country they'll target the journalists this is why i i tell these back to blue people these the law enforcement will kick your teeth in in two seconds if they're told to do it michael malice goes a bit further in his assessment of the police saying that there's no, there's nothing, I don't know the exact quote he says, but there's nothing so egregious a police officer wouldn't do it

if instructed up and including executing children. I don't know if I'd go that far. I think most humans would be like, I'm scared of this, but I think a lot of law enforcement would absolutely. We've seen it throughout history.

When they're instructed to do it, they say it is easier to just do as I'm told so that I survive and they will do whatever they're told. That's the story of history. I mean, you look at what happened before. You look at empires. We also have to understand that there's a lot of sociopaths out there. Steve, where would you say the most amount of sociopaths are located per capita? Okay. Well, I'm pretty close to it. Yes, we're very close to it.

It's around the Washington, D.C. area. And I think we sometimes don't want to see the world in this way or understand the world in this way because we don't envision ourselves going to these kind of levels for power, for money, for an ideology. But there are people who are sociopathic, who are crazy, who are insane, who do have mental disorders that don't allow them to be as the average human being. And they think totally differently. They act totally differently. And we can't even conceive of what they're capable of. But when you look at history, it's lessons after lessons that the biggest thing that you should be afraid of is giving up your rights to the government that will ultimately abuse them for their own personal benefit and the benefit of their inner circle and their and their friends their friends are the billionaire class the billionaire class the

corporations have been getting away robbing this country blind within the last few months in an extensive way that is just awestunning to see while the mainstream media talks about dribble nonsense and cultural issues when of course the real issues that we should be talking about are the larger ramifications of giving up everything to the government on the silver platter because of a tragedy because of a bad event because of of something horribly happening in this world that they are exploiting to the biggest extent that they exploit. Are you talking about the pandemic? They're exploiting. You're talking about 9-11, aren't you?

Hang on a second. I'm talking about events throughout history. They have direct responsibility for that too. I mean, I've really been pursuing this a lot on my show, which is the direct... It's another example, I think, of the total arrogance and hubris of this technocratic elite the insular ruling elite where you know the the fauci role in

starting the pandemic i mean that that's the it's another example of it we don't have we don't have that puzzle piece uh in terms of is covid the virus they did gain-of-function research on however i will say this they were doing gain-of-function research on. However, I will say this. They were doing gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab. The NIH was funding it in violation of orders to not fund it, but they gave money to EcoHealth Alliance, who then gave money to the Wuhan lab, which was used for the production of chimeric viruses

with increased infectivity on human cells, particularly human lung cells. So they're modifying and making chimeric COVID viruses. Then in the same town, a few blocks away from the lab where the research is happening, this illness emerges. So I'll be careful because I will absolutely have no problem saying we don't have the last puzzle piece that connects those two bridges of them doing the gain of function research and then COVID happens. And I want to

be careful because I think it's very important not to discredit yourself by jumping the gun. I'll just say that definitive and confirmed Fauci conducted Fauci's NIH funded gain of function research through equal health alliance, whether he knew it or not is irrelevant. It happened. Look, then we get a COVID virus, and the guy from Equal Health Alliance is on the Lancet paper arguing that it's not from a lab. So the point is, I think a reasonable person could assume that COVID leaked from a lab. And they were doing the research.

And there's other – look, I don't want to, I could literally talk about this for hours. I've spent most of the last year pursuing this story, and we were the first people to do it on TV. I think that the, just a couple of things I'd say, I really don't want to go necessarily sort of be sidetracked onto this, but a couple of things. First of all, it's, the people talk all the time about Fauci funding this research,

which implies a sort of passivity. He was there. He was, you know, the money went, but maybe he didn't know. No, he, Fauci, was the leading global world in the entire world, the leading champion of gain of function research. He wrote a piece in The Washington Post 10 years ago, 2011. He wrote a piece explicitly. It says, this is a verbatim quote, engineering a dangerous virus in the laboratory is a risk worth taking. That's Fauci. That's his words. He's always been the leading advocate of this ever since this technology was invented.

So this is not like him just funding it passively. He commissioned this research. He commissioned it. Yeah. And that's one thing important in terms of the kind of accountability. It's important to have that piece. The second thing I'd say, I completely agree with you. We don't know for sure. And I've never said that the phrase that I use all the time, because I think this is the right way to put it, is that it is the most likely origin of the pandemic. I think there's no question. And one of the other things to add to that is the alternative explanation that this was a naturally occurring virus

is completely implausible. There's no evidence been found at all for the natural explanation. They've tested, what is it, 80,000 animals? They haven't found an animal host. The theory, one thing we do know is that the virus on which they were working, because this is specified in the in the in the papers that have been published,'t infect anyone else right in their village they didn't infect anyone else in the um health care system where they were treated it wasn't airborne it was gained a function in the lab that made it

airborne uh the original virus that they're working on the theory you have to believe if you're going to believe the lab origin is that somehow this virus made its way a thousand miles um with no other animal host to the one place in the entire world where they were already working on viruses that were an exact match for the virus we have it's so implausible yeah so yes we don't know for sure that's why i try to be careful and say like there's completely agree with you there's the one puzzle piece missing where we can definitively say absolutely i'm very glad you made that clear i totally agree and i've never said for sure i've always said most likely and i think that's the one puzzle piece missing where we can definitively say here's what happened. I'm very glad you made that clear. I totally agree. And I've never said for sure. I've always said most likely.

And I think that's the truth. But there's an extensive, abundant amount of circumstantial evidence. We don't have the smoking gun, but it's there. It's also important to point out that Dr. Fauci was, as you correctly said, championing gain of function while there was also a big scientific community that was saying it's pointless it's reckless and it's extremely dangerous to do so into the cambridge the cambridge group which was set up in um 2014 i believe there was even read what they they wrote about this at the time exactly there was even u.s state department cables saying that this lab is dangerous they're not running the right safety protocols that there's

a big possibility that there could be a leak coming from this and then this was u.s diplomatic cables right there right in front of our face and then people got banned uh zero had got banned on twitter for even talking about this remember when that uh paper was published by the university of south china and beijing i think it was that said researchers researchers at the Wuhan lab had been bitten by bats and peed on and that this caused the virus to leak. And then like two weeks later, they're like, we're retracting this paper. Oh, I mean, there's so much of that.

But hang on a second. The other thing is the woman who ran that, you know, who... The bat lady. Yes, the woman who ran the lab when she heard about the pandemic. She said on the record, the first thing I thought of was this, did this come from our lab?

Yeah. Fauci said the same thing. Immediate reaction. In the leaked emails, Fauci asked, I think he asked EcoHealth Alliance, is this one of ours? Yeah. And it wasn't just Fauci financing and funneling money to this laboratory. Of course.

It was also the US Pentagon that was sending money. And a lot of this research- Is that confirmed? Because I remember they requested money from DARPA. That's actually another piece of evidence. Yes. In 2018, when EcoHealth Alliance went to DARPA, and they specifically...

If you look at that paper, it's fascinating because the two distinctive features of the pandemic virus are the furin cleavage site and the way it attaches to the ACE2 receptors. Those are the specific that make it distinctive and much more transmissible. That's the work that they asked distinctive and much more transmissible. That's the work that they asked for money to do in 2018.

And DARPA said, no, we can't give you this money because it's against the ban on gain of function. The other thing I just want to say because people make this point a lot and you mentioned correctly that there was the ban in place.

And then some people say, ah, but Trump lifted the ban. And and then some people say ah but trump lifted the ban and that's partly true but the whole story is this so in 2014 about the obama administration did put in place a ban on gain-of-function research including uh an advice uh the recommendation that exists no new projects anywhere in the world and a recommendation that existing projects be stopped in 2017 when trump came in they did lift the ban but they didn't just create a free-for-all they replaced it with a different regulatory process which said if you are thinking of doing this kind of research then you it wasn't a complete ban you have to go through a process including an assessment by an independent group outside of nih from run by hhs and it has to go through this review process so that so and both of those were rules that fauci evaded and that's i

think the interesting thing here we i i don't think we'll ever prove right that because the chinese have destroyed so much evidence and so on what i think we can prove is that fauci deliberately evaded the rules that were in place twice the obama administration rules and the trump administration rules and that is i don't know what you want to call it it's not illegal but it's professional misconduct or whatever and so that is where I don't know what you want to call it. It's not illegal, but it's professional misconduct or whatever. And so that is where I think we should focus in terms of, because I think you can absolutely prove that. And then they took the research to China where they were able to do whatever they wanted, however they wanted, as long as they showed to the Chinese government what they were doing. And the Chinese government was looking at it from the very top. They were seeing everything and it was extremely dangerous.

But some people say that this was an accidental release. I personally believe that this was deliberate. That's my own personal opinion and my personal assessment that I came through after looking at a lot of the circumstantial evidence, and I talk about that on my own kind of channel. Well, I just want to make clear, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that.

I wouldn't put anything past the Chinese regime. They're a disgusting, evil, authoritarian regime. But I don't see anything in this that would make me think that. I wouldn't put anything past the Chinese regime. They're a disgusting, evil, authoritarian regime. But I don't see anything in this that would make me think that. We could have a discussion about this. That's my own personal opinion. We'll have more. But for now, let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, smash that Like button.

Subscribe to this channel. Make sure you're a member at TimCast.com for the members-only segment coming up. We can talk a lot more about the greater details in that regard. But for now, we'll take some super chats from the audience. So if you want a super chat and try and get in some comments, we'll read as many as we can. All right, let's see. Barin Terranova says Ian's

shirt is triple flame today. Ooh, three flame. I'm getting jealous how many people are complimenting your shirts in the comment section. Everyone loves it. That's true. I just saw a comment that says Luke is right. Luke is right. That's a general I just saw a comment that says Luke is right. Luke is right. Just wanted to throw that one out there.

That's a general point that can be applied to everything. All right, let's see. Bob Smith says, great suggestion, gothics. The BLM riots woke her up along with the attacks

on her for not supporting it. She lives in Rhode Island too. Interesting. Josh Martinez says, congrats, Steve, on your citizenship. Looking forward to our future

drone striking kids together. America. That's it. You're a major player now to our future drone striking kids together. America. That's it. You know, you're a major player now. I'm part of that now. Exactly. Yep. All right.

Let's see what we got. Ethan Brazil says, let's just hide the jury's identity masked singer style. Everybody in the jury has to wear some strange costume with, you know, weird big, you know, mascot-like heads. I like that all right let's see joe sullivan says dear steve i'm a fan of your journalism commentary on fox please love it for the love of god do us all a favor and don't let chris wallace do another presidential debate wished it was you instead okay that's never gonna happen but i would so love the chance to do that all right let's see we got kingsley og says can we push for this jury tampering for political purposes to be called

exactly what it is domestic terrorism oh man that makes me think about 9-11 again i think the heart of this whole beast is 9-11 and the way that they've manipulated the word terrorism and the opportunity to call someone a terrorist for doing this and that. And then it's just – that's really, really dangerous, that you can call someone a terrorist for something and then lock them away forever. So I don't agree with that. All right. We got one from Jackson H.

He says, YouTube does not like the Let's Go Brandon meme. I couldn't send my last Super Chat with it, but what's new? Really? Are you not allowed to Super Chat Let's Go Brandon? That's weird. We built a Let's Go Brandon blimp. Did you see it? I didn't send my last super chat with it, but what's new? Really? Are you not allowed to super chat? Let's go, Brandon. That's weird. We built a let's go, Brandon blimp. Did you see it? I didn't see that.

So actually what happened was I wanted to build this blimp to screw with Wikipedia, and then Luke was like, we got to put the let's go, Brandon flag on it. And I was like, all right, now we got a let's go, Brandon blimp. It's literally – Where is it? Where is it? It's in the garage. Okay, so we'll show you afterwards.

It's like 18 feet long. Okay. It got cold, so it's like deflated a little bit. But we have a blimp, and it live streams in 4K. So we can fly it up and broadcast from the blimp. It's amazing. It's a lot of fun. All right, let's see.

Doc Holiday says, POTUS poopy pants dementia patient. Thank you for the commentary. All right. Let's see. Okay. Let's see. Everyone's commenting, let's go, Brandon, in the chat room right now.

It's just let's go, Brandon. But people were saying, let's go, Brandon, wasn't working in the super chat. So I don't know if you can super chat. Let's go, Brandon. Make it rain. Make it rain. Let's go, Brandon. I don't know. you can super chat. Let's go, Brandon. Make it rain. Make it rain. Let's go, Brandon. I don't know.

Maybe you can't. Maybe you can't. How about Brandon, comma, let's go? I'm not seeing let's go, Brandon super chats. I'm seeing a lot of let's go, Brandon in the comment section, which is fun. There we go. They're saying let's go, Brandon. No problem.

Oh, yeah. Weird. There you go. There we go. Yeah, I'm seeing something. All right. Yeah, it worked. All right. Let's see. There we go. Yeah, I'm seeing something. All right. Yeah, it worked. All right, let's see.

What does that say? Bynon Lee says, hey, guys, Biden signed the executive order of the designation to exercise authority over the national defense stockpile on October 31st, 2021. Really? I did not know that. All these executive authority signatures makes me think of Hitler. I don't like it, man. I don't like to associate every single executive action with the worst possible executive action. I do think the executive branch is abusing its power for sure.

Hitler was going crazy in the early 30s. It's not just the executive general. It's the federal executive. I mean, we were talking about this earlier. You know, the whole basis of America, I thought, that's what I signed up for, which, you know, the decentralization of power, checks and balances, the 10th Amendment. What are they doing with all these? It shouldn't be. It's going all in the wrong direction.

There's an FJB crypto. Did you see this? No, I did not. Everyone's talking about buying FJB, which, you know, means let's go, Brandon. And people are like, why haven't you see this? No, I did not. Everyone's talking about buying FJB, which, you know, means Let's Go Brandon. And people are like, why haven't you bought it? I don't know. I'm going to go buy FJB. FJB.

It is funny, though. It is. Let's see. What does it say? Gestalt Graham says, long-time fan of the show, first time Super Chat. I just bought some Let's Go Brandon crypto on Uniswap. Just launched. Thought you guys would find that

as ridiculous and awesome as i did it's really easy to make erc20 tokens so you could make a let's go brandon token in five minutes so this is where i'm just gonna just say straight out however many times this has all been explained to me i totally don't understand crypto no so i'm this is worth i know and i've totally tried i know it's look i'm internet money i want to know and it's great and i love it because it undermines so i get it i philosophically i'm right there i just don't understand how it works that's what i'm saying it's a non-copyable digital asset yeah and you control it i just thought someone helped me out there's nothing else to explain it's it's an object that you can control that can't be copied.

You could go deeper if you talk about white papers and the ethos of the company that produces it or the actual utility function of the token, like the Mines token. You can trade it back and forth for value, or you can use it on the Mines network for 1,000 views. So the token gains a utility value. That's unrelated. He's overcomplicating value unrelated that makes it that makes it not an a security he's talking about private company utility utility tokens crypto crypto is at its core a bitcoin for instance is a digital asset that can't be copied like an mp3 can be copied right so some guy invents the ability to have a piece of digital, of data that no one can copy.

That's it. And because of that, there is now digital scarcity. Scarcity breeds value. Very simple. Then a bunch of companies came out using technology to build other things upon. Right. Utility value on top of the actual scarcity value. So like your password, for instance, right?

For a website, nobody has that. Nobody knows your password, for instance, right? For a website, nobody has that. Nobody knows your password, right? Someone could hack it and steal it for sure. But when you have a password, it's yours. That's basically what it is. You have something that no one can get without the password. So it's actually really simple. And it's surprising it took as long as it did to create. I think it's required the encryption technology but let's uh we'll read some more all right let's see we got here graben dragan says anyone see the viva fry vid titled sabotage afoot in the kyle rittenhouse defense i sure as heck hope he is not guilty of anything my family's prayers go out to his family i did not see that but i've been watching the Ricada Law commentary stream, which has been fantastic.

They have like they had like what, like eight lawyers commenting in real time. I'm like, now that's wisdom of the crowd. You got all these different lawyers giving their viewpoints on things that are happening. And I'm like, that's great insight, man. Not always agreeing, but making good points. All right, let's see what we got. Thomas Sidebottom says, Tim, what happened to protective custody? I mean, I really do get that cops can't really control the mob, but why do we just skip from protecting people from the mob and jump straight to arresting those the mob is

targeting? Because American culture collapsed a long time ago. It was a gradually then suddenly thing, but it used to be that people had scruples. It used to be that we didn't need laws for certain things because people were averse to doing them because they would be ostracized or scared or feel bad. But now that we are a very internet-based society and people don't talk to their own neighbors, now people just attack each other and lie, cheat, and steal and don't care about culture or society. It's all just gimme, gimme, gimme. There was that incredible story the other week of someone being sexually assaulted on the train or whatever it was. And people filming it instead of doing something about it. That's right.

Unbelievable. It's crazy. They watched a woman for like a half an hour, I think it was. She was being raped by a guy. Was it actually? I mean, just. Actual rape. Like a guy actually grabbed a woman and went, raped her on a train and people watched.

That's the state. That's the state of things. All right. We got Falcon Laser says, Tim, are you going on Rogan when you're in Austin? If so, go down the rabbit hole on the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset and have Jamie pull up Event 201. That'll be funny. But I think Joe knows more about that stuff than I probably do.

I think he talks a lot about it, but we'll see. We'll see. Has he been sued by Klaus Schwab? I'm going to hold on to that as a badge of honor. I am going to be in Austin. Maybe I will. I don't know exactly what's going on. I will say there's a lot of things we're doing.

There's a lot of guests. There's a lot of awesome people in Austin. I'm not going to say anybody cause I don't want to assume that someone's going to be on the show, but there's a lot of people in Austin who are really awesome and we're going to have them on the show. It'll be fantastic. And then of course, I'm going to be going on other people's shows while I'm down there. I think in, I think December, then we basically have holiday month. So I don't think we're gonna be doing any traveling. January, I think is Nashville. I don't know we're gonna be doing any traveling january i think is nashville i don't know about february march is florida june is new hampshire we have plans to send this mobile unit i'm thinking like once a month we'll do these trips and do special week shows in different

areas it'll be a lot of fun all right let's see slitheris says come down to worst fest when you're in austin one hour south of new braunfels german food and beer festival let's get drunk oh that sounds fun we're basically we're gonna have two days we're gonna have sunday the 14th and saturday the 20th where we're gonna be free to do not work related stuff but like i'm still gonna be doing my show in the mornings and then tim cast iRL at night throughout the whole week in our mobile studio and then i going to be doing shows with other people in between. So, all right. Biological bootloader says,

Steve is on point. MSNBC manipulated his answer on direct questioning by state. The viral clip is from Cross, if I remember correctly. Interesting. Michael Volpe says, I believe the media is setting this up

so when Kyle's acquitted, there will be riots. I disagree. When during the Chauvin trial, I was like, the media is setting people up to be very disappointed. They're convincing everybody that the defense is doing bad. So that way, when Chauvin is acquitted, people will riot. Now I think I'm wrong. I think what they're actually doing was setting people up to accept the verdict. In the Chauvin case, the media kept saying Chauvin did bad. He did wrong. The defense is losing.

Then when he was convicted, regular people went, justice was served. I read the news. They said the trial went bad for Chauvin. I think right now we should, we should all be worried. The way the media is treating Kyle Rittenhouse is not to create riots. It's to create acceptance. They want regular people to hear the story about Kyle Rittenhouse from a biased perspective, assume he's guilty, then hear he was convicted and say justice was served. I think that's completely right.

That's clearly the, that has been the narrative from the start. Yeah. Yep. That way, regular people who aren't paying attention won't ask questions. If the news came out that Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself and that the prosecution was failing

and then he gets convicted, a regular person might be like, wait, what happened? I thought he was doing well in the defense. I thought those cases going well for him. No, no, no. The media is priming people to accept that he will be convicted.

But we'll see. We will see. Some people are saying they think the judge is taking things a lot more seriously than we expect. And interestingly, there's speculation that the judge isn't making any moves just yet, but that after the jury comes back out, if the jury rules, uh, not rule, uh, finds him guilty, the judge will intervene and issue a directed verdict of not guilty. So basically what a lot of the analysts were saying is that the judge doesn't want to undermine the jury or the case. So he will give the jury the opportunity to rule not guilty. But if they find Rittenhouse guilty, even when the evidence suggests he was acting in self-defense, the judge will then intervene and issue a directed

verdict overruling the jury. So basically like the safe bet now for the judges, give the jury their chance. And if I have to, I'll set this guy free. I don't know for sure though. We'll see who's got the, um, the balls, the, the, the political willpower and the balls to stand up for what's right. Based ape says MSM are prepping the normies for the MAGA white supremacist gets away with mass murder narrative that comes next, hoping more violence will ensue afterwards based obviousness. See, I don't necessarily agree. I would have agreed, you know, but before the Chauvin trial, but as I already stated, I think they're prepping people to accept the verdict. So that regular people don't question this. All right, let's see. Jay Thompson says, I'm going to be fired from my job at the hospital

soon because of our new vaccine mandate. You said, y'all hiring, I'm really good at editing. Also, can you refund my two blank chats I sent on accident, LMAO? I actually don't think we can. I don't know how to do that. Maybe we can. We can try. As for hiring, we have jobs at timcast.com. Things have been a little slow in the past couple of weeks just because we all got sick. But vaccine mandates are a bunk. Can I ask you, does Fox have vaccine mandates? No, it has. I mean, I don't know.

They have a testing or vaccine thing, I think. So it's either you're vaccinated or you got to get tested. Yeah. So it's a vaccine mandate. Well, no, cause you can get out of it by doing a test. I think that it,

when the average person can't afford to take time out of their day to go consistently get tested all the time, it's just coercion to mandate vaccines. Well, I think that, you know, I, I think that in a way,

the thing about the whole thing is that it's so infuriating to me and illogical is that the vaccine mandate rests on the argument that actually it's in the public interest for everyone to be vaccinated because of the transmission point.

Well, it just has nothing to do with that, right? We know that the vaccine, I mean, in my view, it shows that you you can um it prevents serious illness and death but it does not prevent you getting covid doesn't prevent you transmitting it there's no case for a mandate at all which is why if you want to actually stand back well hang on a second there's more of an argument for testing than for the from the from

them for the vaccine mandate because at least you could say with testing well you know there's a goal of stopping transmission and keeping outbreaks down testing actually is more justifiable and that's why i think what's outrageous about the federal thing that they're doing is that they're paying for you they they they the vaccine is free but you have to pay for the test so i agree to that extent so if you get so there's there's no logic to the any kind of mandate there there would be a logic to the testing it's just like with the masks i've you know there's no evidence that any of these stupid masks will have to wear in california that's still like everywhere mask make any difference i mean however the n95 masks clearly do work i mean you know at least if you mandate at least the n95 vent so So that's the reason why the N95s don't make sense is that it might, the N95 protects you from incoming particulates.

Yeah. But the concern with regular masks, and I don't understand why people don't seem to get this, is they don't want you spitting on people. That's all it is. When you talk, they don't want the droplets coming out. That's the joke we did about Fauci about the droplets. That's literally what the mask is just protecting against. I think the problem is it's overt paranoia to an extreme degree. But it's not spread by droplets.

How is it spread? Aerosol. It's spread in the air. This is what's so ludicrous about the whole thing. The droplets thing was deep, like, like right in early days of the pandemic, like early months was shown not to spread through droplets. It spreads through aerosol. That's why the whole mask thing is so insane. Because the... And the research they did on it showed that they're not...

And that's why the social distancing is completely insane as well. Because the social distancing, the six feet thing, that's all droplet-based. In other words, that's typically how, because they're heavy, they drop within six feet.

But that's not how this virus is spread. It's airborne. And that... The aerososols travel i thought i thought they said the inverse no i thought i thought at first they thought it was airborne and then they realized that it was actually other way around and other way around it's literally the other way that's why the whole cleaning surfaces thing is a waste of time it's spread through the air it can and it lingers for hours they there's one test they did where it you know it traveled more than 30 feet and you spent hours in the in the place they have to actually stop the experiment because they didn't have the room booked or something and so the actual answer to this if you want it was um ventilation fans all the stuff that and it's just so infuriating that we've known

that for over a year and it's still all this policy is based on stuff that just is not relevant to this particular virus. I don't know. I mean, it's just, that's one of the things that drives me most insane about the whole thing. Going back to the mandate thing,

I think, if anything, people who are vaccinated are the ones who need to be tested. Because if they're saying... Yes, because they're less careful. Well, it's not so much that as that they say that they're less likely to get it,

but if they do get it, they're equally likely to spread it. Yeah. So then you absolutely can't ignore people who could still get it and spread it. Completely agree. In which case, it makes no sense to be like, if you're vaccinated, you don't need to test. No, everybody should be tested if that's the case. Yes, exactly.

It's a glaring kind of incoherence about the whole policy. Yeah. Well, let's read some more Super Chats. All right, let's read some more super chats all right let's see we got alexander ramirez says i think y'all should watch the new nyc youtube video liberal hypocrisy is fueling american inequality it's made by johnny harris who was vox the best personality in my opinion really that sounds surprising to come from the new york times is this the one i just saw it today i haven't watched it is it one it one where it said why blue states are betraying liberal principles?

Maybe that's a different headline. I just saw that as well. But basically, things that we were talking about earlier, why is it that some of the worst problems that you see in terms of poverty, inequality, you know,

it all in places run by Democrats, you know, almost without any kind of interruption for years. They just did. Maybe that's the same thing. I saw that today all right let's uh read some more super chats bro cody says alec baldwin technically crossed state lines and shot a woman that's true uh i i i i've been mentioning this for a while but i think the the immediate assumption we should be making now is that uh alec baldwin did it on purpose the media lied about what happened at first they said alec baldwin fired a blank it misfired it shrapnel hit the woman and injured her because of that we all assumed it was

an accident from the accident narrative we then worked our way up to the truth which is alec baldwin with a loaded gun pulled it pointed at a woman and pulled the trigger okay but you're not saying he meant to yeah i am but what so that doesn't make any sense to me so knowing the relationship i mean what why what's that so let me let me let me ask you a question uh let's say that there's a uh a boss his employees are complaining about the working conditions at the at the company one of the individuals meets with him privately over a dinner. A day or so later, the boss walks up, pulls out a loaded gun, points it at this person, pulls the trigger, shooting them directly in the chest, killing them nearly instantly. Would you assume that was an accident?

Wait, but what's that got to do with this? Alec Baldwin was a producer in the movie. The crew had been complaining about horrible working conditions. He had a private meeting with a cinematographer, and then a few days later, he pulled out a loaded gun, pointed it at her, pulled the trigger, a live round was ejected, striking her in the chest, killing her. Yeah, but that's a crazy way to handle that. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me. Passion murders are passion murders. But in front of everyone?

I just don't... On a movie set where you could claim it was an accident? Absolutely. Oh, no. Oh, jeez. Totally. To me, that's... So let me ask you some legal questions.

First, I'll ask you, how long has Alec Baldwin been doing action movies? I don't know. Four decades. I don't really know. Okay. Four decades. In his four decades, he's received extensive firearms training. This is testified by several character witnesses.

This is literally in the news reports. Several witnesses stated they've worked with him on sets. He knows firearm safety. This means that if we're to believe it was an accident, Alec Baldwin was handed a loaded gun, ignored standard firearm safety training, ignored on-set safety training. It would mean the armorer who's trained in firearms accidentally put loaded bullets into it, handed it off to an assistant director who gave it to Alec Baldwin, who failed to check it, and then defied all safety protocols, pointing it at the cinematographer and pulling

the trigger, killing her. All of those things would have to be true for that to be an accident. Or it could be the crew had been complaining on set. Alec Baldwin pulled out a gun and shot the cinematographer. But I just think that doesn't look, I don't know. Again, I don't really know. I think that's bias. But I think you want to believe it was an accident, but there's no reason.

It just doesn't make sense to me that someone like him would do something like that to someone that apparently they were, you know, friends. Were they friends? The crew had been threatening to walk off set. Yeah, but there's a different thing. I mean, I mean, I have. She's a member of the crew. I haven't followed the story that closely, but what a couple of I just read a couple of pieces. That's all.

I really haven't dived into it. But one of them I read was that people that the specific complaints that the crew walked walked off about were about the safety regime. It was it was pay. In other words, it's not surprising. And then they got another bunch of people in who would sort of do it in a more lax way because the people were not happy with the standards. So that makes sense to me. So hold on, hold on.

Why would you assume the armorer who was actually trained in firearms was the one who made the mistake? That's illogical. But didn't they leave and were replaced by some other crew that well they had an armorer on set it was a young woman who is the official person who deals with and is and is handling the firearms why would i assume that two people made mistakes instead of just alec baldwin shot and killed a woman it is it is a bias among individuals you know okay but because it's just on a human basis like if i again i don't know because i haven't i've read it i'm you know how many coincidences until you win the lottery if you um if it's you know like she complained or

it seems like such a wild overreaction you know to shoot it just doesn't make sense to me well we don't know about the private details but in the absence of evidence the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one well i don't think you can assume if there's no evidence no one knows the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one which is what i said we don't have to make an assumption though you're making an assumption that you're agreeing with girl you said that alec baldwin intended to murder that girl the the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct which in this case would be neither that he had wanted to kill her or that

it was an act you can't assume either because they're both assumptions that's assumption equals one that's too many assumptions to make let's make it let's make it we're making the least amount of assumptions you're making one assumption and that's the least amount of assumptions. You're making one assumption. And that's the least. No, zero is the least. Ian, Occam's razor. Are you familiar with this? I think so, yeah. When we look at an instance in which a woman was shot and killed, we have to first form a hypothesis as to how it occurred.

The problem we had was the media lied about what happened and said it was a blank that was a misfire and shrapnel hit the woman. And it was only after the investigation we discovered that Alec Baldwin had a live round in a gun, pointed it at a woman, pulled the trigger, killing her. You need to approach it from a legal perspective, not a personal bias. I can't believe Alec Baldwin would do this. I read a legal analysis that said when it comes to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter, these criteria must be met. And it fits all of it. I started reading this and then news reports came out that the armorer says, I checked this weapon. There was no live ammo in it.

They think a crew sabotaged the gun. That's actually one of the reports came out through Yahoo News that someone sabotaged the gun so that Alec Baldwin would do this. The problem there for any investigatory body, any prosecutor would be, why did Alec Baldwin point a gun at the crew member? That is a violation of all standard safety protocols. And he's got 40 years in action movies and training with firearms to know under no circumstances during movies do you ever point a gun at a person and pull the trigger. Now, granted, I say 40 years, but it's really going back to the mid-80s when they formalized a lot of these rules because some dude on set pointed a blank at his head and blew his brains out because he didn't realize that blanks kill you. Alec Baldwin has decades of training. So ask yourself this question. Why did he point a gun

at a woman and pull the trigger? That's the first question you should ask. Standard protocol is not to point a weapon at a person for any reason. Why did he do it? Then after you get there, you can say that must have been an oversight, which is a big oversight to make pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger. How did the live bullet get in it? Now I have to assume that either there was a conspiracy to frame him, which would have required him to intentionally point a gun at someone to pull the trigger, which they can't make him do. And that the armor and the director made a mistake in providing a loaded gun to him. Those that is ridiculous to assume those things. That's insane.

Go buy your lottery tickets right now because if that's the case, wow, this dude won a billion dollars. I think it's more likely someone sabotaged the gun than Alec Baldwin wanted to murder her in plain sight. I don't know about wanting to murder, but why did he point a gun at her and pull the trigger? Negligence. When you got the crew behind the camera,

they disappear to you while you're in the bubble of the set. the set i think the whole it's speculating on it is just you know we weren't there we don't know there's an investigation going on that's my point it just feels like my point is i just none of it makes sense to me that i i just can't well that's whatever i don't know you know i could find what i'm saying is i think it sounds crazy to me that you remove yourself my first instinct when i saw it was like, you know, real... Obviously, you know, like, desperate for the family of a woman who died, but also sympathy for him. What a terrible thing to have happened.

What I'm saying is... To feel that guilt. If the investigation is looking at this, it should be approaching it from the first question of, Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger with a live bullet in it. That's where they should start.

They shouldn't be going, I want to believe it was an accident, so I'm going to start from the... It's a difference between the people who are investigating it, I'm sure they will approach from that point of view, and us sitting here

with no real, you know, actual first-hand knowledge, speculating. And I just think that. So what I'm saying is it's simple. Right now, based on the evidence that's been released, if we ignore our bias, would suggest the least amount of assumptions is that Alec Baldwin intentionally killed that woman. I don't know. The assistant director telling him the gun was cold makes me not think that.

I just can't believe any of that. Then two people did it. I just, it doesn't make sense. The fact remains that nobody can answer the question, and Ian, I'm sorry, your answer is not adequate. The protocol on movies is you don't point the gun at the camera. You don't point the gun at people.

Why were people standing by the camera? The idea that this was an accident is a series of assumptions. The idea that Alec Baldwin was like, I've been trained for several years on how to handle a gun, but I'm going to point it at these people because they're by the camera is like five assumptions. Make the least amount. Alec Baldwin pointed the gun and shot somebody. I don't care what people want to believe about it. I'm saying the least amount of assumptions is starting with Alec Baldwin pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. There are no assumptions there.

That is what happened. Exactly. But whether or not he wanted to, that's the assumption, which I can't make. Well, so the fact remains you start from that position. And then if you try to then figure out what happened, the first assessment you would make is we know for a fact he pointed a gun at the woman and pulled the trigger. Now we're going to say what happened, the first assessment you would make is we know for a fact he pointed a gun at the woman and pulled the trigger. Now we're going to say what happened and why, why would you assume the first thing is someone accidentally pointed the gun at somebody

and pull the trigger instead of somebody wanted to point the gun at somebody and pull the trigger. How often does it happen that someone gets shot and killed and it turns out the person was like, I'm going to point this gun at them and pull the trigger. Oh no, it was an accident that I shot them. That's a ridiculous assumption to make. The more logical outcome is he intended to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger. He was handed the weapon and told it was cold. That doesn't explain why he pointed at it and pulled the trigger.

But I don't want to beat a dead horse on this one. I definitely want to get to the members only segment. So I'll just grab a couple more super chats and don't forget to smash that like button. And I think y'all, y'all heard my point on that. John Curry says, not only that, but Baldwin's father was a firearms instructor who trained all of his children in firearm safety. Really?

Interesting. Couric says, not only did he pull the trigger, but the gun is a single action revolver. He had to cock the hammer before it would be able to fire. That's a really good point. I didn't consider. I didn't realize that old school rifles were single action. You couldn't just pull the trigger. You'd cock it back and then do it. Meaning not only did he not check the weapon, not only did he point it at her, but he pulled the hammer back before pulling the trigger. You want to make assumptions about this by all means. I think if you show people what happened and explain that,

they will just be like, he killed that woman. Now, he might not get murder for it, but involuntary manslaughter, I think, if he doesn't get criminally charged, I will laugh. All right, let's see. We'll just read this last one for fun. Joseph Abakan says, I never thought I'd see Tim and Ian disagree. And Tim sounds like the one who is Looney Tunes. The Alec Baldwin discussion is a first.

Well, there you go. You might want to tune into the after show. Yeah, tune into the after show. Go to timcast.com, become a member. We'll have that published around 11 or so p.m. because we record it immediately after. And smash the like button. Share the show with your friends.

You can follow us on the show at TimCast IRL, basically everywhere. Check us out on Instagram. We post clips from the show on Instagram and you can like them and help share them and on Facebook and stuff like that. And you can follow me personally at TimCast. Steve, you want to shout anything out?

I'd love people to check out my podcast, especially anyone listening in California. We've got to fight back against the craziness. So I've got this little show,ifornia rebel base please check us out we've got lots of great conversations just getting started there's on youtube it's on youtube um all the platforms and on twitter at ca rebel base awesome so i released a sponsor video today that was free for everyone that signed up on my email list. If you want to sign up on the email list, it is on enoughofcensorship.com. Enoughofcensorship.com.

I made a really interesting video about consciousness, energy, different dimensions, all on lukeuncensored.com. Hope to see some of you guys there. That is the stuff I'm trying to get out of you here on this show. So let's go in that direction. I got to be careful. You got to not just go fully down the rabbit hole. You said a bunch of words that got me wired. Hey, you guys.

Thanks for coming. I'm Ian Crossland. I'm very happy to see you. Happy to be back. I'll catch you later. That's a great shirt. Thank you. Exertus. I appreciate all you guys tuning in as we're getting this running again. I really think this little murder mystery discussion is really interesting. I guess

we'll see what plays out, but I don't believe that justice will actually be served because the person is a celebrity. So unfortunately we'll just have to see what happens. We might never know the truth. You guys can follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Lids. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in the member

segment. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys. you