Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #405 - Prosecutors Engage in GROSS Misconduct, Judge Threatens Mistrial w/Jack Murphy

Episode Date: November 11, 2021

Tim, Ian, Luke, and Lydia join friend and fellow YouTuber Jack Murphy to discuss the Rittenhouse judge reprimanding the prosecution over insanely biased arguments, how CNN frames the Rittenhouse trial for maximum appeal to left-wing audiences, Ana Kasparian's honorable choice to admit that she was wrong about Kyle Rittenhouse, Cenk Uygur's misguided smears against Joe Rogan, Jack's story of a father put into dire straits by vaccine mandates, and whether Alec Baldwin's unfortunate shooting incident was intentional or not. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today was one of the craziest days in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. And I didn't think it could get any crazier. When the state brought in Gage Grosskreutz, who testified that he was only fired upon when he pointed a weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse, I thought it was just, this is too nuts. Today, the defense filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that the prosecution has committed misconduct or error to such a degree there can't be a fair trial. And because of this, they should not be allowed to retry Kyle Rittenhouse. The judge actually said, I will take the motion under

advisement, yelled at the prosecutor on more than one occasion, legit, literally yelled at him and said, if one more thing happens. So here's what we might see. We probably won't, but there's people speculating about a directed verdict in which the judge could just say as a matter of law, Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty. I'm not convinced that'll happen, but hey, I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea. The other thing that could happen is that the defense could come in in the morning with a full motion filed for a mistrial with prejudice. And this was over specifically the prosecutors bringing up evidence that judge had ruled would not be allowed. And the prosecution questioned Kyle

Rittenhouse because of his right to remain silent. It was such an egregious violation. The judge called it a grave constitutional violation and actually yelled at the prosecutor saying it's a matter. I mean, he's yelling a matter of basic law for 50 years. Crazy. We got to talk about all this. We also have Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks admitting she was wrong. Much respect to Anna for that, because we just need people to watch the trial to understand. We got the breakdown from the New York Times over all of their bullet points, I imagine, will be arguing with them because the media has been, it's all been malpractice in the media, as we can expect. And then we got Jimmy Kimmel saying that Kamala Harris's historically low approval rating

is due to racism and sexism. Go figure. And we got some information about Alec Baldwin. Apparently, on set, one witness says the scene did not call for him to draw a weapon and point it at anybody. So there's a lot of questions about that we'll get into. Of course, we're hanging out with Mr. Jack Murphy. Good to be back, guys. I missed last time, but I'm happy to be here.

Happy to see everybody's doing well. Luke, I'm even happy to see you. Wow. Thank you. I'm Jack. You can find me at Jack Murphy Live or come to Jack Brunch, jackbrunch.com. We just had an awesome event in Austin. Anybody I know going to Austin? We're going to Austin. We're flying out on Saturdays, 5.30 a.m. We've got to get up. Fantastic. Austin, beautiful town. We had almost 90 people out at brunch.

It was a great time. We're going to be in San Francisco area. Not in that liberal hellhole vax mandate. Nope, we're going across the river or the bay to Sausalito. Oh, I was just thinking about Sausalito. So come on down, jackbrunch.com. Very nice. Jack, where's your 10-piece suit?

10-piece suit? You know, I like to mess it up for us, and I'm kind of disappointed. Well, where's your 10-piece suit? 10-piece suit? You know, I like to mess it up. You didn't dress up for us, and I'm kind of disappointed. Well, I wanted to match you in your, what should we call this, your casual wear. Well, today I am wearing another We Are Change exclusive T-shirt, pretty much depicting the weapons used in World War I, World War II, and currently our World War III, or as some people are saying, fourth or fifth generational warfare.

And it's a shirt that you can get exclusively on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. And because you do, I'm here, so thanks for having me. It's a camera loaded with cash. Yeah, that's pretty much the modern-day machine gun. Dude, an hour ago, I was taking a shower thinking about Sausalito, thinking if you're ever going to go to San Francisco, just go to Sausalito and get a view of San Francisco across the bay. That's awesome.

You guys are having Jack Brunch there. Jackbrunch.com. Come on down. Yeah, and you should come. You know when you should come. You should come to the one in D.C. on February 27th. As long as that works with our schedule because we're going to be traveling a lot the next couple months, next six months.

But I'm 100% if we're in town, I'm going to that. Oh, goodness. I am excited at the prospect of this brunch. I do like Luke's shirt. That's very thought-provoking. And I wanted to say that I hope that you guys are all keeping the witnesses for this trial in your thoughts, as we know people who are going on the stand. And it is very stressful.

So keep them in your thoughts and prayers. All right. I think we're ready to go. No, you guys keep talking because I'm trying to pull up the email. What are we pulling up over there? I'm talking about snakes and frogs if you guys want to talk about that. I think it is really remarkable that, guys we know, people we talk to, people we hang out with, our colleagues and friends are in the middle of this amazing trial, which is having such an impact

and could have even more of an impact not only on Kyle's life but on the nation at large. I was listening to Crowder earlier today, and he's 100% right when he talks about how this trial could be any one of us. It could be any conservative, anybody who decided that they needed to try to defend themselves, which is terrifying. I'm genuinely concerned about what happens with this case. So I'm excited to get into it. You know, I do wonder, like, how nationally prevalent is the case? Like, I asked my kids about it and they're like, yeah, we're not even talking about it in school or anything. Don't forget, go to TimCast.com, become a member of a members-only segment coming up around 11 or so p.m.

And you can go to the store. I'm actually bummed about this. YouTube hasn't approved yet our shirt, Step on Snack and Find Out. And there's a cute little angry snake. And it's not approved on YouTube. It's up on the store. You can buy it. It's a funny little shirt.

Hopefully soon we can put it on YouTube. But until then, smash the like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. I am, I am, this story has lit me up. Jack was just mentioning that like my segment at four, I was going crazy. I'm like, I'm like yelling into the camera. Check this out from Timcast.com.

Prosecution reprimanded by judge for, quote, grave constitutional violation during cross-examination of Rittenhouse. Judge Schroeder also dressed down the prosecution for attempting to bring in evidence that he banned from admission. This is where it gets crazy. In the trial, I'll give you the gist real quick. The prosecution said evidence that occurred, you call it evidence, I don't know, an event that occurred four months after the night in question is not admissible because it has nothing to do with him defending himself. And so they're like, okay, the prosecutors started bringing it up anyway. And the judge got mad angry, got pissed. But the craziest moment was when the prosecution asked Kyle Rittenhouse, why haven't you told this story before until tonight? And then he says, you waited until

everyone testified so you could tailor your testimony. And then it was boom objection. The judge goes off. He's like, well, what do you think you're doing? You can't, you can't do this. You can't question someone as to their, to their right to remain silent. You know, this you're, he's like, you're an experienced trial prosecutor. When the second violation came up, he snapped. He's like, I can't believe I was astonished that you would dare bring up something like that. It's a matter of basic law for 40, 50 years. And then the prosecutor is like, you know, when it came to the question of the evidence

he was bringing in, the prosecutor is like, you open the door, your honor. And he's like, for me, not for you. Don't you get brazen with me. I was shocked. And here's where it gets really crazy. I didn't think it was going to happen. The defense said that if this persisted, they would file a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that the prosecutors erred or attempted to break the rules to prejudice the jury against Rittenhouse to such a degree he would never have a fair trial and that the judge would have to dismiss with prejudice, meaning they could never file these same charges again. Surprisingly, when they put Kyle on the stand, he starts crying. He's breaking down. When they come back, the craziest thing, the defense actually files

the motion asking the judge for a mistrial with prejudice. This is when the judge starts getting into it with the prosecutor. He says, I will take the motion under advisement and then essentially says if there's one more violation to the prosecutor. So people are speculating now saying what might happen is that the judge, and the judge has actually said this, to some to this effect, he doesn't want there to be a circumstance in which he intervenes and shuts down the court proceedings. He wants the jury to be able to come to their findings. But there's speculation, and I don't know how valuable the speculation is, that there could be a directed verdict, meaning that as a matter of law, the

charges against Kyle Rittenhouse are impossible to get. When you had Kyle Rittenhouse, according to the state's witnesses, himself and everyone else, he was yelling friendly and fleeing the scene. You can't get intentional homicide on that. But the judge didn't rule it. And people are saying maybe he wants to see if the jury will rule correctly. He might intervene after the fact. So you can tell him really amped about this. Totally. Yeah. I thought I was listening to your segment on 2X on the way up here, man. You were going, you were hyped. You know, one of the things I keep thinking about, and I've seen some other people ask about it, is this court case is being televised and it's clear that the judge is at least

neutral. If not, I don't know. He seems he's at least neutral, right? He's not biased. He's not clearly got a left wing bias. How many times across the nation over and over and over again are prosecutors doing these things that are unconstitutional and getting away with it and even just having the judge basically on their side

as a way to put people away that they think are political uh you know sort of you know on the other side of the political spectrum i'm sure from what I've heard from Julie Kelly and other people covering the January 6th stuff, that if the judge, this judge here, the Rittenhouse judge, was there in D.C. or wherever they're trying these January 6th stuff, that it would be going a lot differently. Oh, yeah. It brings up, you know, the idea of like maybe every single court case

should be televised so that we can see every single thing that's going on so that these people can be watched. It's kind of scary to me to think that people that guy an experienced prosecutor who clearly knows about the constitution i've read from other lawyers that this is a subject that comes up a couple of times in law school plus it's on the bar exam you can't you can't bring up the fact or use it against them that the guy didn't speak after his arrest and yet there he did just as the judge said brazenly violating this guy's constitutional rights in the letter and in the spirit of the whole thing how often is this

happening all across the country this this is a prosecutor who knows he has the the mob the rioters and the press on his side and even after all of these grave constitutional violations that's what the judge said the media doesn't cover it. The media just says, like, Kyle Rittenhouse. They frame everything to the worst degree for Kyle. Kyle cries on the stand because he probably killed the guys

is the headline. Well, the Daily Beast said Kyle Rittenhouse makes wild accusations about those claiming they were threatening him. And I'm like, wild accusations? There's multiple witnesses saying that Rosenbaum said, if i get you alone i'll

effing kill you that was that was the you had the state's own witness saying he drew his gun on kyle rittenhouse and the daily beast lie false frame i'll say they falsely frame look i wasn't there obviously i wasn't there but that was one night that i watched as many streams as i possibly could i watched bg i watched richie i watched one guy even aggregate like three or four streams into one so like i was there when uh that guy became the n-word guy remember like not there but like i was watching at the gas oh yeah rosenbaum yeah when rosenbaum became we were just calling him the n-word guy because we didn't know who he was because he was running around screaming the n-word he was obviously agitating he was looking for conflict i'm going to get you i'm going to to do this, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And like the people in the press and popular interpretation

just did not experience that the way that the guys on the ground obviously did that written house obviously did. And then those of us were watching it intently actually experienced it that night. Yeah. Framing is everything because you could take certain facts and you could admit some of them. You could highlight some of them and you know, there's different stories stories being told but the fact that this case is being live streamed i think is absolutely amazing i think we should live stream all of criminal court cases just so we could actually get uh an unbiased point of view to what's actually happening here but it was kind of wild seeing the state prosecutor literally argue more with the judge interrupt the judge more than he did the defense i was like what's what's going on here there was a number of times the judge, interrupt the judge more than he did the defense. I was like, what's going on here?

There was a number of times the judge snapped on the state prosecutor who looked like he was a deer in headlights for many of the proceedings. So again, the mainstream media attacking Kyle is nothing new. They've been attacking him from the very beginning. We didn't even know a lot of the details here. The mainstream media came out with a lot of spin on this story and highlighted specific events that fit their narrative. Now there's another narrative. There's, you know, talk about some of these people who, who were shot their communal past or criminal history. People are just selecting and picking

whatever fits their narrative, but truly seeing this live raw unedited, I think is extremely important. And I think we should normalize this as much as we can. Yeah. I mean, aside from being on the ground, I watched it live from multiple streams. I've interviewed Richie and BG on the scene. I was just listening to the podcast that we did with them back in the summertime. It's one of these things where like I have such almost firsthand experience in, you know, I wasn't there, but like to see the discrepancy between what happened that night, talking to eyewitnesses, watching the trial, and then seeing what's happening in the headlines.

Like, where did they even get the white supremacists and this and that? They didn't even kill anybody who was black. Yeah, they're all tweeting that Kyle Rittenhouse killed three black people. What? Okay, hold on, hold on. Not everyone, but there's some elements on Twitter

and social media saying that. People on Twitter are pushing this. And they're not getting fact-checked at all. There was a New York lawyer account with like a quarter million followers who tweeted, I have not been following this in my new detail, but I think the fact remains. Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an assault rifle to go to a protest. And I'm like, the prosecutor has charges against Dominic Black for supplying a weapon in Wisconsin to Kyle Rittenhouse. That's a substantial portion of the

criminal proceedings out of Kenosha. These people don't even understand what the prosecutor is going for in this. They just made something up. They all tweet about it. They don't fact check. They don't watch the trial. And then they claim they did. I've been sitting here every morning with it on live stream on TV and then just like reading all the legal analysis from like Ricado Law and from Andrew Branca and a plethora of other legal analyses, watching all these live streams. And I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer and know, right, all of the nitty gritty details in the law, the defense is citing various laws that were violated by the prosecutor. I can just tell you the judge screamed at the prosecutor for a grave constitutional

violation. He said, he was was like you're on the borderline you may be over it i was actually he cut himself off too he's like and then i'll just i'll just leave it at that for right now you you want to know why i was pissed i was listening to ricada's stream and it was fantastic ricada had 70 000 viewers on his stream it's really really almost like timcast oh yeah i mean but that's way bigger than we've been in this past year i mean and so their commentary is fantastic and i don't know who it was but they made the It's really, really great stuff. Almost like Tim Kass. Oh, yeah. I mean, but that's way bigger than we've been in this past year. So their commentary is fantastic.

I don't know who it was, but they made the comment that the judge, he wants to prove that these trials can happen, that the process can work. And as soon as I heard that, I realized if the judge does not declare a mistrial with prejudice, he proves that prosecution can violate your constitutional rights rights prejudice the jury by admitting evidence that was deemed inadmissible and the judge will allow it to happen but if he has this dueling incentive of a wanting the jury to rule on the facts and perhaps come back with a not guilty verdict at the same time as wanting to protect his constitutional rights and the in the process and such and maybe then go to this direct verdict that's a it's a tough one for the judge to actually manage isn't it is it is but i think some people have speculated that the judge will wait for the jury to issue their finding and then intervene you imagine it happens but i mean

can you imagine if they come back and say guilty on all charges and the judge is like, nah. Nah. Yep. The reaction is going to be absolutely insane. That would probably be worst case scenario. And then, I mean, the Chicago Police Department already put out a notice saying for officers that their leave is not going to be approved because they want all officers on the force because they're expecting civil unrest to happen in major cities. So already there's a lot of threats. There's a lot of hyperbolic language on social media that's not getting fact-checked,

that's not getting corrected, that's being escalated, that's being promoted. So this is building up to another recipe of disaster, especially with the mainstream media putting fuel on the fire in this entire situation, blatantly lying about it. I just want to address that real quick. Yeah, go for it. You mentioned the rock in the hard place with the judge. I lying about it. There's an, there's another address that you mentioned the rock in the hard place with the judge. I thought about that.

I'm like, if he intervenes, people will claim there is no fair trial. But if we watch prosecutorial misconduct, malicious prosecution, when there was a guy's name to brew. And I think his name was, do you see this?

The witness who testified that ADA Krause and binger brought him in and told him to change his police statement. Malicious prosecution. That was on Zeminski. I think his name is Zeminski. Not on Rittenhouse. But these guys are clearly corrupt. If the judge says, I'm going to allow this corruption to play through, then unfortunately the system is broken.

Maybe this isn't the A-team either. I mean, if you grow up and your biggest goal in life is to become the prosecutor in Kenosha, Wisconsin, does that mean that you're the A-team prosecutor? No offense to Kenosha or small towns around the country or anything, but maybe this is just standard incompetence that we see. I mean, I have no idea. I haven't sat in on too many murder trials.

In fact, the one that stands out to me is OJ. This is all reminding me a little bit of the OJ trial. I was in college. You guys are probably too young for this. But I remember the whole country was watching, man. And in fact, I remember I was in class at university. It just stopped the day of the verdict. And it was such a big deal.

We were all watching it. I don't think that this has that same level of national prominence but just along among politicos oh yeah definitely people like us let me let me bring up this mainstream media stuff because someone actually just chatted this and i had so i had the new york times pulled up i want to go through what the media has been saying but this cnn article is one of the most egregious violations of the truth cnn writes, Kyle Rittenhouse testifies he knew Joseph Rosenbaum was unarmed when he fatally shot him. That is completely immaterial. It was a small second of this massive trial. And this is what the media does. They pull snippets. This is also an interesting point, though. Many people thought it was crazy they put Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand.

There were a few points he made that could not have been admitted as evidence unless he testified, and that's why people think maybe that's why they put him on the stand. One was that Rosenbaum had threatened his life on two occasions, and that he knew that the Zeminski guy was armed, and he testified he heard the gunshot as he was running. In turn, what the prosecutor is trying to do is falsely frame as much as possible. Now, I noticed a lot of people asking why the defense wasn't objecting to the insane questions of the prosecutor. Some have suggested the prosecutor's line of questioning were so absurd, it's prejudicing the jury against him. He kept asking the same

question over. He asked the same question like five times. And every time Kyle would answer him, he'd say, I'll ask you again. When you were going, he was doing things like you wanted to kill those people. And Kyle goes, I didn't want to kill anybody. And he goes, I'll ask you again. You went out there because you wanted to kill those people. Right. And he goes, I didn't want to kill anybody. He asked the question again, over and over and over again yeah he was bringing up video games uh he was trying to insinuate that video games are akin to killing people no he said don't you play call of duty with your friend dominic black and he's like i mean maybe sometimes and he goes and isn't the point of that game to take these rifles and kill people? And then he was like, video games aren't real life.

And then he started talking about AR-15s being prominent in the video game. And Kyle was like, well, there's a lot of other firearms. There's pistols and shotguns in there as well. He was like, but AR-15s are the most prominent ones. And they're like, no. Shovels. And a lot of people were saying that it was almost as if the term and concept of an AR-15 was on trial, since how much it was brought up, how much it was talked about.

Let me show you how CNN frames this. This is not an opinion piece. This is CNN's factual news. They say, Kyle Rittenhouse testified Wednesday that he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot a man who had thrown a plastic bag at him and chased him last year in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in what is likely to be the pivotal testimony of his homicide trial. Quote, I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself, he testified. But in cross-examination, Rittenhouse said that he knew the man, Joseph

Rosenbaum, was unarmed when he ran at the teenager. Rittenhouse said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding that he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous. False. That was leading questions from the prosecution. The prosecution said, did you point your weapon at Rosenbaum? Well, yeah, of course he did. And you did that because you wanted him to know you would kill him and you meant business. And then Kyle, of course, like says, I didn't want to kill him. I don't want to do it. He keeps getting asked it asked what CNN is doing is they're taking statements from the prosecution that Kyle either passively agreed with or said, I guess, is they're taking statements from the prosecution that Kyle either passively agreed with or said, I guess, and they're acting like he himself said it.

Quote, he was chasing me. I was alone. He threatened to kill me earlier that night. I didn't want to have to shoot him. I pointed it at him because he kept running at me and I didn't want him to chase me. You see, they choose. They select all of the worst possible quotes from Rittenhouse. He said that he feared Rosenbaum, who did not touch his body at all that night, would take his gun and kill people,

omitting the fact that the, it was, I believe it was the medical forensics, medical examiner who said Rosenbaum's hand was on the gun. And Kyle Rittenhouse who said, he grabbed my gun. The prosecution then said, but he didn't touch your body. And Kyle was like, right. And now CNN takes that to falsely frame exactly what happened. Let me pull up this New York Times real quick. They say key moments from Kyle Rittenhouse's testimony. One of the things they say, Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor, pressed Mr. Rittenhouse about why he aimed a rifle at Joseph Rosenbaum, who had run toward him but was unarmed. You wanted him to get the message from you that if you come any closer, I'm going to kill you. That's why you

pointed the gun at him. Mr. Rittenhouse said he did not want to kill Mr. Rosenbaum, though he believed Rosenbaum was trying to disarm him. Quote, if I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people. So respect to the New York Times for putting that quote in right at the top. Yeah, it was important. New York times,

Julie Bosman States, gross, gross, croutes, gross croutes, a paramedic from West Dallas, Milwaukee suburb was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse. She says that he was holding a handgun pointed in the air when Rittenhouse shot him from a short distance away.

So that was, that was at, uh, she tweeted that at, I copied it at 5 15 PM. Then I tweeted at at, I copied it at 5.15 p.m. Then I tweeted at her, you should probably delete this. And at 5.15 p.m. she deleted it. Well, good.

Right. But she tried to put it out there until she was fact-checked on it. She wasn't actually doing her job. She was making things up until the tweet started to go viral. And people were like, why are you lying? There are two stages to this. We should absolutely criticize people who are incompetent, which is a large portion of the Twitterati, the progressives, and the media.

When she puts out a false statement like that, that's very serious. So during the trial, the prosecution wanted to bring up video on an iPad, and they wanted to pinch to Zoom. And the defense objected, saying apple's ipad uses artificial intelligence 3d enhancing logarithms to change the image and i tweeted out that was insane and stupid because like the image interpolation is a very simple thing that as you expand it a program machine learning basically tries to fill in gaps that are missing. It's not 3d. It's not artificial intelligence. That's still. And then people

were like, Tim, you're making fun of boomers trying to explain something. And I was like, okay, I'll delete it. I'll delete it. I have no problem, um, that people make mistakes and there's a lot of journalists. So you'll see a lot of mistakes, but we should absolutely criticize. If I said something wrong, people did. And I said, okay, I'll accept it. When she puts out fake information, she'll accept it. We should not, we should not tolerate it, but we'll be nice about when they do bad jobs. We'll not, we should, they should not remain in those positions if they're that bad. But the next degree is like CNN falsely framing select cherry picking quotes and manipulating the narrative or NPR claiming that Grosskreutz testified his hands

were in the air when he was shot, when he testified to the defense that it was only after he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse. That is egregious. When MSNBC put out a video where they say Grosskreutz testified his hands were up, then they show a clip of something totally irrelevant. That is intentionally

trying to manipulate people. That's the second level of that. Jeffrey Toobin was also on CNN. Jeffrey Toobin, if you don't know who he is, he's the guy who spanked it to his co-workers on Zoom. And he was on CNN and he literally said, quote, Kyle is an idiot, which I think is just, I mean, that's the type of level of commentary you expect from CNN. But still, even when it happens, it's still surprising to see it as that blatantly out there right in front of your face. Because truly what they're doing is a huge disservice. And people who are paying attention, watching the trial, are getting a totally different perspective than people who, of course, are just editorializing and commenting about it like Toobin was. I think Kyle had a hard time on the stand.

He answered a lot of questions very, very well. So the prosecution, when the defense was doing the direct with Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle, of course, he's probably worked this out with the defense, answered the questions, he did a really good job. He explained why he was there, what his goals were. When it came to cross-examination with the prosecutor, the prosecutor was just badgering him and badgering him and caught him up in a few instances. And now the New York Times says Mr. Rittenhouse struggled to give clear answers to questions

about why he brought his gun as he ran towards the car lot with a fire extinguisher. The event that immediately preceded the shooting of Mr. Rosenbaum. I'm watching the testimony and he's and one of the questions he asked was after the protesters cleared away from this area, why did you walk directly in this direction instead of going around them? And I'm like, that's a question that can only be asked in hindsight. And Kyle didn't have a good answer because he never thought about it and he's on the spot. And that's why it was a huge risk to put him on the stand because that question is garbage, nonsensical. It was like, why did you have your gun? What were you trying to be protected? Like he asked him, why were you looking for Ryan Belch? And Kyle was like,

because you're safer in Paris, safer from who? And it's just like, Kyle didn't have good answers for this, but I think he's, he's he's an 18 he's 18 he's not experienced and this is why it's a risk to put him on the stand if he was sharper if he was quicker you know he could have said something like because there was rioters and arsonists and people doing violence all over the place because criminals exist yeah because when you go out on the streets for any reason you're you're safer with another person regardless of whether or not there's a right or so many of these questions strike me as being in the same vein of, why did you wear that miniskirt out at night, young lady?

So one of the issues was when he was asking Kyle, like, why did you bring a gun? It's like, because someone might attack me. Who? I don't know. And Kyle actually had a really good answer. He said, you brought the gun. The prosecution said to Kyle, asked him, why did you bring the gun? And Kyle says, I thought I needed protection.

And then he said, protection from whom? And Kyle said something to the effect of, I didn't think I would need to use protection. And then the defense, the prosecutor goes, I'm confused. You said you needed protection. Now you're saying you didn't. And Kyle very quickly and very, very on point, sharp said, I thought I needed to bring protection, but I didn't think I would need to use it. And that was really, really good. But when you have a prosecutor who's asking the same question 50 times,

you now give the media the opportunity to say he couldn't answer. Kyle was getting confused and saying, I don't understand your question. One of the things Binger said was that hollow point bullets, when they're fired into somebody, explode kyle's like what and the judge was like what like what are you talking about it seems like a gish gallop are you familiar with a gish gallop i have literally never heard that in my life it's a debate tactic where you throw as much garbage at someone so that they look like they can't answer the question properly so instead of asking a question in debate like it's two plus two four you go look two plus two equals five and two plus two equals six and three minus seven is can't answer the question properly. So instead of asking a question in debate like, is 2 plus 2 4? You go, look, 2 plus 2 equals 5, and 2 plus 2 equals 6, and 3 minus 7 is 22, and you know it's 22, and now we have 7 minus 3 is 4, and your opponent goes, oh, wait, wait, what did you say?

What? And the goal is to make you look confused to the audience or it's- Now, I don't know. Are these common tactics, generally speaking, when doing a cross-examination of witness like this? Or is this specific to this case because they don't have a real case and they're trying to use these psychological tactics? Well, I mean, I think there's fishing. They're trying to throw out as much as they can, see what they could get back. I mean, being cross-examined like that for hours is difficult. It's not easy. So, I mean mean just watching the case

it really looked like let's just let's just keep throwing something at it let's see if we get something back and you know if you're a state prosecutor they're going to do everything in their power they're going to take as much time as they want to of course try to beat up the the witness beat up the person being questioned and and and try to make, try to literally break them. Uh, that that's a tactic used by many people in cross examinations. Just keep berating them, keep beating them,

keep asking them the questions to see maybe it's an interrogation tactic to, to keep asking the same question, but in different formats. And you, and you start off, you start off by asking them like something that, you know, is an affirmative.

Did you do that? Yes. Did you walk over here? Yes. And you get them in the habit of saying, i have given testimony under oath a number of times depositions in court and whatnot and with some lawyers you know in my mind i know where they're going and i can answer honestly and still sort of you know screw with them and win the game but i am not 18 years old i am not on the stand fighting for my life i am not being accused of murder that has got to be an extraordinarily stressful circumstance there's actually there was

an amazing point where they freeze frame a moment when he had when he went when gage grosskreutz was attacking him they freeze frame it and in the still written as his gun is pointed forward towards the legs of gage gross croats who gross croats every person whose hands are up and then he's like he's not pointing a weapon at you but you're pointing a weapon at him and then kyle right now says you've it's a freeze frame i believe if you play the video you'll see i'm actually lowering the weapon and i was like wow like kyle actually did a pretty good job on the stand however However, it's the James Bond technique. If you ask a woman to hook up 30 times, this is literally the James Bond jokes from Family Guy.

Ask the woman 30 times and she says no. When she finally says yes, James Bond looks at the camera and goes, 30 no's and one yes means yes. That's the James Bond joke. But the point is, that's what abusers do. They know that they can ask you the question 20 times until you finally get confused and say what they need. And then they can put that on the record and then go to the jury and say, remember when he testified X it's like, yeah, after you asked the same question 50 times and confused him, that's a tactic. They don't have a case. The crazy thing, I'll say it again, was when the defense

actually stated to the judge that the prosecutors either have forgotten the rulings of the judge or purposefully trying to trigger a mistrial because they know they have no case and they don't want this to go before the jury. The defense actually said that to the judge. Now, what does it mean when they've can can the judge and we're not lawyers, but can the judge receive a motion and not rule on it? So one of the things the judge said, they wrapped up about, I think, like Eastern Time 540 or so. The judge was actually contemplating bringing another witness. But he said, it's a little late. You know, why don't we come back tomorrow? First thing in the morning, We'll dismiss the jury.

And he said to the defense, I'll get you my preliminary. No, no. I won't promise that, but we'll see what happens. So I think the judge is going to issue a ruling on the motion. But I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea. I have no idea. You're better off listening to lawyer commentary.

That's just what the judge said about a preliminary ruling on it. I'm crossing my fingers and I hope we have this much attention on the Ghislaine Maxwell case, which is going to be starting in a little bit. So I'm like, please, please, let's keep this kind of judicial attention on such important issues. I was thinking that she was actually hooking up with a bunch of those people that would come to the Epstein's place. Well, there's a lot of very serious allegations around her, but I don't want to deviate too much from this particular

case. I got to give a shout out. We're sitting here, we're criticizing the media, and there's someone in the media who deserves some respect, and people are not going to want to accept it, but we're people of principle. Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks checks out from the Daily Wire. Quote, I was wrong.. Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks. Check this out from the Daily Wire.

Quote, I was wrong. Young Turks Kasparian admits she bought into false Rittenhouse narrative. Mad respect. 100% respect. Wow. Disagree with her politics. I think the Young Turks have been very unfair to me. I think they've lied about me on more than one occasion.

Cenk Uygur screamed at me at Politicon for no reason. I've known the guy for years and i politely asked him like hey you guys put up a smear piece on dave rubin but like my name's like in the thumbnail in the middle and they start yelling at me all of that aside if you recognize that you're wrong and you correct it i will give you the respect you deserve because if we if we still you know if someone comes out and says you know i bought into this false narrativehouse, which is what Anika Sparian did, and then we refuse to accept their acknowledgement, you only encourage them to keep doing bad. We tell them thank you for saying the right thing with respect, and hopefully they continue

to do the right thing, do the research. Looking at these tweets from people, they keep saying crossing state lines with a gun, crossing state lines with a gun crossing state lines with a gun they keep saying assault rifle assault rifle wrong these people have not done any any research into this at all and if they do i'll give them the respect they deserve well that's big that she came out and corrected her statement because if we remember i mean the mainstream media especially msnbc they were calling kyle a domestic terrorist a mass murderer they were using extremely hyper bottle hyperbolic language in order to kind of inflame this situation there's people trying to

make this about race and again this has nothing to do with any of that but when it comes to this kind of salacious action someone actually saying hey i was actually wrong here is very big because the mainstream media doubled down tripled down and they're still trying to ignore a lot of important facts in this case they didn't know what happened but they still were able to declare definitely domestic terrorists definitely a mass murderer again we're still finding out all the details of the case here and the picture portrayed here is totally different i saw a really funny tweet you know you know who i love to shout out is Cameron Kasky because, you know, he seemed like somebody who was acting in good faith initially, but he's totally just lost any will, to be honest. He tweeted something really funny. He tweeted,

how come all of something I'm paraphrasing, how come all of these centrists are so much smarter than me? And I thought it was really funny because he's, you know, he's being sarcastic. He's saying they're not, but I realized that's the attitude that many of these establishment Democrat types and leftists have where they don't actually read the news. They don't know what they're talking about, but they're arrogant enough to get online and say these things. And there are tribalist individuals who are willing to retweet it because it makes them feel good inside. But when you come out and say assault rifle, when literally not a single person in Kenosha had an assault rifle, not a single person.

I'm not going to play stupid semantic games. They meant long gun, not assault rifle. But they but saying that is factually and legally wrong. And they don't bother to do a Google search. A Google search. Five seconds to figure out what an assault rifle is. They don't even do that. They get verified.

They get a million followers. And then they tweet, I'm smarter than you. I prefer DuckDuckGo, but that's just a separate topic. Go ahead. Well, I was thinking that a lot of these people's perceptions on this are prejudiced from the actions that Facebook and GoFundMe took very early on. Right. Right. So if Facebook, if Facebook, where grandma shares pictures of her cats, tells me that Rittenhouse is clearly guilty and you get suspended.

I don't know. They remember the details, but they did ban and censor some elements about this. And GoFundMe definitely took down his fundraiser. Well, then it must be true because Facebook is a benign entity where my pictures of my grandkids are getting likes from all of our cousins. Social media took people down for talking about facts of this case. So that's absolutely huge. People were prevented from having a discussion what was going on here. We only got mainstream media dribble and assertions and then everyone else less everyone else left talking about this was scared of being targeted and taken down there's people demonetized there's people who lost their channels there's people who were eviscerated and deleted unpersoned they were discussing the facts here there was a really good tweet from the

libertarian party i think it may have been of new hampshire i'm not sure they uh this account highlighted two tweets one was from a leftist who said that kyle rittenhouse was a white supremacist who was hunting down civil rights protesters which is a lie right and the other tweet said based on the evidence in this trial it's clear that kyle was acting in self-defense the self-defense tweet got suspended and the white supremacist tweet massive retweets oh there's this guy brooklyn dad defiant or whatever he's got something like a million million followers just constantly railing on this constantly telling people lie lie lie lie a million followers verified on twitter look at sean king dude right these people built careers off intentionally

misleading and this is this has been the the mo of the establishment for the past, I mean, maybe for longer than we realize, but you get Russiagate. They accused Trump of doing what they literally did. The Clintons and the Democrats had more ties to Russia and this manipulation and lies than Trump ever did. And they put out fake news and the media helped them. Now you, then you get Sean King and there was that time he falsely accused that cop of abusing that woman or whatever.

There's a video he put out where he claimed Proud Boys had gone out and done something that Proud Boys weren't even involved in. He just lies. He knows it. And many leftists have called him out. He's still got a million plus followers. He gets hired at these companies like The Intercept

and The Daily News or whatever. He gets paid lots of money. Then you get Brooklyn Dad to find it. Turns out he's being paid by political operatives. That was a big expose. I could be wrong about that, but it's my understanding at the very least that he was being a paid political operative. And even leftists criticized him for it. You have a massive propaganda machine pumping out lies, making money.

They're grifters. What do they do? They know they have to accuse us to deflect. So they'll say when we pull up video or we pull up news articles and challenge them and show you what's going on in the trial. The other day, we played the actual video from MSNBC and in the trial to disprove their lies. They'll claim we're the ones who are manipulating people. When Brian Stelter tells people, don't watch the propaganda, come to us. When I think it was Cuomo when he said, you can't legally, you're not legally allowed to read WikiLeaks, only we can. Anyone who tells you not to seek out information is manipulating you.

Because I'll tell you this, watch CNN, see what they say, read the New York Times, see what they say, and then watch Crowder, watch David Pakman, watch the Young Turks. And watch us. Try and get as much as you can because then you'll see through the lies. What do they tell you? Don't listen to the grifters. They're manipulating you. Man, this is one reason why you got to be in good shape, guys, because you need stamina to withstand this constant barrage of lies, manipulation, disinformation.

If you are weak, if you're physically weak, if you're mentally, emotionally, spiritually weak, you're just going to fall victim. You're just going to be led right off the cliff, away from the truth, and into ways that are going to end up harming you in the long run if you follow all the mainstream narratives. Now, I agree with Tim on some points here, especially when it comes to seeing what the larger media landscape

actually looks like. But remember, after watching the mainstream media, remember to squeegee clean your third eye and try to decompress. And, you know, because seriously, there's a lot of like trauma based mind control and a lot of psychological tricks and dirty tricks used by the mainstream media. It's absolutely just when you when you watch it, it's like watching another reality. It's like watching another reality it's like watching another world and and truly you have to be very careful what they say because you have to fact check everything and when usually when you do even in things even with basic things that you think are common you're shocked and surprised by just simply trying to look at the evidence yourself what they're saying

and what the actual truth of the reality is the difference is so stark that it's difficult to accept sometimes. And you think to yourself, nah, that can't be possibly right. And you doubt your own perception. They can't be lying that much. They can't be that bold. And then when you think about what we're just witnessing in real time right now, and then you just think about all of written history. And then it's just like, oh, God.

When we had Steve Hilton on the other day, and when we were showing the video of that guy on MSNBC, I don't know his name, and he was like, Gage Grosskreutz testified that his hands were up when he was shot. And then I play the video where the defense is like, it wasn't until you pointed the gun at Kyle Rittenhouse that he fired on you. And he goes, correct. He didn't believe it. He was like, no. Like, how could they just say that? And I'm like, the video's published after the testimony. The articles, even if the article came out right before that testimony and they rushed it, they haven't corrected it. And he was just like, I can't believe they would outright and overtly lie like that.

And I'm like, I can't. I tried to tell somebody. You remember the Portland shooting where the antifa guys shot the uh that jay for jay danielson aaron danielson aaron danielson and uh nickname jay right and i and there was a guy who filmed it live who was just allegedly strolling along the street and happened to pick up the entire thing on video right so i got in touch with the guy and i interviewed him and i went through it frame by frame by frame and asked him all the questions. And then I asked him why he was going to the protest.

He says, oh, my daughter got me into going to these things. Black Lives Matter. And, you know, I just want to support her. I'm like, oh, you're a family man. Yeah. You believe in family, right? You're a good dad. You like leading your family.

You like having a whole intact family. Yeah. Well, did you know that Black Lives Matter is opposed to the nuclear family that wants to, quote, disrupt the norm around the nuclear family? He's like, nah. I'm like, hold on a second. I pulled it up. I showed it to him. He read it, and his reaction was, oh, that just must be a typo.

What? That just must be a mistake. They did delete it. They took it down. They did delete it because it was so egregious and outrageous. But it is true. It's part of their platform. It's what they believe.

And a guy, I put it right in front of him on the website, everything, and he still could not believe that he was supporting an organization that was against his whole raison d'etre of being a dad and leading a family. It always drives me nuts when people say, I can't believe it when something happens, especially if you watch sports announcers. Oh, he caught the catch. I can't believe it. Like,, especially if you watch sports announcers. Oh, he caught the catch. I can't believe it.

Like, dude, believe it. It happens. Stop telling yourself you can't believe what's right in front of you. I think one of the big problems that we're seeing now, especially with the right, is that they keep saying things like, why would someone want there to be no justice? You know, they're like, the people who are cheering for Kyle Rittenhouse to go to prison are cheering the destruction of our justice system. Why would you want that?

And I'm just like, you'd think after this many years, you'd realize that communists who scream long live the revolution. This guy, Gage Grosskreutz, testified he did hold up his fist. Are you affiliated? No. Did you go to their things? Yes. No, no, no. Did you speak at their events?

He said, are you a member? Are you a member? He said, no. No. But you've spoken at their events? Yes. So you're affiliated? Yes. Did you chant the slogans? Yes. Did you raise your fist and say He said, are you a member? Are you a member? He said, no. No. But you've spoken at their events. Yes. So you're affiliated. Yes.

Did you chant the slogans? Yes. Did you raise your fist and say, long live the revolution? Yes. What people need to understand, and that's what I was trying to say to Steve the other day, when you assume that your political rival holds the same moral framework and worldview as you, you are wrong. You're making assumptions.

When these people say, long live the revolution, and then you wonder why it is they're lying under oath. They do not respect our moral framework. They do not agree with our moral framework. They do not respect the authority of the court, and they believe they have a right by any means necessary to subvert and destroy the system. I was surprised when he actually admitted bicep guy. I don't like using their names i call him the n-word guy and the bicep guy and skateboard guy uh he i was actually surprised that he just straight up was like yeah he didn't point the gun at me until i pointed the gun at him i well he tried denying it at first but he admitted it he had to though that was what was so crazy about the testimony

the defense was like even so i still was surprised but check it out the defense said to him first you pointed your gun at kyle rittenhouse and then he fired upon you and gross courts goes no and then he was like he pulls the video up and he hands him a photo and goes that's a photo what is it of and he's like it's my bicep being vaporized and he's like and your gun is pointed at the defendant he's like yes and that's when he shot you. Yes. So it was only after you advanced on the defendant, pointed your gun at him, that he fired on you. And he goes, yes. When you're showing a picture to the jury, what's the dude going to say? No, he tried that. He tried. This guy has no allegiance to the prosecutor. The prosecutor's already put himself in a position where he can't criminally charge him. So he's like, that's on you. I'm not going

to make myself look worse and incriminate myself. And there you go. Dang. I don't understand, though. That's like what's called perjury. You just lied to the jury under oath. Yep. But this is a matter, the issue is a big difference between like hard perjury and an interpretation.

Of course. So when he's like, you know, it wasn't until you pointed the gun, he's like, no. And then, well, here's the video. Oh, yeah, I guess so. It's very different from them. And this dude lied a lot. It was funny when the prosecutor playing the video with Gage Grosskreutz holding his gun. And he goes, so at this point, you've pulled your gun as you're approaching Kyle Rittenhouse.

And he goes, no. And the prosecutor's like, here's the video we just played with a gun in your hand. And he goes, yes. I'm like, this dude is lying. The worst. But perjury almost never, my understanding is almost never gets prosecuted. And it's typically for like, were you at the bar at 2 a.m.? No, I was in Buffalo, New York.

And then they find a picture of you there. You overtly lied about what you were doing. And then they might try to get you. Did you knowingly spy on the American people? No, no, not with anybody. That's James Clapper, by the way, committing perjury. That's right. And unfortunately, when him and Schiff and all of these cronies went on TV and lied about Russiagate, they weren't under oath.

When they were under oath in congressional testimony, they admitted, I have no evidence. It's not true. It's all bunk. That's one of my favorite things, talking to Cash, him pointing all that stuff out. I'm so glad that he was on the show. What a good dude. All right. Now, listen, we just gave respect to Anna Kasparian because she corrected the record on a mistake she made. And now I'm going to highlight Cenk Uygur. I'm not someone who, you know, I typically don't like talking about the Young Turks or other commentators, but this is actually a really important cultural moment that we're getting not just from Cenk Uygur, but from one of his followers that I think we

absolutely need to address. Cenk Uygur tweeted, so Joe Rogan's show has now become a boring right wing show. No real diversity of opinion. It's just insane conspiracy theories and right-wing lies, like every other Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson-like show. And it's obvious he doesn't want to be challenged on his ideas anymore. The Democrats just lost miserably in a series of elections. In Virginia, notably due to critical race theory, suburban housewives, white suburban women voted for the Republican. Critical race theory plays poorly with, you know, working class individuals and suburbanites. We saw a state senator who spent only $153 win without campaigning against the incumbent

Democrat who refused to concede until today. He's like, OK, I accept that I lost because people just said, I'll take a ham sandwich if there's an R next to it. That's how much people are fed up with the Democrats, with wokeness, with all of this stuff we've been complaining about for a long time. If you look at basically every metric, you'll see that independent voters are leaning closer towards Republicans simply because Republicans are closer to them and Democrats are going further and further left. Pew Research put out a political tribes chart. There is a group called the stressed

sideline, which is the least politically active group, according to their survey, center right position. The individuals who consider themselves to be politically neutral are center right. We would probably fall under what Pew Research refers to as the ambivalent right. They're not. It's a group of people who aren't conservative, but have voted Republican, who are actually fairly progressive on certain issues or economic issues, but are against the Democrats and wokeness and all that stuff. Back to what Cenk Uygur is saying.

And here's why I think this is so important to highlight. Not just because of his comment, but because of one of his followers responses who said, I'm also feeling that way about e-cigar and crystal ball with their breaking points show. I loved it when they impartially went after both sides of MSM, but now it's just one-sided attacks and conspiracy theory theories, no balance anymore. My response was as Democrats begin to lose and moderates are shown to be closer politically to the right because the left has gone so far left, a breakdown among the left ensues. Cenk Uygur's only response is, because he's built up his audience around chasing this

fringe, unpopular ideology, is, it's not me who's wrong. It's everyone else who just voted against us. And his follower says, that's right crystal ball and cigar who are very like crystal balls progressive yeah no no no they're far right now because they're telling the truth yeah they're breaking down yeah it's amazing i mean we've been talking on this show for a long time i've been talking about it that the crt in schools is going to be the biggest red pill delivery service that we've seen and it clearly played out that way you know we've been talking about that red pill delivery for two we've seen and it clearly played out that way you know we've

been talking about that red pill delivery for two years i mean when your daughter comes home from school and wonders if she's a racist because what they're talking about in class you know that's going to get mama bear activated and i also just want to give some big shout outs to some friends of ours cory d'angelis and christopher ruffo boy james lindsey james lindsey of course and you know but all of us here have been hammering all this stuff for a long time and dude they had a huge hand in what happened in Virginia you know and it really shows

and thank goodness because I love Virginia and I want it to be read it really shows that what we need is a it's a big network of people that aren't necessarily on the same campaigns and aren't necessarily getting paid by the same people and aren't necessarily totally aligned. But you need people.

You need the academics to define it. You need the media people to set the stage. You need the campaign managers to follow the lead and follow the polls. And what happened in Virginia was amazing. I was in Orlando at the National Conservatism Conference the night that Youngkin won. And Chris Ruffo was sitting right next to me. And when they announced it, oh, man, it was so exciting because that dude has been busting his ass. But how crazy is it that here we are? You're Democrat to deplorable being like, I want Virginia to be red.

And I'm at the conservatism conference. I know. And it feels perfectly natural. And those people feel perfectly. I mean, I definitely did not agree with everything that I heard at the National Conservative concert. However, but they did feel more like, quote, my people and who would just interpret a random event in a similar fashion than these crazies like Cenk. And dude, like I got in the media game later than you. So I have never seen this Cenk Uygur guy be reasonable or say anything smart or whatever.

He's just been this buffoon. Just screaming and yelling like some sort of idiot. 2007, he was pretty hard on George Bush in the Iraq War. He was a shining beacon speaking out against it. It was very nice. He was criticizing a lot of very powerful forces, many multinational corporations. He got a contract on MSNBC.

MSNBC tried to stifle him and shut him up, and he said no. He made it a huge issue. He actually stood up and gained a lot of respect from a lot of people and then ever since then I think he's just been going downhill and drinking some very strange, oddly smelling Kool-Aid and has gone off the deep end.

Money and views start warping your mind too, man. They do. This is what happened to all of these establishment forces um the young turks they were big they were leftist you have cnn who was supposedly the corporate their corporate media for sure but they were never hard left the way they became what happened was especially for the young turks is that you go on twitter and you look at your mentions and you get 30 replies and you're scrolling down and they're all saying you are wrong about X. People are easily manipulated

by this, assuming that 30 angry people represent their entire base. So what happens is eventually the Young Turks and other digital outlets start saying, wow, my followers think this is right or think this is wrong. I don't want to lose followers. So they started adhering to a fringe minority. We've seen the polling data between 8% and 10% of the country. If you want to abandon 90% of the country for 8% because there's a market share for you, good luck. What's happened now is the Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC, have you seen this?

They're losing all their talent. Rachel Maddow's canceling her daily show she's gonna do a weekly show and Brian Williams announced he's leaving because their ratings are in the trash they have almost no key demo but they're in the trash because of the her no no well here's what happens if you lie for years Russiagate they dedicated themselves to being wrong people are not the stupid clowns they treat them out to be. There are some stupid clowns, but average people are average and average people can see through lies. They understand that the square peg goes through the square hole.

So when they come out and they say, Trump colluded with Russia, we know it for a fact. Clapper goes on her show and says, we've all seen the evidence. And then three years later, the report comes out. Trump didn't. Those people go, the hell was I just watching? And then what happened? Their ratings collapse. Rachel Maddow was nearly in tears, but she can't give it up. Why? She lost moderates who are looking for real news. She retained the cult members. The young Turks have done the same thing. Now, Cenk Uygur's only option is to say Joe Rogan, who is moderate left leaning and the most popular podcaster and probably the second most popular comedian is far a right wing boring show. Cenk, Joe Rogan is like your average dude talking about like crazy things all the time. He's not a Tucker. He's not Tucker Carlson. He's

not a right wing pundit. When I look at Joe Rogan, I'm like, that should be your barometer for regular people. Right. The pulse of the nation. Look, and you look at his shows when he goes and performs people in New York show up for him. These are people in Democrat strongholds with vaccines accepting the mandate. Absolutely. Yeah. And and so I, you look at Joe Rogan and he is very likely representing regular Americans, but the Democrats have polled. You look at this, the Pew data that got released that went viral when it shows the Democrat shift versus the Republican shift. Do you remember this?

Yeah. The Democrat center has not become far left and the Republicans have moved like one point to the right. Right. So Republicans are closer to where they've always been. What happens to a moderate or someone like a Joe Rogan? They look to their left and every day they lie, they cheat, they steal, and they get further left and they look to their right and there's a Republican saying the same thing

they always did. And they're like, the Republican says the 4th of July barbecue and Christmas are great. I like those things too. They look to their left and they're like, you're white, you're racist. Christmas is racist. Shut up. And they go, okay, that's nuts. Right. Exactly. You know, this is why if you're in journalism, if you're in media, it's really important just to be dedicated to the truth, right? Because then you just ask questions and then you can be wrong because you were never like, I, this is what I believe. You just, you're just asking questions. I'm just a guy with a microphone. I'm just pulling on a thread. I mean, that's my whole shtick. I don't know really the answers

to anything. I'm just asking questions, trying to figure it out and go where the answers take you. But that takes being able to withstand your audience being mad at you, right? And because if you just respond to your audience being mad at you like uh you know i catch a lot of crap for being anti-trump i catch a lot of crap for a lot of things but it's it's those moments where you need to have some fortitude because that's when you're staying true to just the pursuit of truth and that's why guys like mike's gets so much crap from people because he's just trying he's just pursuing the truth his version of the truth whatever he's just asking questions and he's trying to come to his own understanding.

It's when Maddow, dude. I said on November 7th, Donald Trump lost. Get over it. You need to move on. And all the hardcore Trump supporters were like, you know, screw Tim Pool. They were mad at me. Yeah. But still, the left claims I pushed the narrative of election fraud, which I never did.

In fact, Steve Bannon came on this show and I argued with him about it, saying I think you guys are focused on the wrong thing. You've got to focus on Democrats' ground game and how they did voting in the park and how they did universal mail-in voting because that is the edge that got them the win. The left will still lie about me. So here's

one of the challenges. Here's an example of the Rittenhouse case. One of the challenges with believing in America, the judge, his ringtone was proud to be an American. Yes. What does that mean? It means he'll be biased for the left. I was going to say it's not good. It means he's biased for the left.

For the left. For the left. Why do you say that? Because he truly believes in the justice system. He's going to allow prosecutorial misconduct because he wants there to be a jury trial because the jury trial is the American thing to do. So as the left, the prosecutor lies, cheats and steals, he'll say it is the American value to give an equal opportunity to everyone. You have people who raise their fist and say, long live the revolution.

Their explicit goal is to destroy this nation. And you are welcoming them to the fray and giving them an opportunity. I thought about this and this is what you'll get. A leftist revolutionary sect and democratic establishment authoritarians who will cheat and use your good faith to continue doing it. Definitely. So my thought was kind of we should only extend the values of our justice system to those who uphold it equally for us as well. If we believe in the Bill of Rights and the Fifth Amendment, Second Amendment, why would we give people an opportunity to take those rights from us? What I mean to say is, if we believe in the right to remain silent in a fair trial, and someone walks in and says, I will not give you

that same benefit, but I demanded of you, we should respond with no. Either we all agree these are the rules, or we won't apply them to you if you don't want them. Simplified even further, if you don't believe in free speech, why would I defend your right to free speech? You don't believe in it. I'll give you the respect you've asked for. That's a tough one, man.

The issue is- I mean, I hear what you're saying. I hear what you're saying. But like the right to, yeah, that's tough. But those are the most egregious circumstances that free speech has to be supported yeah it's even for people that don't believe in it right even for people that are acting insane for people that are doing the dumbest craziest things that you could possibly think of yeah then that's why guys like mark randazza are amazing because

they go out there and defend those kind of people i agree but there's a line yeah so i i there are a few been a few pundits who have pointed out that one of the problems with conservatives and the more libertarian minded people on free speech is that they're unwilling to accept any limitations on speech in pursuit of free speech, which is the wrong thing to do. Well, we need to recognize that there are certain limits culturally that we're not willing to accept and then call out the left for violating these same limits and not respecting the free speech that they demand. To put it simply, there's that paradox of intolerance where they say, if you tolerate intolerance, then the intolerant win. And that's not necessarily untrue.

We all need to agree on the rules and then operate within those rules. If someone seeks to destroy our rights and attack our way of life, we should not, you know, give them, you know, equal opportunity. We should not open the door for them, to put it simply. Wrap this all up. My point is, the judge in the Rittenhouse case knows they're breaking the rules, has yelled at the prosecutors, but it's still, as someone who believes in America and is proud, will uphold these systems which benefit those who lie, cheat, and steal and are seeking to destroy the very system that is protecting them. It is a paradox.

It just means that we can't be absolute in our defense of egregious actors. We certainly will protect their free speech and act in good faith. But when it becomes apparent that they're trying to destroy the system, we say, okay, we can't tolerate your attempt to destroy free speech. So that logic, do the 9-11 suicide bombers, do they deserve a free, like a fair trial? Absolutely. So I think what I mean to say is, and I think, you know, Ian helped my understanding of this. He had some good questions about the ethics of vaccine lockdown of mandates and lockdowns when you brought up ebola and what people's rights are there's a point where if there was an airborne ebola everyone in this room would be like lock it all down right like an 80 mortality of people

coughing and their insides are liquefying and you're watching it happen we'd all be like lock it we'd be freaking out yeah but to varying degrees. So then I started to think that for the most part, it's really about how much risk you're, how much you're willing to tolerate in terms of sacrificing freedoms. Because everybody's willing to give up something if it, if something is, you know, give us some of their freedoms, if it's egregious enough. I think for the most part, we just happen to be people who watch the show and us substantially more libertarian than they are. So they're more likely to take away people's rights. We won't tolerate that. But a really good point that was made that I think will help people understand this is that someone said to Tucker Carlson,

you would not allow someone to come on your show and make racist comments. And Tucker said, you are correct. He's like, right, We agree. There are limits on acceptable speech. It's a good point. The legal limits should not be banning hate speech, but the culturally acceptable limits exist. In which case we need to enforce culturally our ideals and tell people who would say revolution, nothing less by any means, any means necessary that we will not accept that, that culture. Since we're opening this can of worms, let's talk about this for just one quick second. I know a guy and he's separated from his wife and his kids are in Israel. And his daughter's bat mitzvah is coming up. And it looks like that the judge is going to actually order the kids to stay in Israel. And in Israel, you can't enter the country unless you have a vaccine.

So what does that guy do? The choice is, and he's just mega opposed to the vaccine. His grandparents were, you know, captured by the Nazis. Like he has a history with this forced medical procedures, et cetera. He was faced with get the vaccine and see his kids or don't get the vaccine and maybe never see his kids again. That is a extremely difficult situation to be put in if you believe very, if you're very adamantly opposed to the vaccines and the mandates. And I don't think any of us would argue here that this guy should never see his kids again. Right? So what that clearly lays out for us

is that there is it is a personal decision about this and it's a spectrum and so i don't fault the guy for getting the vaccine to go see his kids it broke his heart like it tore him up because he didn't want to do it because he was opposed to it and he hated it but they put him in a situation where it was like see the kids kids or don't get the vaccine. Can't see the kids. But that's how they win. And this is the big challenge. The logic of it is simple.

Go for someone's children, and you will have a slave. They win. Yeah. As long as people – But there's no escaping it. There's that guy. There's multiple options. There's multiple ways of trying to go through the system with the system not looking.

I'm not advocating for any illegal activities, but if there's a will, there's a way. Compliance isn't the easiest way. It's going to be the easiest way for the moment, but in the long term, it's going to be the most difficult way for everyone else, including that person who compromised his morals to comply with the state. So there's many different ways around the different issue. Compromise one element of his morals to honor the rest of his morals. I don't, again, I don't agree with that kind of argument. There's many different avenues that people could walk down that doesn't include compliance

that could still allow him to see his children in many different ways, in many different avenues. And I think you should explore all of those options until there's not an option possible. Flying to, what, like fake vaccine cards and things like this? Again, I'm not here to advocate any of that. I think advocating that is even a felony under the FBI. I mean, there's human rights legal proceedings. He could get a lawyer.

He could file lawsuits. He could say, I will not, you know, the government can't mandate a medical procedure and take my kids from me. Meet in another country. Have a mediator come in and say, hey, okay, let's go meet in Egypt or let's go meet in Turkey. Let's go meet somewhere nearby and establish that we're going to be doing this in some sort of way that doesn't infringe on my values and morals.

That assumes that he has a cooperative ex-wife. Okay, but there's a will, there's a way. But hold on. You bring up an ex-wife. Now we're talking about two civil parties and a government entity. So it's much different from an individual versus a government when there's a civil case

between two individuals. Sure. My point is that there's a spectrum and it's hard and there's a decision to be made at some point. And the fact that the decision exists is a symptom of the problem, not a contributor to the problem. It's actually – there is something more simple. If everyone said no, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that people bend the knee and that's it.

As soon as people comply – If you're the 1% left resisting, you've got no one with you. And that's why I've always been the kind of person that says I would rather live in a van down by the river than compromise and, you know. The only way this is ever going to end is if people stop complying.

You cannot comply your way out of tyranny. I said this a couple weeks ago. It's impossible. It's impossible because they're going to keep pushing it. They're going to keep asking for more and more. The NBA has mandated boosters. The NBA has told all players, coaches, and referees that you have to have a booster shot if you got the Johnson & Johnson after two months and the Pfizer and Moderna after six months. Obviously, this was coming. We knew this was going to happen. And now the CDC has already said weeks ago, they may change the definition of fully vaccinated. Of course they're going to.

So it's only going to get worse. And you look at the inflation, you look at the food shortages, you look at the price of a turkey this year. It's insane. Doubled, doubled, doubled. They're calling it meatflation that's happening right now. And that just bacons up 20%. So the people who said, I got, I got to prioritize feeding my kid, congratulations. By complying, you have taken the food out of their mouths. Short-term gains for long-term sacrifices. Sacrificing the future of your children because it's easier now. Look, you take a look at the long, hard road, and way off in the distance, you see paradise.

And you take a look at the short trip over the bridge and the bridge collapse and you end up getting washed away sometimes you people got to realize that life is not easy life is not fair it takes hard work and you have to you have to face the challenges head-on because when you take the easy route you make everything worse not always but often predominantly especially it's never easy It's never an easy. It's whenever you do something cheap. I think that's the way of describing this. It's going to come back and haunt you. And when more and more people comply, I mean, people complied in Israel.

They just said, we'll do anything. We'll go along with the vaccine passports. We'll get vaccinated. Everything will be fine. The government said, well, well, well, no, now you need a booster shot. Now we need a third shot. Now they're even talking about a fourth shot. So with him complying and saying, yes, I'll go by your rules.

I'll go by the fourth shot. Fourth shot's already official for immunocompromised. But not mandated a part of the official passport system, which they will be implementing very soon. And then the fifth shot. And then we're talking about, what, hepatitis shots? University of Denver has already mandated flu shots. Yeah.

Compliance tests. My favorite was the Yahoo News story said NBA recommends boosters for all referees and everything. And then later on it said if you don't do it, you'll be subject to all the same restrictions, blah, blah, blah. So it's a mandate. There was a really cool guy from the NBA at the National Conservatism Conference, as a matter of fact, Isaac Judah, Orlando Magic, sixth pick overall. This is like big-time player, right? And he came and sat on stage with Dave Rubin. Whoa.

Yeah, dude. NBA, 6'11". Look, look, look. Isaac Judah. Oh, yeah, yeah. Seeing people like Kyrie Irving, Aaron Rodgers, people who are willing to speak out and stand up for what they believe in, this is fantastic. Now, Aaron Rodgers apparently lied about his immunization or whatever. And he should have spoken up and just been true and honest from the get-go.

But I think when we start seeing celebrities and athletes speak out in defense of individual liberties, individual rights, that's a good thing. That's an amazing thing. And we need to encourage more of it. It was amazing to see him at the conference. And I'll admit, I thought that the crowd was just a little too excited. The fact that there was like an African-American guy there. Wait, wait, wait. But that's every conservative conference these days.

They're like, there's a black guy and he agrees with us on some things. Yes, we're not racist. I mean, that's, you know, that's the vibe, right? I've not been in a conference like that. That guy was super well-spoken, very intelligent, and made his case very articulately about his natural immunity, et cetera.

Well, the media attacked him viciously because he wasn't going along. And he did a whole press conference where he addressed this entire matter and brought up points very eloquently and was talking about all the scientific issues that actually mattered. Everyone was like, I wish this guy was Dr. Fauci because he explained scientific terms in such an easy, simple way that made a lot of people understand his position and they stopped attacking him because of the way that he he approached this situation without getting angry without attacking without yelling without freaking out and just said okay here let me just explain myself calmly rationally and because of that they stopped attacking him he's still playing um something something yeah we've brought up a lot there are

a lot of celebrities that watch his show they message me definitely there's a lot of famous athletes actors musicians and unfortunately they always say the same thing i won't speak up watch his show. They message me. There's a lot of famous athletes, actors, musicians. And unfortunately, they always say the same thing. I won't speak up. Right, exactly. And I'm like, dude, you're who needs to speak up. You got two million followers. Make a post. Look at Demi Lovato.

She became an ambassador for Gaia. And now they're attacking her, saying she's like, it's a conspiracy website. And it's like, it's a yoga and like holistic health like forum or something. They're just anyone that tries to deviate from the control of the corporate establishment is smeared. Anybody. Here's a question for you. I don't know the answer.

Did George Washington pay the stamp tax? I don't know. No idea. If the answer is yes, then all this stuff. We can just throw this whole argument in the trash. Because he complied? Because he complied. Because he waited until the right moment to make his

move. Anybody out there? Did George Washington pay the stamp tax? Did Sam Adams pay the tea tax? Did they pay the tax on the tea before the tea party? Let's get this answer because that could put this question to bed. Yeah, but Jack, you're not making any moves. What do what do you mean well the argument is like you just got to comply comply and then and then go against 1965 or 1765 right give me nine years let's see nine years

or 11 actually you know the big differences though is that communicating took months so if you took 11 years well if you were a It took 11 years. Well, if you were a rep in Virginia, communicating with New York about revolutionary ideas- Sure, it took a couple weeks to send a letter, sure. But so the actual conversation could be months unless you came down for a special meeting in Philadelphia or something. I would love to know if any of our founding fathers,

Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, if any of those guys paid the stamp tax at any point in their life, because if they did, let's talk about it. Why don't we just Google it? I just tried. It didn't come up. Jack, you're just trying to justify compliance.

I haven't taken the vaccine. My kids haven't taken the vaccine. I don't know why everybody's giving me an effing hard time about having a conversation for people in America that are struggling with this issue. Well, I am not vaccinated. Everybody. Well, Jack, I appreciate the conversation. I think it's an important one.

I'm happy we were able to have one. That's why I wasn't here last week, two weeks ago, when I got the call that Cass Castle was under attack by the coronavirus. I was like, I'm not going because I don't have the vaccine. Well, to be fair, we didn't know for sure at the time. I know, but Lydia was like, everybody's sick, dude. Sorry. And here's one of the problems

with the testing mandate is we had four tests be negative. And so we were like, tests cleared us, we're good. It's probably a cold. And then it turns out, you know. Yeah. So, you know,

a cursory glance at the Stamp Act just mentions that the colonists viewed it as a violation of their rights. They protested it. But as to whether or not they were paying it. Good question. So you're saying that

with the Boston Tea Party, they should have, you know, complied and not done anything. What I'm saying is that there's a matrix to make decisions as to whether this action is going to have the desired outcome or if it's only going to be

deleterious to yourself or harmful to yourself there's a lot to consider and not everybody even the most venerated people in our history the people you call patriots the people that founded this country i bet you they didn't resist every single moment of tyranny before they finally had had enough and and actually like the things that they revolted over in some cases pale in comparison to things that we're dealing with now. But the point is, is I think that there is a matrix by which you can make these decisions that's probably different for each person. And it's just an interesting historical question.

I have an answer for you. What? Benjamin Franklin actually suggested the appointment of John Hughes as the agent for Pennsylvania to implement the stamp, to be a stamp distributor, not aware of the turmoil that the tax would create between American-British relations. To simplify, when the act was implemented, people had to

actually engage with it before they understood it was bad and then rejected it. So it seems like what happened was the government said, we're implementing this. A bunch of political leaders were like, okay. And then they started talking about it. And then over time, because communication was slower back then, people started protesting in the streets. For like five years, there were protests over this.

So once people were impacted by it, understood the ramifications, they started rejecting it. But did they pay the stamp tax in the meantime while they were protesting it? I think the fair – during the protests, probably not. Probably probably what happened was and again it's a speculation i know totally we should get a historian on here but what i can say is initially they did pay it and what likely happened is they gradually began not paying it as the protests expanded right so as opposition grew people said i won't comply but that is to say that means people who want the vaccines and believe in the mandates of course will comply yeah but that also means means people who want the vaccines and believe in the mandates, of course, will comply. But that also means that people who protest and oppose it would not comply.

Yeah. Interesting historical question. I'd love to dig deeper on that. You and I want to dig deeper on it. I want to talk about Alec Baldwin. There we go. Let's do it. We love subtle transitions.

So, I mean, look, we're talking about trials. We're talking about Rittenhouse. We're talking about, there's a bunch of trials, actually. The Omrod Arbery case is going on. We have more information on the Alec Baldwin case. A Rust crew member, this is the movie, Rust is the name of the film, where Alec Baldwin shot and killed that woman. He is suing Alec Baldwin and the set armorer for severe emotional distress over shooting. The independent is reporting fatal scene did not require Baldwin to pull trigger lawsuit claims. It's a claim of a lawsuit of somebody who's trying to make money.

So I don't know that it's true. A lot of people are saying, why would an electrician have, you know, key details in that regard? The independent reports. A rust crew member who held the dying Helena Hutchins in his arms has sued Alec Baldwin, armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and assistant director Dave Halls for severe emotional distress over the shooting. Head electrician Sergei Svetnoy alleges in the lawsuit that the scene in which Miss Hutchins was killed did not call for Mr. Baldwin to fire the weapon, which she had been told was cold.

Mr. Baldwin is sued in both his capacity as an actor and a producer of the Western movie, which has been shut down as investigations into the death continues. Mr. Savetnoi claims in the court papers that the bullet that killed Mrs. Hutchins also struck director Joel Sosa, almost hit him as well, according to TMZ. He states that he is suing Mr. Baldwin because the star owed a duty to the plaintiff and other crew members and actors on the rust set to handle the Colt revolver provided to him by defendant halls with reasonable care and diligence for the safety of the rust cast and crew. They're going to say, quote, this duty called for defendant Baldwin to double check the Colt revolver with halls upon being handled to ensure did not contain live ammunition court papers

state. The lawsuit also claims the fatal scene did not require Baldwin to pull the gun's trigger with the script instructing him to draw the weapon and point it in the general direction of the camera. But quote, the scene did not call for the defendant Baldwin to shoot the Colt revolver. My understanding is that the Colt revolver, especially a piece from this era, would be single action, not double action. Someone commented on this yesterday, which means, and actually I have a single action, you have to actually pull the hammer back before it can be fired. The question then emerges, if we're assuming

this lawsuit is correct, the electrician's claims as a witness and someone involved in the crew is right, maybe he's disgruntled. Maybe he was a disgruntled crew member. Maybe he's lying. I don't know. The first question we have to ask is, why did Alec Baldwin pull the hammer back on the gun, point it at an individual? Why weren't there safety protocols in place? Why did he pull the trigger? I think, as I stated yesterday, we didn't do a full segment on this, which is why I wanted, you know, this story came out four ago, and I thought it was important to bring up. We've been giving him the benefit of the doubt the whole time for no reason. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm saying the media has protected Alec Baldwin and framed this whole story so that from the get-go we assumed it was an accident.

They first said it was a blank. They said it was a misfire, which is the wrong terminology. They said shrapnel hit the cinemat, the cinematographer, killing her. We know all of that's not true now. And this is witness testimony. Granted, this guy's suing, but it's still someone who was on the crew who's making a statement and saying this is what happened and what was supposed to happen. In which case, the facts we have to start.

Alec Baldwin drew a gun, pulled the hammer back pointed it at the cinematographer at the camera with the cinematographer standing there fired the gun with a live bullet in it in order to assume that was an accident we'd have to make a ton of assumptions he was mad he had motive sounds like it right so no that's those are also more assumptions however in the absence of evidence the the solution that makes the least amount of least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one not that we know definitively not that we can say for sure but i'm just pointing out it is logically absurd to begin the the uh the story as if we believe it was a mistake well what's very clear is that ale Alec Baldwin has a very skilled team of PR people

that has been rolling this out bit by bit, manipulating the narrative, seeding things in our mind, much the way a, you know, interrogator will get you to say yes and lead you places, plant things out there. Very concerted effort,

which, you know, even if it were an accident, they would do the same thing. It's brilliant. If it was a total accident, he would definitely hire a crisis management team. They would definitely be doing everything that they're doing. But the way that things are coming

out bit by bit by bit now, and when you really put it like that, he pulls back, pulls back the action, points it at the guy, pulls, shoots. And doesn't he have a history of going off on people? Yeah. Remember he just attacked a guy in New York

over a parking space? The armor, I think she was claiming that she was afraid, that people were afraid of Alec on set, basically. Like if they were like, hey, it's too dangerous,

you can't do that, that Alec would flip his lid and fire the person on the spot. Didn't he leave some nasty voicemail for his own daughter or something? Calling her the worst names in the world and being an absolute just monster.

Yeah, he's trash, dude. Do you remember, did you see the video of him and his wife? He is trash, which kills me. They got out of the car. They were getting chased by like paparazzi. They got out of the car to talk to him. It was like last week. There's a video of it.

And he's like, she was my friend. And then he realized like, I didn't say it with enough emotion. I got to repeat myself. She was my friend. Like, he's such an actor. Yeah, most actors go crazy. We got this from your site today. Alec Baldwin sues man who accused actor of punching him over a parking spot in New York.

He sues the guy. So everyone thought that Tim was crazy when Tim came up with this idea that it's possible this wasn't an accident, right? But it's not even me coming up with an idea. It's me saying, why are you making assumptions this was an accident i know we all know that alec baldwin is a huge jerk and he always has been so there's no reason to assume that this was an accident there's no reason to assume that there's right what what grace has he built up what benefit of the doubt has he built up he? He is the equivalent of the N-word guy at the gas station at this point. Dude, from the beginning,

everyone was like, we have to be nice to Alec Baldwin. This must be very hard for him. I was like, do you think for one single second that if this were to happen to someone, for example, like James Woods, that he would be compassionate and graceful? He would be on Twitter before the body was cold, complaining about

gun laws. He would be talking about this. He went trick-or-treating afterwards and was taking selfies and photos dressed up in a cop's costume. I pulled up the video of the parking lot incident, and it shows Alec. He shoves the guy in the shoulder. So he says it disproves the claim that he punched him. This is going back to 2018.

I think it's still an important point to make that Alec Baldwin is a hothead. Like Ian was pointing out, people were scared of him on the set. People had complained about what was going on. And I think we could even ignore all of that and just take some basic facts. A woman died.

How did she die? She was shot. We're going to walk backwards. She was shot. How did she get shot? An individual fired a gun at her. The individual was armed with what I believe was a single action revolver, likely 45 caliber because it's a Western. He pointed the gun at her, pulled the hammer back, pulled the trigger. Okay. Why did he do it? Well, according to one witness, the scene did not call for him

to actually pull the hammer back and pull the trigger, but he did anyway. So then why would he have pulled the trigger? Well, then we start getting into the crew disputes, the hotheadedness of the character. I don't understand why it's logical in any capacity to say he accidentally pulled a live firearm with a bullet, pulled the hammer back and shot a woman and be like, but let's figure out how many, how we can justify it as an accident. No, you made a good point about crisis management. This dude's very wealthy, very likely his PR firm immediately, as soon as it happened, started saying, we need stories saying this. They probably seeded false information. It was a misfire as a blank.

Why? To create the narrative of an accident first. And we walked into that. The first thing we said was it was an accident. Then we learned it was a live bulletin. We said, wow, how did that happen? That's a crazy accident. And then I stopped and thought to myself, so I have to assume a woman, an armorer who's trained with firearms, accidentally loaded a live round, gave it to an assistant director who didn't check it, but claimed it was round, gave it to an assistant director who didn't check it, but claimed it was cold, gave it to Alec Baldwin, who wasn't supposed to pull the trigger, who then pulls the trigger,

and all of that is true for me to continue the accident narrative. Okay. Dude, I don't like Alec Baldwin, even though he's just a tremendous actor, which just bothers me. Him and Glenn Clary, Glenn Ross, is like one of the most powerful scenes in film. It's a good movie. So good.

But the alternative, I'm just playing devil's advocate. All you a-holes out there that are going to say that I'm Alec Baldwin. They love you in the comment section, by the way. No, they hate me in the comment section. And there's bots in there running on me. Quit reading the comments. I love the comments. I love you guys.

You guys are incredible. The alternative is what? Alec Baldwin. He came up with a way to murder this woman. No, no, no. That's too many assumptions. It's simple. Hot-headed Alec Baldwin shot a woman. That's it. So I think someone put the bullet in the gun.

Sabotage the set. It's just an assumption, but it's like if I have to make one, it's going to be that way. They've made that accusation it's like if i have to make one it's going to be that way they've they've made that i don't have to make one crew members have argued as intentional sabotage in alec baldwin's part however if i'm going to make the least amount of assumptions it's alec baldwin shot and killed the woman well for sure that's truth that's not even an assumption right that's a motive back the hammer pointed the the trigger. Motive is this is a guy who's known to be a hothead, who screamed at his own daughter, who shoved a guy over a parking space. I'm not trying to argue that he's a rage filled monster, but that he has a temper.

So if we're going to look at how this woman died, do I assume the armorer who's trained in firearms accidentally loaded a live bullet then gave it to a second person who claimed to have checked it but didn't who gave it to alec baldwin who is trained for decades with firearms who didn't check it or do i say there was a producer dispute with the crew over the conditions on the set and then the guy who's running one of the producers shoots a woman. Why would we? There's a lot of things that are very difficult to believe in each of these scenarios. They're all incredible. Like, wow.

How are any of these possible? They're doing live target practice on the set. They're probably getting hammered the night before, coming in all wasted. The girl doesn't even know what she's doing, the armor. But why would you assume that? She said she's 24. She was like, I'm not comfortable in this job. She was doing two jobs at once on the armor. But why would you assume that? She said she's 24. She was like, I'm not comfortable in this job. She was doing two jobs at once on the set. But it's like you can't say it to Alec because he'll fire you on the spot.

I think it's crazy to assume that the one person who was not treating the gun properly was the one person whose job it is to treat the gun properly. You know what I mean? Right. The armorer is the expert on set. Why would I assume she made the mistake and resulted in a person dying instead of Alec Baldwin who pulled the trigger? So you think that she handed over a gun that had a blank in it and Alec Baldwin inserted a live round in between receiving the handgun and discharging it? If we're going to start with all of the facts laid in front of us, it is, in my opinion, slightly more probable that Alec Baldwin loaded the gun in the shot.

No, than some pre-gruntal crew member that walked off? So the crew member... Is there a chain of possession? The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez... Do they have to sign for it and stuff? I don't know. Yeah, I wonder. I imagine, right?

So I'm not saying it's likely. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying why would I assume the armorer made a mistake, the assistant director failed to check it, and then Alec Baldwin for no reason pulled the trigger at a woman. And then add to it very clearly a skilled PR team is seeding stories, manipulating the media, getting out there. We don't know that for sure. It's a big assumption. I think it's likely and fair to say. My point is, I don't know.

It's so objective. It's annoying sometimes. I don't know what happened. I'm just saying that looking at it like a mathematical equation, you have this massive tree of an algorithm, like a flow chart of all of the things that had to happen for this insane accident to occur. And then over here, you have angry crew, Alec Baldwin hothead, shot a woman. It's three steps.

It's a guy said, I'm angry with the crew, and then shot a woman. Versus accident, accident, accident, sabotage, conspiracy, angry crew. Right. And we're falling into the trap of trying to apply rational thinking to irrational people doing irrational things. And hotheaded people who have a temper who act out sometimes. And we still don't know. I think we have to wait until the police investigation comes out if they're going to even investigate it properly. If a lot of the investigation wasn't compromised by a lot of his money.

The DA said that they know who put the bullet in the gun. Oh, wow. So maybe you look. Yeah, we'll see. I'm just saying I feel like a crisis management team likely was involved in seeding stories that were clearly false to create the accident narrative first and then prejudice individuals who read on. But now you have a guy who has, in a sworn statement, a deposition lawsuit, in a lawsuit saying, the scene did not call for him to fire the gun. That is big.

That is big. That's huge. As soon as I saw that, I was like, this changes a lot. And there's a little bit of motive. Yeah. Right? There was disputes. There was contested and such.

People were quitting. They were walking off set. Yeah. So imagine you've got hothead Alec Baldwin trying to run a movie where he's a hothead. People like, you know, Ian mentioned people were scared. They would get fired. Hannah Gutierrez, I guess, had said that. Is that what you were saying?

That's what I interpolated from the article I was reading. But remember, too. Remember, we were talking about this before the show. It is known in the actor community that even a blank can kill somebody. Yeah. That was the cat. Oh, it was the cat. I guess so. He made it up the stairs.

Don't let him in. My nose is always itching when I'm in here. It's known in the actor community, and Alec was an actor then, a young actor put a blank to his head and killed himself by accident thinking it was a blank and that it wasn't going to kill him. So it's known in Hollywood that blanks can be lethal.

That's John Eric Hexum. Hexum. And again, Alec Baldwin has decades of action movie experience. There was already a witness who testified that they worked with Alec Baldwin, and he knows not only standard gun protocol safety but on set gun safety and he violated so Alec Baldwin for this accident to have occurred slipped his mind standard gun safety

slipped his mind standard protocol pulled the trigger on a gun in a scene that didn't call for it was handed a gun by a guy who claims to have checked it but didn't by a woman who accidentally put a live bullet in it and didn't check that's insane to assume

they were apparently doing live target practice on downtime on set. And then they're like, no, no. People are denying that they were doing it at all. But they're like, dude, there's live ammo all over the set. They were going out and shooting at cans between takes. Yeesh. I don't know. We'll see.

I have a feeling nothing bad is going to happen to all of the chain. The shooter has got to get charged. The production team has got to get charged. The armor and the assistant director all need to be charged in this. I was reading legal analysis over basic questions, and it seems like,

based on the facts we have that have been released, whatever the claims are, involuntary manslaughter is set. The fact that it is standard safety protocol not to point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger, the fact that he didn't check

when he had the opportunity to do so means someone died at his hand. It was an accident, but he's responsible. Involuntary manslaughter. I'm waiting for all the articles to come out to say Alec Baldwin is a white supremacist who's obviously leaning on his white privilege for having killed this person. A woman. Who was probably a person. She was a woman, so she was definitely a person of color.

Well, no, she was Ukrainian. She was. Absolutely. As we know, the Coalition for Communities of Color have said Sl was definitely a person of color. Well, no, she was Ukrainian. She was. Absolutely. As we know, the Coalition for Communities of Color have said Slavic people are people of color. Indeed. That's right. So Alec Baldwin killed a colored person. Yeah, there you go.

Person of color. Sorry. Oh, you can't say colored person. That's right. You can't say that anymore. No, no, no. My bad. It is person of color.

Sorry. All right, all right. Let's do Super Chats. If you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and go to TimCast.com. Become a member. We're in a members-only segment coming up later tonight. But let's read what y'all have to say in the Super Chats.

Kevin Robson says, Don't get brazen with me! That's right. Someone took the meme, you know the 4chan meme where it's like, if only you knew how bad things really are? They took that and changed bad to brazen and put it over the judge and it said, if only you knew how brazen things really are. I took that and changed bad to brazen and put it over the judge and it said, if only you knew how brazen things really are.

I thought that was really good. Yeah. A lot of people are making snarky comments about what happened in Kenosha, which I can't read. Tucker Carlson had a really snarky one that's going viral right now. What is it?

You can't read it? I don't know. It's spicy. Read it after. It hits hard. It's so good hard it's amazing all right well maybe maybe in the bonus after in the after show oh my gosh all right mick g says hey tim can you give more insight on the fact checker non-profit what's needed for the position i deal with language and social media will you have a meet and greet in austin i'm just down the road uh we didn't really plan to do an

event in austin but our plan is once a month, we're going to have the mobile studio in different cities for different events. And then Friday night, we'll do a live venue performance or show. So basically, we'll set up a studio on a stage somewhere and then do TimCast IRL Friday night with a live audience. Nice. Yeah, it's going to be fun. So that's the goal. We're not doing it for Austin. But as for the nonprofit, one of the big challenges with forming a nonprofit is that we did it at the end of the year, which means that we're still awaiting approval from the IRS for tax exempt status. The entities exist. We have the Truth in Media Foundation and we have the On Foundation,

which is technology. I've talked to some potential donors who want to help fund the nonprofits and their mission, but they're like, if I donate now, it's not tax deductible until next month. So we basically have to wait about a month and a half. January 1st, we can then take donations, start hiring and things like that. So that's probably when things will kick off. As for the job, it is required that you know how to do research. And we're probably going to have, I think, three people start at the nonprofit. The goal is to issue ratings on news organizations and also issue general fact checks. So we'll have a consistent, like, here's fact checks. We're going to apply through

pointer for Facebook status and all that stuff like normal. And we're going to fact check anybody. We'll fact check Snopes. Yes. What we're going to do is something unique that people don't do. It's called frame checking. Did this organization omit key context in their fact check or their news assessment? CNN, for instance, in their story about Kyle Rittenhouse, would get a strike saying falsely framed. In the full testimony, here's what was said. CNN has created a false frame, yada, yada, yada. What are you going to do when the nonprofit you start to turn on you, like the Intercept did on Glenn?

Don't manifest that. It's only going to be like three employees, though. And it's simple. I'll fire them. The thing about the Intercept was that Glenn got investment and didn't have full control over the company. So when they went off the rails, he was like, I guess I have no choice but to quit.

For this, it's going to be like three people. And if someone starts violating journalistic ethics, we'll just be like, you aren't violating journalistic ethics. You're fired. Gotcha. Yeah. So we'll see. You know, we'll see how things go.

Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, happy Marine Corps birthday to all my fellow brother and sister devil dogs out there. May we all find the clearing at the end of the path. Semper Fi. Right on. Oh, this is good. Bandana Companion says, Hey, Tim, did you know that YouTube is taking out the dislike counter on videos? Yes.

And it's obviously just for Joe Biden. And Dr. Fauci, whose documentary had, I think, 128,000 dislikes. Here's what's going to happen. All that's going to happen is people are going to be like, this video has a million views and only 10 likes, which

clearly means it's ratioed. They're not doing anything by getting rid of the dislike button. This is stupid. And it clearly only impacts like Biden and Fauci. And major corporations that try to shill on major bullcrap by being disingenuous. But are they going to disable

its impact on the algorithm, though? That's the question. No, it's still going to be there. They said... I think you can still see it in the back end. So on your videos, you can see it. But this is so pointless. Creators could disable that feature if they want to disable it. So this whole ruse that it's for people's protection is nonsense.

Can you disable just one of the like, just the down like? I think it's the like and the dislike altogether you could totally get rid of. We have a really important super chat, but I can't read Cyrillic, so I'm going to pretend that the Cyrillic is English. And it says, Ebrin backwards N backwards N, Anik Kaha Pab. I can't read Cyrillic, whatever. They said, about pinch to zoom. Even simple linear interpolation can create false details in an image. But Apple doesn't use simple interpolation.

They've got machine learning support in hardware in 2017. See Apple Neural Engine. And it can do weird things. Just Google Obama de-pixel. There are people posting images of how zooming in on iPhones or whatever can make your image warp and look really weird. So the defense in the Rittenhouse case said the prosecutor tried to bring in evidence

by zooming in on an iPad. And he says, no, no, no, no. They use, he said, AI 3D logarithms, in which I should not have made fun of the boomer guy for not understanding what he was talking about. But he pointed that out. And then the judge, I think, agreed and said, bring in an expert to prove that's not happening and I'll allow it. And they were like, how are we supposed to do that?

And the judge was like, you can't admit a forensic expert, and then admitting it as evidence is absurd. That's what they should do. You shouldn't zoom in during court. You should take it home, zoom in, print it, submit it for evidence to be approved, and then have the zoomed-in image. Right. You keep handing him the phone, and it's locked, and he's like be approved, and then have the zoomed in image. Right. You keep handing him the phone and it's locked. And he's like, oh, I got to redo my passcode. A lot of people saying happy birthday to the Marines.

So I'll just shut that up. Happy birthday. Alex Barturin asks about yesterday's IRL episode. I will simply say if an episode does not appear on YouTube, it will be on Rumble. So there's obvious reasons that happens. But sometimes we've got to put stuff up on Rumble. Yeah. So there's, you know, obvious reasons that happens, but sometimes, you know, we've got to put stuff up on Rumble. That's right. Strangely, a lot of our Rumble, our biggest podcast ever was Darren Beattie, and it was

one that we put on Rumble. It got millions of views. I think it's also, there's an opportunity there because Rumble is a core audience. It's very active individuals. So if there's a, you there's a prominent podcast, everyone on Rumble will watch it. So there's benefits to when we put it up on Rumble. Revolver drives big traffic, too.

Revolver's great. So when he's posting the video, too, we definitely get traffic. Trey Marks says Drew Hernandez is apparently one of the next people testifying. So there's another eyewitness account of the attacks on Kyle. And I will just say, I won't get into too many details,

but Drew Hernandez is a strong-minded individual. He's going to have a clear memory. He's going to know the details, and he's going to be confident in his assessment. He'll take no nonsense. No nonsense. So when the prosecution tries to play manipulative games, I don't think that'll work on someone like Drew Hernandez, who's going to be of sound mind and mental fortitude to explain.

Here's what I saw. Here's what happened. And then when they try and say, but don't you think? No. Here's what I saw. Here's what happened. But isn't it possible? No.

Here's what I saw. Like Richie McGinnis did. That was awesome. Yeah. When he was like, everything you're saying is guesswork. And then Richie goes, well, he said F you and then reach for the gun. That was amazing. It's not about whether Kyle is right or wrong.

It's about, you know, in this instance, I'm referring to journalists who know what they saw, know what they have to say, and will not be manipulated by prosecutors or defense. And, you know, I was just listening to the interview I did with Richie and BG on the scene about all this. I did it with them earlier this summer and or last year. I can't remember now. And he he said very clearly that he couldn't he wasn't going to give any opinions as to motive when he was talking to me and that he was going to be a witness in the case. And all he was there to do was to give testimony as to what happened factually and richie has held true to that from then all the way through all the way up until that moment right there on the stand right so kudos to you richie mcginnis man awesome i posted a funny video people were saying it was

a flex but i thought it was i was you know poking fun at youtube so i guess crowder shot up his his his gold plaque or whatever is that what he did did? Did he do that? Yeah, he did. We were just talking about that. So I put up a video. I put up a video where the window over there would not stay open. And I legit was like trying to open the window to get some circulation because we're getting work

done in the AC unit. The ventilation was shut off and it wouldn't stay open. And I looked over and I saw I have a golden play button. You know, you get when you get a million subscribers and so the point is I was disrespecting it not that I was flexing that I'm disrespecting YouTube so I was like oh here we go and I prop it in the window to keep

the window open I thought that was the some people were like look at that he's flexing like he's got this gold no no no I'm disrespecting it it's in the window it's being used it's still there it is it's in the window. It's being used as a window prop. It is. Great prop.

It's perfect. I mean, we have one on the wall. It's whatever. Well, because there's more than one, Tim. That's true. There's four. Technically correct. Yeah.

There are four of them. Actually, we have like eight, I think. We got more for you. I have one. I won't put it on the wall until we get to two million subscribers. So subscribe. Yeah.

Ian is a man of principle. He said it's not fair that he would get this because he joined the show when we had like, what, 300? I don't know. Yeah, Ian is a man of principle. He said it's not fair that he would get this because he joined the show when we had like, what, 300? I don't know. No, I think we had like four. It was later.

It was like above 500K. 7A. I thought it was, we have to check the tape. Whenever we hit a milestone, I get everybody on the show. How many subs do you think you had in February

when I came on first guest? The first guest? Oh, dude, we have like, no, we had like 180. Like 100,000. Because the channel already had 70 as soon as we started. Oh, that's right. Because I was like tweeting it, I was posting it

on YouTube because I had other videos on it. And then within like a month, we had like 100. It was just you and me that day. Yeah, yeah. It was just you and me. So the show has evolved. Now Luke's here. It really picked up steam in like August to November of 2020. It got hot in those four months. It was September was a massive increase.

October was huge. And then October to November was the biggest. I was here even for the millionth subscriber episode as well. We were getting like 150,000 concurrence during the election. I mean, it was crazy. I remember. Just trying to do a good job. Everybody appreciate you watching, man.

Was it the New Year's Eve party or did we have the election party? That was incredible. I should do that again. That was really fun. During the midterms, we should. We should do that. What we did during the election day was we had so many people here. People would just come in and take a seat.

Seamus was running things for a minute. He took the, he took the steering wheel. Didn't let go either. I got to read this one. It's good. As snork says, been watching for so long.

I missed the old stream starting Jeff. I finally got to donate. I also got a step on snack shirt, which I can't wait to get as a gay furry. I feel very isolated in my political views. This is a great place to relax and feel sane. LOL. And you know what?

I want to read that because I don't care who you are, what you believe, how you want to live, whatever. We're trying to just be honest in our assessment and not judge people who want to live the way they want to live. I mean, that's why I think it's crazy that they say that we're conservative. And I think it's a political tactic because we're actually fairly progressive on social issues. We are just not as far left as they are. Not everybody. I know Lydia's conservative.

Yeah, I'm definitely not. But this is like a mixed bag of, I mean, like, you know, one of the things you pointed out is that one of the things that allowed you to become to vote Republican was that Republicans opened up to gay marriage. That's right. So that's, you know, in a traditional sense for this country, that's actually kind of progressive on social issues. So we're not staunch conservatives in that regard.

Of course. We're mostly libertarian. Of course, that would be the issue that got Jack. I don't understand your insinuation. I mean, no, it's great. That's awesome. Because Jack believes in liberty and individuals' right to choose and the lives they want to live. it's great. That's awesome. Because Jack believes in liberty and individuals' right to choose

and live the lives they want to live. I'm just saying, great job. He's causing trouble. I can't wait for the special that we do where me and Luke box. Yes, it's going to be great. We can. I think you got the pads.

I got boxing gloves. I got pads. I've been shadowbacked a little bit. How about for February? We can do a charity match. We'll do it for charity. Winner's charity gets the whole prize or whatever. In January, we're probably going to Nashville.

In March, we're probably going to Florida. But in February, we don't got any plans. How about we take the trailer out to like Freedomistan and set up a boxing arena on Friday night? But if you lose, you got to get a tattoo that says, I love Luke Grodowski on yourself somewhere on your body. Oh, my gosh. I don't think you could agree with that. I would take that bet because I don't think you're going to lose.

I do suspect that. Yeah, sure. Take that bet. There should be some odds for sure. We're not in the same weight limit, first of all, but that doesn't suck. I don't know. It looks pretty close. Oh, yeah.

That's fired. I'm just big boned. Let's read some more Super Chats. Let's read some more. All right. Kevin Brady says two things. Watched the trial and the coverage of this is gross and I don't see anything getting better. I sent you an email regarding a cult documentary for up here in Washington State.

I'm a filmmaker. Oh, interesting. Well, I will look for it. It's very refreshing to talk about the case here and to know that there's so many thousands of people listening because actually this is a good – we want to give more than MSNBC. Yeah, like legitimate coverage to this court case I think. It's remarkable to me. I see the news about MSNBC losing Brian Williams. They're bleeding talent.

Brian Stelter is going like, wow, what's happening? And I'm just like maybe regular people can only be lied to so many times that's true i think what's happening with the uh moms who are being called racists they're probably sitting around their dining room table also being like i'm hoping uh man you know they're calling me racist i want i wonder if all those other people they've been calling racist aren't actually racist too some someone someone tweeted a good point i remember who it was but maybe it was you i don't know they said it's going to be a major red pill when people who have been following the written house trial see how the news covered it maybe it was ian miles strong but there's probably a lot

of regular people who see the see you know um uh there have been a few channels that have been playing it like abc7 chicago has got a live stream on youtube there's been a few channels that have been playing it, like ABC7 Chicago has got a live stream on YouTube. There's probably a lot of people who are interested, and they're watching the trial. I mean, it is interesting for a lot of people to understand what's going on, and then they read CNN and go, what? I was talking to Steve Hilton last night on the way down here, and I was like, you know, most of the people who change their mind about Trump did so because they watched one of his speeches. Not commentary about his speech, just one of his speeches. So watching this trial, trial i think is going to be like a red pill dispensary as well be great luke's over there laughing you read you read in the comments i think there was a there was a really great comment by cassandra fairbanks she tweeted that at first she thought it was a really bad idea for them to put kyle retniss on

the stand yeah but then she saw him breaking down and she thought it was a really bad idea for them to put Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand. But then she saw him breaking down and she thought to herself, you know, something like get this baby off the stand as a mother, like watching him be attacked. And he's a young guy. So maybe maybe that's what their goal was. Really, the reason people were criticizing the defense for not objecting to the badgering from the prosecution. But I think maybe the goal was we get him to the badgering from the prosecution but i think maybe the goal was we get him to testify and he does a good job but he also breaks down and he shows his humility and his fear and remorse and yeah but you know but the guys in the other side

they all took that as him being uh you know just afraid that he's going to jail because he's admitting you know being on the on the stand and it's becoming clear that he committed murder but i want to just point out one thing. Real quick, my point here is not that they're going to convince the left. It's that the jury who supposedly has limited information on this, what are they going to see? A guy crying. Not necessarily perfect

because he may be crying because he might go to jail, right? Like you said. However, the prosecution then badgers him. And so the jury sees an annoying prosecution that's wasting their time by asking the same question a million times. And they see a defense compassionately, you know, speaking with a defendant who's traumatized. Yeah. Joe Kent, the congressional candidate from Washington state, he had a really nice tweet today where he said that as a guy who's been in combat, him and his wife who was killed

in combat, he said that everyone reacts differently to remembering instances in which you were forced to kill somebody or experiencing this kind of trauma. And I was just really pleased to see Joe put out such a empathetic leadership to kind of tweet like that, saying that like emotions and trauma and people react to that in different ways and we should respect the way that kyle is reacting to that because irrespective of his motive killing somebody is got is gotta be horrible and we should also give that to alec baldwin yeah but he's an ass no i agree i completely 100 agree my my thing about alec baldwin is just we should be wait but have we seen him break down and cry in remorse that was the first image from la times

it's him crying on the phone i don't know if he was crying but he's like distraught very much so what i'm trying to say is i approach the rittenhouse case by looking at talking to the witnesses literally first i watched the video we bring the witnesses in and we try to the best of our ability to know the facts. What I'm saying with Alec Baldwin is we must do the same thing. And if the initial reports of a blank misfiring and shrapnel hitting a person are not true, we need to erase from our minds our prejudice, assuming there was an accident, and start with the core facts, and then work our way back from how it happened. I'm not saying he's guilty.

I'm not saying there's proof that he did anything wrong. I'm saying just that it's absurd for us to assume it was an accident. We don't have any reason to believe that. We just have a story about a guy who pulled out a gun and shot somebody. We should honor the victim by being open to what the facts and the court says. But the DA says they know who put the bullet in there. We'll know more soon. That

makes me feel like it was not Alec Baldwin. Has Alec been arrested? No, but he was instructed not to talk about it by the police, he said. Well, if they know who put the bullet in there and Alec Baldwin hasn't been arrested, can you make the connection that it's not him? No, because he's high profile and famous and they

know it would cause a very big uproar. And in fact, if they knew who put the bullet in there and it was a crew member, the crew member would be arrested instantly. In fact, I would argue that no crew member has been arrested when the DA says they know who did it, suggests it was Alec Baldwin. Interesting.

Yeah. That's why I'm saying like, we shouldn't make assumptions about the case. There are assumptions there as well, which is I try to make the I try to make the least amount yeah and we all and we all were influenced by the initial stories that's why we're even having this conversation so just be ever vigilant yeah man all right trash panda says this trial proves to me that we need a national divorce we cannot peacefully exist next to people like bicep guy or the prosecutor national divorce now before it's too late.

It's a scary prospect. But I understand why more and more people keep saying it. And it's not a right-wing thing. John Podesta, Boston Globe, reported this, that he said the West Coast should secede from the union if Trump wins the election. Podesta's a global hack. He's like the military industrial complex in a suit. But he works on the Clinton campaign. He worked like the military industrial complex in a suit. But he works on the Clinton campaign. He worked on the Clinton campaign. He's a high

profile democratic operative. My point is only to say that there are democratic establishment actors who are calling for the dissolution of the United States. Yeah. CCP is doing that too. Absolutely. And that's why I think it's a bad idea. Because then China comes in and... I think they are. I don't know.

I say it's a bad idea on the global scale. I do think there's a problem when you have leftists who don't care about the truth and want suffering. They can say whatever they want all day and night about cute people being dumb,

but when they're like, I want someone to go to prison for the sake of me feeling good as a winner, I'm like, yo, that's evil. It's this balance of like having a free society that gives freedom to

people that would do the society harm and so then they become more authoritarian to protect society from those people and then start protecting it from other people that maybe aren't dangerous i think dividing it might be the way to cause least amount of harm if you want harm reduction you got to have some kind of civil divorce yeah mutual defense Mutual defense pact, sure. But I mean, I was talking about it for years. It's needed. Right. Let's read some more. We got John Hutto says,

the Young Turks has subs, but not views. 5 million subs, 40,000 views on 24-hour old stories. Their subs left the platform for Reddit and Twitter in 2012. How much money have they blown on staff and studio? I think a big factor is, as we mentioned, the Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC. You know Tucker Carlson used to be on MSNBC. It was a bow tie. Crossfire, right?

No, no, no, no. It was Tucker Carlson's show. His eponymous show. I don't know if it was eponymous, but he was a host on MSNBC. Yeah. No, but he hosted a Crossfire type show. It was great. He was one of the main guys on, I think it was CNN's crossfire show.

But he was also, he had a show on MSNBC. He got fired. Here's what I think happens with the Young Turks. Why is it that they have 5 million subs, but they're only getting 40,000 views on their videos? The subs are from a long time ago. People subscribed to the Young Turks. And then over time, as the Young Turks drifted further and further left, many of these people said, I don't care to watch that video anymore. Not intentionally, not like I hate the young Turks, but very simply.

If Cenk Uygur puts up a video saying war bad, you know, establishment bad, someone clicks that. I like this video. Over time, they start putting up more videos saying establishment good. People will say, I'm not going to click that video. They get less views. But those people already subscribe to the channel so you look at like a crowder for instance and he's got i think five million but he gets like a million which makes sense right and then we get we get like 80 to 100k

on clips from this show with a million subs the young turks have five times the subs but you know a third of the viewership i think that's simply because they've been around for a long time and they've churned a large portion of their audience. And I'm not saying it to be disrespectful. I just think over time. The rest of it's been disrespectful. Forget that. I think I subscribed to them in 2007. You're probably still subscribed.

I'm checking now. It's slow internet. Not only that, but YouTube props them up. Oh, yeah, they do. Very much. All right. Let's see what we got. Johnny Knoxville. Oh, really, Johnny?. Very much. All right, let's see what we got. Johnny Knoxville.

Oh, really, Johnny? Hey, how's it going? Says, Ayanna Pressley got 100,000 retweets calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Defamation. White supremacist is an opinion and not an actionable statement, unfortunately. If she said that he went to a white supremacist rally, then... Statement of fact. Well, maybe.

Because she could argue that a rally of right-wingers is white supremacist that's her opinion if she said it was like a clan rally something proper and specific then you could be like i never did that so that biden tweet where he shows kyle or is that doctored i don't know about that but let me clarify when i was saying if if if they said he went to a white supremacist rally and he never went to a rally then it's libelous because he didn't take an action if he went to a trump rally and she said white supremacist rally it's not actionable because it's their opinion nazi is in fact an opinion as well like if you if i've talked to a bunch of lawyers about this and they're like everybody knows the word is rather meaningless everyone calls everybody a nazi or a fascist so

it's not actionable. So you could today, but like say five, six, eight years ago, it had much different impact. If they say, if someone said like person X is a card carrying member of the Nazi party, then you could be like, that's defamatory and not true. The problem

then is you still need damages. So it is not easy. Not, not, not easy. All right, let's grab some more super chats. What do we got? James Weeks says, I agree with the judge. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be punished. ADA, Binger, and the mainstream media are the guilty ones walking free.

That's right. They are bad, bad people. The prosecutor is a bad dude. You know, I just, Cernovich tweeted out, this guy knew he's gotten away with this in the past and he wasn't, you know, ready for a real judge. You look at what this guy does and it is just outright disdain and disrespect for our values, for our system. And this is what i was saying before the problem is this guy violates the constitution overtly and the judge says but i want to preserve this this

legal system and i'm like then you allow the liars cheaters deceivers the stealers to keep destroying the system i think a justified mistrial would be something society would be very good for society in modern day i don't normally read crypto posts but this one i must jackson h says while the rest of the crypto market is tanking the fjb token just pumped over 300 today and the founder donated another 10k to military charities don't miss out on the ride. Tim Jack, I know you want to. Let's go, Brandon. I'm not going to buy FJB token, but I just think it's hilarious. 300%?

I tried to buy it last night. That's what they're saying. Tanking. Bitcoin down 3%. Ethereum down 2%. Yeah, no. Crypto's been through the roof. It's insane.

Yeah. What's this guy talking about? Tanking. I think he's making a joke. Oh, I see. The FJB token. Because as soon as he said that, I pulled out my phone. I was like, wait, really? What's going on? Time to buy.

There's a Let's Go Brandon token and FJB token because making tokens takes five minutes. Gotcha. But I I'll tell you this. I don't care for useless tokens where they just try and sell them. But if someone said they were making a token with the express purpose of fundraising for a charity,

meaning you buy the tokens and the proceeds from the organization that released them uses that to fund military charities like they did. Well, that's fantastic. Basically, that just means buying the token as a donation. Some people are trying to speculate, maybe get rich off of it, but it means that the core organization can be helping out. I like the idea. I don't know if that counts as a security.

I don't think so. All right. Trinanana Shabba Depressure, Batacalf Care says, please get Rakeda on Timcast and teach him how to say my name. Why? Because he can't say Trinanana.

I'll go slow. Trinanana Shabba Depressure, Batacalf Care. Very simple. I sat there listening to it on loop and transcribing it. I slowed it down, pitch shifted it true and

and then i wrote it out profound yes yeah because people were saying true and elizabeth pressure or something like that and i was like you guys didn't even try man retweet it without comment i don't even speak proper english so i I'm impressed. That's great. All right. Let's see. Rompat Mechanico says, Tim, can you look into Evergrande, the second largest real estate developer in China, defaulted on its bonds today in the amount of $148 million. I heard this. Indeed.

I've been tracking it passively, the story about Evergrande. This could precipitate a major collapse in the global markets. China's phony real estate oh yeah yeah man we'll see everyone in finance markets have known that the chinese debt industry and all that has been overblown for decades i worked at a private equity firm on a hedge fund uh in 98 9 2000 2001 and even then every comment about china was all lie all lie all fabricated nobody's trusted anything that's come out of there forever why would you which is why why did we trust any of those videos that were coming out from wuhan in november and december of people falling over and

stories of like billions of cell phones being taken offline line. That was weird, right? Yeah. So that was, you know, people believed that. Yep. And the nation bought that line. Bats peeing on people. I mean, this is all Chinese, man. Well, let's... South Park really nailed the origin story on that one. Let's get...

Well, we'll do two more quick ones. We got Andrew Sutton. He says, Alec Baldwin is a Top Gun actor. So I suppose he was in Top Gun? I don't know. I'm not sure. No. I don't think so. He wasn't? Definitely'm not sure. No. I don't think so.

He wasn't? That was wrong. I don't think so. And then Ogdobber says, The armorer was inexperienced and has made mistakes before. She only had the job because her father was the lead prop master. I did hear that. Interesting point.

However, this means that the armorer made a mistake, handed it to another person who made a mistake, who handed it to another person who made a mistake, who then shot a woman. I mean, that's just a big, that's many leaps. You know what I mean? So maybe it's possible. Sometimes people win the lottery. You get the numbers, they line up and it's astronomical odds.

We went to the casino a couple of weeks ago. You put, you know, 20 bucks on 26 and then, you know, we ended up winning a bunch of money because sometimes 26 comes up. And if there's an ethos of people not taking precautions on the set, if that's the production company's method, then you're going to get five and six people not take precautions all at once. That's possible.

All right, everybody. Smash that like button if you haven't already done so. Subscribe to this channel. Take that URL. Post it everywhere. If every single person took the URL right now and just posted on all their social media, we would be bigger than CNN overnight.

But I guess some people don't. You don't have to. We just appreciate it if you did. But go to TimCast.com and become a member. We have a massive library. You can search through all of the different guests we've had for these members-only segments. And we will have a members-only segment coming up posted around 11 or so p.m. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL.

You can follow me personally at TimCast. Check out my Instagram. Follow me there. And, Jack, you got anything to shout out? I definitely do. You can follow me on Twitter at Jack Murphy Live. In fact, all over the internet, Instagram, everywhere, Jack Murphy Live. Also check out jackbrunch.com. We're coming to the San Francisco area in two weeks. We were just in Austin, beautiful city. We had about 90 people come out for brunch. It was fantastic. People leave feeling joyful and uplifted. They make new friends. And it's just a really cool experience to be around a hundred people that see the world the same way that you do know this, know the same media people speak the same language and are going to view events through a similar filter. It's a lot of fun. And you guys should come down and check it out.

Right on. Maybe one day. If you're subscribed to LukeUncensored.com, don't forget to check out today's video. I had a very interesting conversation about the occult, demonic forces, Satanism. All of that is available on LukeUncensored.com. Hope to see some of you guys there. Thanks for having me. Also ecstatic that you guys are back and happy to be here. My name is Ian Crossland. Check me out on social media if you'd like to, and I'll see you later. And I am Sarah Patchless. And I do want to say that I do love my crayon eaters in the Marines. So happy birthday to the Marine Corps.

My brother was a Marine and I have deep respect. They are badasses. So definitely shout out to them. You guys can follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patchless. We will see all of you over at TimCast.com in the member segment. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys. you