Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #410 - ANOTHER Witness Implicates Alec Baldwin In CRIMINAL Shooting w/Cernovich & Malice

Episode Date: November 18, 2021

Tim, Ian, Luke, and Lydia join Michael Malice and Mike Cernovich to discuss the second witness to allege that Alec Baldwin's gun safety was lax, evidence from the Rittenhouse trial that was edited to favor the defense, how justice was not served in the case of one of Kyle Rittenhouses' attackers, the injustice facing the January 6th defendants, James O'Keefe's FBI home raid, and how Locals has been sold to Rumble. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, so we don't have a verdict yet in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, but today was still pretty crazy because it turns out the prosecution provided manipulated evidence to the defense. Now, they argue, oh, no, it was an accident. We didn't realize. And it's the defense's fault for not having iPhones. Basically, what happened is the prosecution had high res video and gave the defense low res video, which is worse than just withholding evidence. But we're still waiting. The jury will come back. I guess the judge, this is kind of crazy. The judge said he's not going to make a decision on a mistrial with prejudice, but he told the prosecutors, I warned you,

there would be a reckoning on that video. But we're going to wait to see what the jury comes back with in the terms of their verdict. The judge very well may just let Rittenhouse off because of a mistrial with prejudice that was filed.'ll see so we'll talk about all of that too but we got big news i was right oh i said i was right y'all told me i was crazy see when it went when it came yes when it came to alec baldwin and the shooting on set i said why are we assuming it's an accident well guess what the supervisor, the person who knows what's supposed to go down, has filed a lawsuit against Alec Baldwin saying

he knew he was improperly handed the gun. He knew he shouldn't have trusted, the AD said, and he wasn't supposed to aim it, cock the hammer, or pull the trigger. So why did he do it? She said he played Russian roulette on set sounds

like what she's saying is he was screwing around pointed it now there's a question of whether or not you can argue it was an intentional act to point the gun and pull the trigger and how is it even manslaughter when you point a gun at someone so we'll talk about all that plus we got big news the vax mandate has been suspended a big victory uh we've won the battle but not the war so we got a lot to get into and we're hanging out with of course michael malice and mike cernovich yeah it's all right well you can't you can't you gotta say words because the podcast people can't see you you know i don't like to acknowledge them okay thanks michael please do not speak to me directly okay well i might you cernch we'll say we'll say

we'll go by last names i'm usually pretty quiet yeah you want to introduce yourself just yeah yeah mike cernovich i'm here visiting from great overlap here in the mobile studio of timcast i always introduce myself as an entity who exists because i don't really have a hook. I used to have like a hook. Here's what I do. Here's what I do now. And I've been semi-retired for a couple of years. So all I just say is that I'm alive, existing, doing whatever, but there's no thing.

Like here's a thing. He's a podcaster. He's a – You're a lawyer though, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean a lawyer, filmmaker, author. You tweet a lot. Your mindset.

You're the OG gorilla. It's not Alex. That's You tweet a lot. Your mindset. You're the OG gorilla. It's not Alex. That's true. It's Alex Jones. You're the first gorilla. That's right. Well, I pioneered the whole mindset genre for men. So my mindset book was the first of that genre.

So it's always funny when people, they're like, oh, you're trying to pretend that you're like Jordan Peterson. And I was like, dude, I was before before him like well before him so whatever it doesn't mean he's not good or bad but it's weird because they'll people like i i've i found that they find you at a point in time and you never existed before that right right you know what it's like it's like when you hear a cover song and things it's the original but you heard it first that's actually a really interesting thing because i was just playing i was jamming outside and i was playing the man who sold the world oh bowie and there's a funny song a funny story bowie had where he said he played the man who sold the world on set and two teenage girls were like that was so cool how you covered nirvana to bowie like whoa avril lavigne didn't even know who he was wow wow the greatest musician of all time

i'm glad you're here actually you're you're a lawyer so you're gonna have way more understanding of a lot of this legal stuff with Alec Baldwin and with the Rittenhouse stuff. So excited you're here. True, true. And Michael Malice, of course, is here, but I guess he introduced himself. Everybody knows who he is. Hello. I thought after yesterday we're all going to kind of take a back a step and let each other talk. It was a company.

When you're with Alex, it's kind of a competition to talk. There's actually some – they're hater videos, but every now and then a hater video is funny, which they're usually not. And it'll show Alex talking and it's me just sitting there. And the video's titled like, Mike Cernovich failed job interview for InfoWars. Because I'm just sort of like, hey.

And then Alex will look over to you and I'm like, okay, am I supposed to talk now? What exactly is supposed to happen here? So of all the hater videos, that one is actually funny. You just have to scream whenever you get an opportunity to do so and then that's the only way to get your voice out. Howdy, welcome, beautiful and amazing human beings. My name is Luke Rudowsky of WeAreChange.org

and I once again wanted to thank YouTube for demonetizing me and making me a very humble t-shirt vendor. The t-shirt that I'm wearing right now is one of the shirts that I sell, and it's a picture of a prophet and a saint, Dr. Ron Paul, and it says, if I told you so, it was a person. And you can get yours exclusively on thebestpoliticalshirts.com, and that's the way to support me. Thanks so much for having me.

Thanks for having me. It's Ian Crossland over here. I'm ready to take control of this show and lead the way. Yeah, yeah. Just kidding. I got It's Ian Crossland over here. I'm ready to take control of this show and lead the way. Just kidding. I got some amazing powerhouses in the house. So I'm going to let you guys display yourselves.

I am really looking forward to this battle, the Michaels. I hope it's not actually a battle. I'm hoping we can have a super cool conversation as we always do. Mike Cernovich is not only one of my favorite people, but there's a handful of people in my life where I'm comfortable outsourcing my decision-making on certain issues,

and he's one of them. Very cool. So there's not going to be any fighting here at all. Speaking of personal life decisions, Michael, you are an underwear model. Yeah, that's true. If everyone goes to sheathunderwear.com and use promo code MALICE, you'll get 20% off of your underwear.

And the good thing about sheath is it has that dual pouch technology for both parts of your male anatomy. And you can get one step closer to getting inside my pants. And the first time you put it on, you're like, what the hell is this? You even have the little veins with the hip bone. Yeah, the cum gutters.

Yeah, yeah. That took a lot of work. Family friendly. You even have the little veins with the hip bone. Yeah, the cum gutters. Yeah, yeah. Oh, Lord. The what? That took a lot of work. Family friendly. Well, I mean, I don't know what the term is. Hip flexors, I think is the name of the term. Sex muscles.

Yeah, but it took a lot of work to get to that point. High five. And there's a promo code? Promo code Malice. You get 20% off. And I'll say one thing. The first time I put them on, I'm like, what the hell is this? And now I wear them every day because they're so comfortable.

I'm proud to be able to talk with them. Do they have the pouch? Dual pouch. One for one part of your parts and another part for another part of your parts. Because the guy who found the company did time in Iraq where it's very hot. This keeps you nice and cool in the summer. Good for that RV life.

I'm going tokill for that RV life well thanks for that Michael and don't forget everybody we also want to do a promo go to TimCast.com become a member we're going to have a members only segment going up around 11 or so p.m. tonight and as a member you're helping support

our fierce and independent journalism there's actually a story we have it's graphic I can't show, but it's an exclusive report from Cassandra Fairbanks about Fauci's NIAID funding what's called maximum pain research on primates. Oh, my God.

The story's really brutal. Oh, my God. That's horrifying. So Cassandra's been working on this. We have the story up. We'll talk about it, but it is absolutely horrifying. They take primates.

There's thousands of them, and they subject them to what's called maximum pain experiments. Is that a euphemism for like cuddles? No, no. The photos are horrifying. That's why I'm like, I can't scroll down right now. Maybe we need like a graphic filter for like, because not everybody wants to

see this stuff, but this is the kind of stuff that the NIAID was funding under Fauci. Because we know about the dogs, so we'll get into all that stuff. Not to be too much of a Debbie Downer, but become a member. Support that independent work. Because I've got to be honest, we take risks with big exclusives like this, because you are making

direct accusations, and there's real risks to reporting. People want to come after you. But go to TimCast.com. Don't forget to like this video right now. Like this episode. Subscribe to the channel. Share it wherever you can because that really really does help taking the url putting wherever you can let's get into this first story now written house is really really big you know and we're waiting on this verdict but we really are just waiting on this verdict so i wanted to lead with something in a similar vein that's big and political so we decided to talk

about the the alec baldwin stuff because i was right oh boy take a look at this story we got this from the daily mail alec chose to play russian roulette rust script supervisor breaks down in tears as she sues baldwin over helena hutchins death because he cocked and fired the gun even though the scene didn't call for it she says baldwin knew the gun should have never been given to him and that he could not rely on the assistant director about whether or not the gun was safe to use. Mr. Baldwin chose to play Russian roulette when he fired a gun without checking it and without having an armorer within his presence. I want to I want to point something out. This is what I was saying last a couple of weeks ago. Everybody started this story saying it was a misfire from a blank that shrapnel hit this woman and i wonder i can't

remember who was telling us this but maybe that was a pr response a crisis management company for him leaked that story because they're like if we start with the premise that it was an accident everyone will believe it was an accident no matter what and last week i said why are we assuming it's an accident alec ball we'd have to assume the armorer screwed up the eight this is a director screwed up that alec baldwin screwed up and then he pointed it in the right direction. Those are all crazy assumptions. How come we're not starting from Alec Baldwin pulled a gun, pointed it, cocked it, pulled the trigger, and then from there we can walk it back? Now, this is big, the script supervisor, the person who knows exactly what's supposed to go on, on scene, says he wasn't supposed to have a gun.

He should have checked it scene says he wasn't supposed to have a gun right he should have checked it and he didn't he certainly wasn't supposed to pull the hammer and pull the trigger that to me sounds like a good argument for intentional homicide i'm not a huge gun person but every time i've handled a gun the person handing it to me who's actually a gun expert or just someone who's a aficionado gave gave me a speech. And part of that speech is, you do not point a gun at anything that you do not want to destroy. You assume every single gun you are handling is loaded until you check it personally.

You do not put your finger on a trigger. And if you screw up any one of those, you're still going to be safe. And just one more. You don't act like a state prosecutor. No, no, no. But there is actually one more always know what's behind your target okay yeah what your target is and beyond that's important

here specifically for baldwin because if we're still operating under the premise that he was pointing it at the camera for a scene he wasn't paying attention to what was beyond his target but i don't buy that for a minute look if if we're going to talk about a guy who wasn't supposed to be given a gun she says she's a script supervisor that's a guy who wasn't supposed to be given a gun, she says she's a script supervisor. That's big. Wasn't supposed to have it. Why did he have it? Why am I then going to assume this wasn't murder?

Because you've got an angry crew. You've got people threatening to walk off set. Baldwin says, I had a dinner with her just that Friday. Sounds to me, and I said this before, she was actually negotiating with him or arguing with him. And then he goes on set takes the gun and says bam oh no oh no oh geez that's like pure psycho if he did that you're saying that the rumor that went around that he jokingly said how about i just kill you both that that was a false

rumor yeah yes someone someone that was clever it was a clever hoax i almost fell for that one too me too i actually recorded a video and then someone responded with the clip and i was like whoa because i'm like i'm like showing the article i'm showing the tweet and then i see that and i was like i don't know if that's true i got to check someone took a news article and then altered the code to add that yeah i wouldn't be surprised if it was his pr team in order to muddy the waters because a lot of times with this information we see fake information being brought out to the general public to make everyone confused about what's really going on there and you saw i saw balden why not right after the incident he was right on the phone he was probably talking to his pr people he was trying to probably run cover he has a lot of money he has a lot of

influence and there was a lot of cover we're just finding out finding out about these details now how many days later has it been yeah so what else are they hiding? What else don't we know about? When's the investigation? Is there even an investigation? I mean, what's going on here? Everyone should be asking these larger questions and they're not. An accident means different things, right? They're trying to make it out as if he just dropped

a gun and it went off and shot someone. When you are pointing a gun at someone and cocking a trigger, you can't say that that's an accident. That's intentionality. See, I don't even know the terms, but even I know enough, you don't point a gun at someone and cocking a trigger, you can't say that that's an accident. That's intentionality. See, I don't even know the terms. But even I know enough, you don't point a gun at someone. So this is three steps.

Actually, it's four. He drew the weapon. He then pointed it. He then pulled the hammer back. He then pulled the trigger. I mean, that is very intentional. Yeah, it's very disturbing, too. And it's also disturbing how many people were on their knees running interference for him immediately.

Conservatives especially. Is that right? Oh, yeah. You get the whole conservative. Oh, it's such a tragedy. I can't believe Don Jr. is politicizing. It's just like the spin cycle. And the PR thing you said I know is true because I tweeted out, man, this is really weird.

The engagement that I got anytime he tweeted about Baldwin, hundreds of replies. And the PR thing you said I know is true because I tweeted out, man, this is really weird. The engagement that I got anytime he tweeted about Baldwin, hundreds of replies instantaneously. And it was all, you're cruel. You're vile. How dare. He's the victim here. He's the victim here. Yeah. It's amazing.

Yeah. And then you even had conservatives going along, oh, it's just such a tragedy. No, it is. Well, it's a tragedy for the woman. Of course. Right. Obviously. but they were definitely influencing the conversation and then i do believe they use this information via that

article because then they would go conspiracy theorists they're trying to p gate alec baldwin can you believe it look at these bad actors blah blah blah i don't know if you know the answer to this question um but is pointing a gun at someone a felony? It's called brandishing. It's a legal term, brandishing a firearm, and it definitely depends on the context. So if I were just here with you guys and one of you brandished a firearm without some kind of intent, then it wouldn't be. But it all depends on the context. But then if you came to a bank and you just tapped a gun, that would be brandishing, even though you're not even pointing it.

Yeah, so it's all based on the context of... And it also depends on the state laws, because in some states like Ohio, what the state prosecutor did in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, that's a chargeable offense. No, no, Ohio has a specific rule. If he would

have done the same thing in that state, he would have gone down for a charge. Right, right. So here's what I ask. We have this from law.justice.com. This is New Mexico statutes on homicide section on manslaughter. And it says voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter. So I don't think that would apply here. They say involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act

not amounting to a felony or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution or circumspect. They're both felonies. And the reason I ask is I'm wondering if, first, we can't call it an accident. An accident would be like you said. You drop it and it goes off and you're like, oh, no. And you might still get in trouble because you were responsible for that. But this is a guy who pulled it out and aimed it at the woman.

So can we even argue this is manslaughter if he pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger? So involuntary manslaughter – so the way they would say it, they could say, well, an accident is still negligent. So the legal term is an accident is negligent so you get in a car crash it's an accident but who was negligent were you looking at your cell phone at the time so involuntary manslaughter the textbook case of that is if you're drinking and driving it isn't a felony to drink and drive but somebody dies you didn't intend for them to die So that's usually when that would apply is there was no intent for you to do gross bodily harm or injury to someone else. So with the Alec Baldwin case, we don't have enough facts to know whether it would be voluntary or involuntary because there's a whole – I mean you could do a whole week of this in law school and then there's all kinds of cases on it where you go from what's the difference between reckless versus negligent? What's the difference between willful and, again, negligent? And there's a lot of things that depend on the facts.

So I would – my instinct from day one was that it would have been involuntary manslaughter. He was recklessly – he was acting with callous or reckless disregard for another person's safety. But I don't think he actually wanted to murder her or anything like that. I don't think he was pointing it at her. I think he was being Alec Baldwin, who is a douchebag idiot. Well, with rage issues, as we know.

But George Clooney, he had a very interesting comment about this. He's usually a globalist stooge, but today he said... I love you, Luke. It's true. It's absolutely true. I mean, look what he pushes. But he came out and was talking about this specific case and said that it was infuriating and insane that this happened

as he's accusing Alec Baldwin of ignoring decades of laws regarding safety and firearms on set of movies. So even George Clooney, he's coming out, calling him out, saying he wasn't doing what he was supposed to do. There's something here that's not right. And Adam Baldwin also corroborated that. He said that a few weeks ago.

I know there's no love lost between the two brothers. He goes, I've been on movie sets, and there's a process for decades that people go through before you're handed a gun. Because, and this is something that gun advocates talk about all the time, even though the anti-gun people don't say this, they know very well a gun is not a toy. You are handling a weapon that can kill someone and you have to treat that with the respect it is due. So let me start from this premise for you, Cernovich. A man who has decades of firearms training is on set.

He has no, there is nothing calling for brandishing, displaying, or even holding a weapon. He then points it with a live round and shoots and kills a woman. That, I mean, wouldn't an investigator or a DA go straight for intentional homicide? No, that would be voluntary manslaughter because that would

be reckless versus negligent. You're still not an intentional murder because he didn't intend to kill someone. Wait, but there's no reason to have a gun. If I walk out in the middle of the street and pull out a gun and shoot somebody, they're going to say intentional homicide, right? Again, it varies on the context. How big was the crowd? Were you celebrating a fiesta or something? No, no, no.

Let's say this. I walk into the middle of the street and there's a person filming me with a camera i pull out a gun cock the hammer shoot him and kill him oh yeah that would be intentional murder yeah so alec baldwin i think this is why i ask if we're approaching it from the context of he wasn't supposed to have a gun that means he walked up pointed the gun at a woman for no reason, which he wasn't supposed to have, and decided to shoot her. Why would we operate as if that was manslaughter? Because it's the context of the relationship. It's the same thing where if you were on a first date with a girl

and she fell asleep and you looked for some action, that would be sexual assault potentially. But if it's your wife or your girlfriend, then there's a pattern of consent. So it's different because of the relationship. So the law – that's why the law is hard. He's in a dispute with the crew. They were threatened to walk off set.

Well, that would be the case that people would make, and their case would say that we have a working relationship. It's existed here. He pulled out the gun. He was – I see. I see. Yeah, yeah. So it's very – you get it.

I mean, law is is really i love having these conversations it's all about getting in the weeds and everything is about facts and circumstance that's why law drives people crazy because it's all context based and one fact can literally change the whole outcome did you see the the clip when alec baldwin was outside his house like yelling at reporters and there were two things that were really clear from that clip that i found one disturbing one not disturbing one is he very clearly feels horrible about this like this is not something where he went to bed that night it's like it'll be fine he's disturbed by this as virtually anyone is who's responsible for killing someone else but he also clearly feels

that because he's so upset that means he suffered enough and leave me alone and that to me is a big problem you don't get to decide well i feel really feel really bad, I'm suffering, shut up and go away. That's not how it works, because you did something that was extremely preventable, and one person is dead as a coin. Real quick, correction, people are pointing out Adam Baldwin is not a Baldwin brother. Another thing to really consider here is

that Alec Baldwin went to anger management before, because of his rage issues and because of other court proceedings that he had related to of course blowing up and getting really angry and uh you know committing acts of either harassment or assault against other people so there is a long history here of someone who isn't control of his emotions to the point where he has sought professional help so that's another thing that to consider what if what if he clearly does feel bad about this, but not for her, for him?

Like, oh man, I got really mad. I pulled the trigger. I shouldn't have done that. But was he mad? It seemed like he was doing it very matter-of-factly. Well, Malice, he's an actor, too. He's an actor, too. So we have to consider that when he's portraying these emotions. I don't think he's that good of an actor. Maybe.

As Jack Donaghy was. That's a cartoon character right right I think it's very hard to make the case that he's not disturbed by seeing someone

he was at least if one of you right now god forbid something happened we'd all be traumatized you're making assumptions

this is the issue I took with the case initially we don't know they were friends I didn't say they were friends even if it's just some random you almost said they were friends

you're about to say they were friends Alex said they were friends on the record he said that but what I'm saying is even if it's someone like you know a person you had just a conversation with at a party and in front of you you saw them get shot and bleed out i think the vast vast majority of people will be traumatized for life especially if you're the one who pulled the trigger the da says they know who put the

bullets in the gun oh yeah that was something that came out a while ago. So I guess in this case, I mean, final thoughts. You think they're going to actually charge him for anything? Is the stuff coming out from witnesses? I say no. No way. No way. Really? They're not going to get a conviction?

Just some people are above the law. Yeah. And Alec Baldwin would fall into that category. You think they'll charge the assistant director or the armorer? So I think a lot of money will exchange hands and because alec baldwin's gonna owe millions of dollars to the family you know because if they're either way if it's your friend like if you accidentally killed the a friend of yours you would go to the family and be like look dude you don't have to sue me

like what do you need yeah yeah yeah so so if they're friends he's writing a big check if they're not friends he's writing a big check if they're not friends he's writing a big check so if they're really if they really are friends and the husband's gonna say what good does it do to put you in jail they're gonna go to the da and say i don't want anybody charged with this we're not going to cooperate we're going to do the opposite it's actually really interesting because i'm sure that probably happens a lot where someone does commit an act that results in death that should be criminally charged, but the family who would normally be complaining are just like, no, we understand it was an accident. You know that the U.S. has bag men who go to the Middle East, and when we accidentally kill children, we write them out the check to these families.

And if it's a boy, they get a lot bigger of a check than if we accidentally kill one of the girls. So this is actually U.S. For your taxes. boy, they get a lot bigger of a check than if we accidentally kill one of the girls. So this is actually US... And there's actuarial tables for how much you pay off for these poor people in the Middle East who have basically lost their son or daughter for no reason. Depending on what country, what neighborhood, and the age of the child and how many other siblings they had.

This is where your tax dollars are going. This is insane. Sometimes I wish this was a cooking show and it could be like the cherry goes on the whipped cream and then we all enjoy a nice strawberry shortcake. Instead we're like, after they kill the child, they send someone to pay off the family. Real quick also

to us, if you're a prosecutor and you have a case that's going to be hard to prove anyway, so you're a prosecutor, you can file a case that's going to be hard to prove, and then the victim's family says, we don't want you to file it, then you're not going to file it. Because because what do you gain and it's very hard to make the case in terms of sensing him that this is something he would do again right right right let's talk about right now so oh yeah so this uh last night we're doing the members only show and like right in the

middle we're like whoa what's this story jack posobic tweets out that the prosecution withheld evidence from the kyle Rittenhouse defense team. Not true. It's actually not true. What happened? They sent manipulated evidence to the defense team. It's even worse. Let me explain how bad this is.

If the prosecution, they say they have a drone footage. Actually, we have this article right here. This is from Andrew Branca. Day two, defense files for mistrial with prejudice. You can see image from the Branca. Day two, defense files for mistrial with prejudice. You can see image from the drone footage. If the prosecution presented the drone footage in court, the defense would have went, whoa, whoa, whoa, we've never received this evidence,

Your Honor. Let's see. So the prosecution instead gives them grainy, low-res video. Now, I think it was on Mercatus Stream. They played the different videos side by side. And if you pulled up on the TV and you were given that the defense had no way of knowing that this was not the video, they're given the video, they play it. They say it's a video. It's drone footage. Makes sense to me. Only when the defense played the

video in the, in the, in the jury instructions, did the, did the state go? Our version is much clearer. Our version is much clearer. Now, a lot of people are like, how dumb are they? Why would they admit it? They had no choice. If the prosecution was attempting to pull a fast one on the defense to make sure they had no way to analyze the video to form a defense, that means they need the jury to see their version of the evidence, which is clearer. When the defense played it, they went, oh, crap. We need the jury to only see our version. And the reason the defense is given the low res version is so they can't formulate the defense on time. So he had no choice but to say our version is clear.

Let's play that instead. Now, normally I'd say it was an accident. The argument is they texted the video to the defense team, which compressed it. That's insane to do. Now, the defense should have caught that, but it's not their fault. They're told they're going to be given the footage and the video, and they believe that to be true and correct. But I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

They've committed constitutional violations. They've ignored rulings from the judge. The judge says he's going to hold this in his back pocket until a verdict, but he very well may come back out and say, mistrial with prejudice. Ritten house is free to go wait can i ask mike a question because you're an attorney let's suppose they they forgot right like there was a video file and it's in a drawer and it's like oops i thought i got i have it now and i'm a prosecutor in good faith and the jury's already deliberating what am i what can i

do at that point as a prosecutor who would be acting in good faith yeah that would so tech there's a they call call those Brady violations. Brady is information that could go to guilt or innocence or deal with information at sentencing. So in other words, it shows you as maybe a better person, a more innocent person than you thought. So if it's a good faith error on something like that, you could get a mistrial without prejudice and retry it.

That would be the remedy if you wanted it. The defense, I don't know if they would depending on how the case you're making a guess the defense lawyer would say hey, I think we're going to win anyway and not take it. I have a correction. At 2.45pm the defense made a verbal motion for a mistrial

without prejudice. Oh, wow. Very wow. Prosecution makes laundry list of excuses over the state not providing defense of high resolution drone video. Judge warns prosecution. He'd warned them there would be a day of reckoning over this drone video

and then says he's not going to make a decision now, inclined to see what the verdict is going to be. On the 15th, the defense filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, which means they cannot bring the charges back. But it seems like the defense is so upset over the cheating that they're like, just do a mistrial. We will do this over. Why would they want to do it? Would they do it over?

They have the same prosecutor. Yeah, it would be the same prosecutor. But, you know, their whole case now you have their witnesses on the record. So they can't change their story. They can't be impeached. You. Yeah, you have their witnesses on the record so you they can't change their story they can't you yeah you have all this and then there's that guy who his criminal record head has all come out now maybe you didn't have that the dui against him being dismissed maybe that comes in so there's a lot of things that you're going to try to bring in in a do-over, and all anybody can do is guess, right? So the defense is squeamish now

because usually a longer deliberation means guilty. Oh, okay. Because people don't want to come back quick from jury and convict, right? Because then it looks like you're just a bad person. Like, oh, yeah, we heard the evidence, 30 minutes, guilty, boom. You take longer, but if it's not guilty you come back right away now the written house there's all the speculation that there's a couple of holdouts they're left-wing activists and that it's going to be hung by two

left-wing activists nobody knows though there's all a complete and total guess as to do they need just a majority to quit or is it has to be unanimous either way it has to be unanimous either way oh so if it be unanimous either way. Oh, so if it's split, it's a mistrial. And then they go back and try it again. Will Chamberlain had some interesting comments about this. He said earlier that, quote, pretty clear that Rittenhouse lawyers are getting jittery. Moving for a mistrial without prejudice indicates a serious worry that a guilty verdict is coming back and that they want to get in front of it. That could be a possibility here as well.

I don't think guilty. So here's the way you would game it out if you were, you know, if you're a white born again. You would say, okay, it already looks like the jury is going to be hung, right? We don't know if it's going to be hung because it was 10 to guilty and to not guilty or if it was 10 not guilty, two holdouts, they're going to hang it. But you're thinking it's either going to hang, so then why would you even take a choice that it might be hanging because it's going to be guilty,

or that they're going to convince those two other jurors to change their vote to being guilty? So you're thinking the odds would just say, let's just do a redo, and we have all this information now that we can use. But they still filed a motion for mistrial with prejudice, and a verbal motion for mistrial with prejudice and a verbal motion for mistrial. Are both motions available to the judge? Well, one would supersede. The judge can do whatever he wants. So the initial reason they filed it, the motion with prejudice. So there was that set of questions where the prosecutor had said, this is your first time

talking since August 25th, 2020. Now now there's this is black letter law that you cannot make a comment about a person exercising his or her miranda right what does black letter law mean oh it means it's not really up for debate okay it just is if you take the bar exam and you read that transcript there's actually a right answer now the prosecutor tried to say well i wasn't commenting on his silence. I was just saying that because he was able to watch the whole trial, he could key up his story. And you technically can make that argument, but you can't say this is the first time you've talked. You can say, you can skip that line and say, hey, isn't it true, Tim, that you've been sitting here

for this whole trial? And you go, yes. Well, isn't it true that you've watched every witness testify? And you say, yes. And you go, so isn't it true then that you know exactly what you have to say in order to get the outcome you want? You can do that. No. Right. The answer is no.

Yeah, you would say no. I'm here to tell the truth. And there's all this back and forth. But the idea, too, and the prosecutor is not very competent. Binger is not competent at all. When you're cross-examining, you just give a person a yes or no answer you don't let him elaborate like that he are you there's so many just basic tactical blunders that he made but that would be the idea because then you would say isn't it true that you could come up with a story you want

you would say no i'm here to tell the truth and then it doesn't matter because you're just imposing your narrative on the witness and cross-examination, which is the way it's supposed to be. You don't get to tell your narrative on cross-examination. The inquisitor gets to, and everything has to be a leading question. Yes or no. Just keep it yes or no. Isn't that true? So fortunately, Binger is incompetent, unethical.

And I tweeted out even quoting Michael Malice that to be blackpilled is to think that Binger is going to beat us. Yeah, like that these are unstoppable foes. Yeah, they're clearly evil. Yeah, but so the jury is deliberating. Don't they know people outside are screaming on megaphones? Of course, the jury should have been sequestered. They're not sequestered? Are you serious?

I know. I didn't believe it myself someone filmed the jury from their bus pickup and the judge went well we'll just make sure that doesn't happen again when we deleted the footage and it's like what yeah no and the jury's got to be sweating bullets right and there's no merrick garland's not going to issue a memo saying that we need to go after people who are trying to tamper with the jury even though that's how they get the mob for jury tampering. It's literally jury tampering happening here. And they're getting away with it.

So they're definitely evil, but they're also dumb. And so if you're looking at this from a big strategic perspective, right, and that's what makes them dangerous is they don't have any morality. That much we know, but they're dumb, and they haven't been through a crucible i don't know if you saw adam shift cry on the view over a couple questions and i'm thinking they they can't stand any kind of media scrutiny so they are we can you explain something else to me because like i always try to steal man like if something i don't understand i'm thinking it's me why would how would anyone as a prosecutor tell the jury and and the audience that who hasn't taken a beating at one point in their life

that seems like such a bizarre statement to make like he said that yeah like what am i missing people make bad arguments oh okay is it what looks like okay yeah i want to address what you were saying you know look zombies have no morality and zombies are stupid but when you get a whole lot of them you're in trouble at least figuratively because no one's ever actually been attacked by zombies but you get the point no they are and that's that was strategically is they outnumber us they're evil and they're dumb but that's how you have to war game it out yeah is but the problem with you know conservatives or whatever the case is the people who are supposed to counteract it is they constantly refuse to accept that you're dealing with the evil this isn't yeah they're not wrong they're not making mistakes they're evil right they want to like destroy people's lives

i was yeah i was just on a rogan's show and um i don't think it comes out today i come back tomorrow whatever but i said chris cuomo is evil and joe was like no man he's like he's not evil like these guys are just doing production and not paying attention and i said it's the banality of evil chris cuomo pretended to be in quarantine to trick people into thinking he was locked down when he wasn't when he was going to his private property and got into a fight with some guy or verbal altercation and i said it's evil to willfully deceive the people yeah it's lying it's called It's called lying. But it's more than lying. We're talking about people whose lives are being destroyed by this, and he's acting as an agent to make sure they don't resist as their businesses,

their homes, their families, and everything's destroyed. And I'm like, it's evil, man. It's tough because this cell phone was built by slaves, and I know that, but I still bought it and I still use it. Am I evil? Yes. Thank you, Michael. The honest truth. That's not why. I know that. But isn't it use it. Am I evil? Yes. Thank you, Michael. The honest truth.

That's not why. I know that. But isn't it still the banality of evil? That we knew that the Foxconn labs were so horrifying, people were committing mass suicide, and we were like, but we accept this because we want it. Isn't that the banality, that we would just go along with these horrifying systems?

And the banality of evil is more the idea that evil doesn't come in the form that you think it is at charles manson it was based on harrah and its book where she would examine these nazis and they're more like hey i just want to like keep my job and i need to get x number of jews yeah but but hey look i just the phone i need it for work and i understand slaves are but cuomo's willfully evil right but now now, banality of evil would imply that he's just, like, hey, I'm going to get vaccinated

for my job and I'm going to have a vaccine and I'm going to show my vaccination pass to people and I'm just going to kind of cooperate because this is what I have to do. Ian actually had,

I think, one of the best responses because we were talking about whether or not the NPCs, the zombie hordes, are truly evil. And so I asked Ian,

I was like, Ian, are zombies evil? And he immediately was like, well, in D&D, yes, they are chaotic evil, but... Well, they're not. They don't have an alignment anymore, Ian. They made them neutral. Yeah, they're not neutral. They don't have an alignment. Whoa. What is happening? You ruined the funny point.

Topsy-turvy. Do your homework, Ian. Well, the zombie lord is evil. I know that. Well, the zombie lord has sentience, Ian. Yes. Okay, guys. I want to talk to you about evil. I know that. Well, the zombie lord has sentience, Ian. Yes. Okay, guys. I want to talk to you about evil. I want to talk to all of you about the Rittenhouse trial and what we can see as reasonable, mature adults evil. Did you know that Gage Grosskreutz in January 2021 had a drunk driving offense? And the prosecutor said, we'll make that go bye-bye six days before the Rittenhouse trial? Let me show you here from New York Post.

Sole survivor has criminal past, they say. Gross Kreutz, 28, was in court just six days before Rittenhouse's murder trial, where he was a star witness to have a recent drunk driving charge dismissed on a technicality. I wonder. So weird. Yeah, I mean, we talked about this a little bit when Rogan came on. I kind of went off and talked about all of his criminal charges. The Daily Mail called him a career criminal, but this wasn't his first DUI.

This was his second DUI. Now, I don't know anyone who had a DUI, had a second one, and was able to get off of it when the consequences are so serious. When you have a second DUI, I mean, we could look up exactly the ramifications of it, but the first DUI, in some states, they take away your car, they take away your license, and you face a very long

jail term because of that. A second one on a long criminal record of domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, felony burglary, two counts of carrying firearms while intoxicated on top of these two DUIs I mean we're talking about someone who's

definitely not an upstanding citizen but yet he's treated like some kind of celebrity on Good Morning America which he had his first interview on and I think the nerds want to nerd out about something. Yeah we're getting to the important stuff right now. I love this show. You are fact-checked,

Michael Malice. All right, something happened. We were just talking about how these people are NPCs, they're zombies, and the question is, are zombies evil? As of 5th edition,

Dungeons & Dragons, yes, they are neutral evil. They don't tend towards law or chaos. They're kind of in the middle. Evil. But they're definitely evil. Okay, so for context,

for context for people who don't understand, we're just making an analogy to you have all of these people who will vote Democrat, who will go along with lockdowns and mandates and restrictions on civil liberties. They'll go along with the Rittenhouse prosecutor presenting false evidence, and they will just say, I don't care what happened. I'm on their side, no matter what. We call them zombies. And then the question was, but is that evil, or is that

just being a zombie? Ian told us last week that in D&D zombies are evil, but Michael contested this, and you have been fact-checked, sir. Zombies are evil. I also think there's a difference between NPCs and zombies, though. I think so, too. Yeah. Because zombies are actually actively hunting.

And this suggests that their neutral evil suggests that they will betray the law at any moment for their own self-serving purposes and they'll also side with the law at any moment for their own self-serving purposes. Zombies are mindless. Zombies don't have an opinion on the law. Yeah, you can get, you know, what is evil?

Does evil require intent? Does it require outcome? What if you're in good nature? And that's why I don't use and I really used to not use it, but my rhetoric has probably gotten a little more fiery over the years. I very rarely say someone's evil. Almost never. I used to be the exact same way. And I'd be very philosophical. But when we get to the point where Binger, the prosecutor, introduces fake evidence, CGI evidence, commits constitutional violations, defies the rulings. The problem is the judge let him get away with it.

Evil is rewarded. Well, I don't think that I agree with Mike, but I think NPCs aren't evil per se. But the ones who are running the show are the evil ones. Right. The Chris Cuomo's evil. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm saying. Don Lemon's evil. The Lemmings who cnn yeah they're just lemmings yeah they

would fall off a cliff they would literally if chris cuomo told people to do anything they would fall off a cliff to their own detriment and if they were born in idaho they'd be watching fox and they'd be npcs in that right right exactly so they're just following whatever they're told to do so they're not they're not evil they're just mindless people who would go off a cliff again if they had to, which is different. But Binger's evil without question because the people who are trying to lynch a 17-year-old are evil. The pedophile who got shot was evil. Like pedophilia, I put that on the evil list. And this guy, I mean, it was the most atrocious.

I want to not get into the specifics because it's so atrocious. I don't think people want to hear what he did to these children. It wasn't like he was watching pornography. He actually assaulted more than one child. I think assault is not strong enough. We can't say what he did. Atrocity. He committed atrocities against children.

Five of them, 11 counts, ages 9 to 11. Those details matter. And the only reason he's allowed on the street is because of our legal system, which is flawed. If someone does that to a child, this person should never be allowed to see the outside of a cell. Children. I'm kind of with you about I'm reticent to call people good and evil because the way, especially the way D&D works, it's a scale from like, yeah, let me reference the Bible real quick. You have a rating from one to a hundred, evil being one, good being a hundred, and you're

somewhere on that scale, 78 say. Every act you do, maybe it's an evil act, might drop that from a 78 to a 74. And then you might do a good act to atone. And then you might do something horrible, like kill someone, and it drops to a five. And all of a sudden, but that doesn't mean it's not static. Yeah, interesting. So you're not you might be able to

they say right now what you've done we think you're evil but that doesn't mean you're not capable of good. Sure, I believe in God and redemption and I think that

I mean I believe in original sense. I think we're all we all have evil in us. So let me ask you this question though, Ian. If Reza Aslan of CNN eats human brain is he a cannibal? Oh, that's a good question.

If you played tennis in your 20s, but you're no longer a player, are you still a tennis player? Well, hold on. But we're talking about very serious actions. I understand people like... I would actually argue if you played tennis, you're a tennis player. But cannibalism is something very specific. Reza Aslan of CNN on TV ate human brain. That's immoral.

Is it fair to call... How did he get it, though? It was given to him by this fringe sect of Hindu monks or whatever. But how could a human brain have anything to do with CNN? That makes no sense. CNN did a show about religions. That was a joke, Tim. Oh.

Come on, Tim. Come on, Tim. I like it. No, no, no. But hold on. Does anyone address the question? Is Reza Aslan a cannibal even though he's not eating humans now? Well, the idea – and that goes to – are you defined by your worst moment, right?

And again, that's why I don't like to use evil because if you're a lawyer, you've thought about this. If you've defended people charged with terrible things, you think, are you defined by your worst moment? That's a question that everybody has to wrestle with. It's a philosophical one. So can you never not – there's even that joke that the guy said he fornicated with a goat once and now for the rest of his life he's a goat fornicator. And my belief, generally speaking, is that there's a redemption period that – I disagree. Almost everything. No, no, no. there's a redemption period. I disagree.

Almost everything. Hold on, hold on. I disagree. Okay. Rosenbaum. 10 years, 20 years. It's been 15 years. It had been 15 years since those actions he committed.

Sorry. Is that the one who assaulted the kids? Yes. You don't come back from that. You don't come back. But do you come back from eating human? Yes. Because he didn't kill the human. He didn't kill the person.

All right. What if you murder someone? Are you a murderer? Yes. Yes. didn't kill the human. He didn't kill the person. All right. What if you murder someone? Are you a murderer? Yes. Yes. Forever. Yes, in my opinion. If it's murder, I don't mean like drunk driving.

Then why not a cannibal? See, this is an important question. I don't think cannibalism is that bad in this context. But what I'm saying is, what we're basically saying is based on our personal views of morality, we're willing to give someone redemption and not call them a name by their worst moment. If someone murders someone, they're always a murderer. Alec Baldwin is always a murderer, but Aslan's no longer a cannibal?

I don't think eating human brain is a problem. Like I said, with stuff that happens with kids is a little different. I don't like to reduce people to their lowest moment. Generally speaking, that's not how I view humanity because my fundamental view is that

whatever's in our hearts and minds, if that were published to the world, what would that look like? And then you would say, well, that's an evil thought. That's different. The actions are different. And there's a whole bit different than a guy who loaded up maybe something, a video or something that he shouldn't have. There could be a period of redemption after that. But in the family's friendliest way, I want to make sure we stress that he was beyond

that. Rosenbaum was committing atrocities against children. The worst possible. The worst possible thing you could imagine being done to a child that they would have to live with for the rest of their lives. I would also say don't define people by their best moment. Yes. Because a lot of people like Alec Baldwin has done a lot of great work as an actor.

But if he does some horrible crime, I don't want to be like, well, he's a good guy, so let's let him go. That's why I don't follow – The bad moment is and how good the good moment is, right? If someone is like a firefighter and then he like gets into a bar fight and beats somebody up, I'm willing to let that slide if he's safe. I don't care about a bar fight anyway. Yeah, exactly. I think there's a sliding scale too because are we talking about someone like Henry Kissinger, Jeffrey Epstein? Because they're in a different realm of evil comparatively to, of course, low-level criminals, petty criminals, arsonists.

There's a big difference between the two. That's a good way if you think of every action in your life as weighting the scale of one to a hundred. If you've done a million things that have given you a hundred, and then you do one thing that gives you a one, it's barely going to move the needle to 99.9. Like Henry Kissinger is Satan. He is absolutely evil. He's not great. And Linda. Come on, Linda.

Linda, honey. Listen, honey, Linda. Stop it there. Do you like his ideas on limited war? I don't want to derail, but... I mean, what Kissinger has done throughout his entire career, propping up China and the communist state there, de-industrializing the United States,

bringing jobs over there, putting the current geopolitical situation, setting up Saudi Arabia with the petrodollar. I mean, the way that the world is right now, how broken it is, can be directly correlated to Henry Kissinger. The man advises the Pope. He advised presidents.

He advises corporations. He advised Obama. Obama's national security advisor said he takes his daily orders from Henry Kissinger and Obama has a lot of influence in the Biden administration. So I would say he's still in charge. He sat down with Donald Trump. Donald Trump was licking his boots.

All right. Those are really good points. I don't want to derail though. And I have a question for Cernovich. The deliberations in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial have now gone on for over two days. What do you think that means? Well, that's what I was talking about earlier.

If I were his lawyer, what I think it would mean is that if you can get a mistrial without prejudice, you want to roll the dice again because the only outcome for you at that point is it's tending towards bad. If I had to guess, I would say that there's one or two holdouts to convict. It's the vast majority of people who are not guilty a couple of activists got on that jury and they're going to hang because usually you hang the jury the other way usually your your challenge is getting one or two people usually need two because one person's always going to back down to vote not guilty and get

the retrial this i think is the opposite because he's so clearly – like if we were the left and he were convicted, my God, because he's so clearly not guilty. It's not even up for reasonable discussion. If they were to get a mistrial without prejudice, would they get a new jury? Yep. It would be all over. Good luck finding an untainted jury at this point. But on top of that, do they recall all the witnesses? Yeah.

So what you do – and this is why if you're if you're written house's lawyer you're thinking man i have indigestion things have been going on for a long time looking like we're not going to get in not guilty if we roll the dice again we have every witness now we know what they're going to say yeah so we know what our opening argument our closing argument is going to be you have the test now the judge knows this yeah the judge when when they the written house defense filed a motion for mistrial with prejudice because it had uh but they did that before deliberations even started right but now we're we're a day into deliberations and they came back on day two and said we'll take a mistrial with no prejudice so the judge has to

know they're sweating yeah no no he knows and the odds have changed so you're the way things are going now you think let's roll again we have all we have all everybody on the record now all the evidence that the prosecutor had hid we have it can only get better for the defense in the second trial so if i'm them i'm thinking it can only get better for us yeah if we retry this mofo it can only get better for us there's a lot of mofo. It can only get better for us. There's a lot of mistakes they made. There's a lot of things. The defense. The defense.

The defense. I think they did fairly well. I think the state screwed up royally, but that means the defense has all of that knowledge of their screw-ups. They know the state's weaknesses and the things in the stand that really screwed them up. They have that advantage. And they can pull the jury when there's a mistrial, so they can talk to the jur who said well hey you know why do you think he was oh wow they can do that oh yeah yeah why yeah what you can pull the jury oh yeah yeah they can see what arguments work about exactly

and then you focus groups that wow yeah yeah so a lot of people you can't do this in criminal trials because you can't afford them but in big high injury personal injury they do mock trials and they bring in juries and then they say well you know or they'll even have like buttons where they're like if you think something's really good like you push the button and some animals because this is where there's tens of millions of dollars at stake and if it's just your life you know it's just unfortunately if they have a mistrial does he go back in jail is he out on parole on whatever he was he was out on bail so he would remain out of bail.

They could talk to the jury. They could get a reshot. It would only get better through defense. So if I'm them and I could get a mistrial without prejudice, I know that people are going to second-guess me, but I take that in a second. I've got to tell you, the reason why I don't think I could probably ever be on a jury is that there is almost, almost, no circumstance in which I would say guilty. Okay, can I jump in here? Now, I'm not allowed to say this, so I'm going to tap dance a little about it.

There's something called grand jury. And what grand jury is, is like I think 25 or 30 people, you're impaneled for two weeks, and you all have to sit in, and this is where you get charges put forward. They say a grand jury will indict a hand sandwich. I said to them, this part I can't say, I'm an anarchist. I won't convict under any circumstances. They said, too bad, you're on the grand jury. I'm like, all right, now that I'm under these circumstances, I have to work within the system. It is very easy.

I'm giving this advice to everyone especially on drug charges juries want to be led so if you are a possibility of being in a jury and you say to people look we have no duty to convict do you really want to ruin this kid's life because he had some weed it was selling some weed that's going to be on your conscious then talk about slavery and how i made this up like you know they wouldn't convict on slave charges back in there they probably didn't but i was pulling out of my ass and you'd be amazed at how receptive people are to letting people walk when someone makes a coaching case for them and when that da walks back in the room and you say we're not returning any charges they're

baffled but all it takes is that one person on that grand jury to sway everybody else and make a cogent argument. But it's not just that people want to be swayed. It's that many are NPCs. A lot of people are there like, I don't want to be here. I got to go to work. The game's on tonight.

But they do want to do the right thing. For sure. And your job is to tell them what that is. As a leader, when you say, we should not return an indictment. So my point was, if I'm on a jury and they say, here's, like, here's a guy who was in his home. He defended himself.

And the state says we think that he actually intended to commit harm. I'd be like, not guilty. Because I'm very similar to your ideology. However, I say almost none. Because if I'm on a jury and it's very, very, very clear cut like Rosenbaum, I'd be like guilty, guilty, guilty. Or there's cases where like if someone like literally raped or killed someone. Well, it depends if there's victimless crimes. In New Hampshire, I've heard stories about the Free State Project whenever they have gatherings that whenever they find out someone has jury duty, they all celebrate and get really happy because they know it's an opportunity to nullify whatever laws they don't believe in personally.

And, you know, a lot of people, they get the jury due to notice. They're like, oh, crap, I don't want to do this. They feel bad about this. But you have an opportunity to raise your voice and actually make an argument that could have severe ramifications for the law on where you live. And there's a thing called victimless crimes. Do the research on it. Do the homework on it. Because if there isn't a victim, there's no reason

the state should be going after individuals. And I will never convict on a drug charge. No matter what. My body, my choice. The judge could say if the state has proven their case that this man was in possession of X, you must return a guilty verdict. And I'll say, no I won't.

When people give very addictive drugs to children, I get a little nervous. And I'll say, no, I won't. No, you won't. You don't have to. When people give very addictive drugs to children, I get a little nervous because I'm pretty wide open on drugs. Kids are different. That's why I say almost. No, I would say in the instance of fentanyl, if someone is giving fentanyl to people and he knows they're dying,

but that's poisoning them. That's not giving them drugs. It's a drug. No, no, no. But that's why it's hard. It's easy to say never. Nope. No, no, no, no, no. Lydia what you got. Yeah, I mean, but that's why it's hard. It's easy to say never. Nope, nope, no, no, no, no. Lydia, that's not a drug charge.

That's a murder charge. That's interesting that you consider fentanyl, especially in large doses, a poison. It's poison, not a drug. Yeah, like, Ian, if I give you a soda

but it's really got arsenic in it, it's a drug charge. Arsenic's not a drug. Arsenic is a drug. There's a victim. Arsenic's different. I, in almost any circumstance where a person chooses,

I would probably not convict children are different victimless crimes are almost a guarantee like if this person was in possession of this I'd be like I don't care there's also informed consent so if a person wants to take fentanyl that is that person's right it's his body, it's his choice

they of course shouldn't but if someone puts it in a substance and the other person doesn't know about it, that's a victim. That's a crime. That's obviously something that should be punished. And someone should be held accountable for their individual actions. I'll put it this way. In questions of individual

choice, those kinds of trials, I almost never go in. You'd never get me to commit on anything. This is a great opportunity for everyone to save a life. Not only that, that's true. But with Kyle Rittenhouse, you know why there's no argument they could make in court to convince me to convict? I'm not saying you can't convince me that Kyle was wrong. I certainly don't think he was wrong.

I think there's reasons he shouldn't have been there for sure. But I believe he was defending himself. And I think there are a lot of issues at play, but the reason I would never convict almost ever on a self-defense issue is because it is better that 100 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer. Yes, especially as a kid. Yeah. Yeah, I

look, I understand the risks. I understand the risks of releasing 100 guilty persons, but I will not be party to a system that imprisons the innocent. The thing is, releasing guilty people is what happened. He's fighting off pedophiles and assailants. Yeah.

Yep. Yeah, Rosenbaum was released that day. Well, so there's a question about that. Some people have said he was in a mental hospital for trying to take his... But some people are saying they can't find the records of that, and they haven't found the documentation proving that.

Some people say he was in jail, but again, it's still very unclear either way my view is like i think it's it's shocking to me how inhuman our legal system has become but it's always been this way tim sort of yeah yes i agree with you to a great degree but when we had a very very uh small when our communities were very very small and everyone knew each other, it was very different. Judge, Judge Smith was not setting Walter's kid to prison for the rest of his life because he was in possession. He's going to be like, aren't you Billy? Aren't you Walter's kid? What are you doing coming down here with this stuff?

If I see you, I see your dad down at the pub. I'm going to tell him what for. We're giving you probation or whatever. Today, the cop walks over and says, I don't know you. I don't care. Tell the judge. Big city. That's what happens

with density. When the prosecutor, if the prosecutor were to find evidence of innocence, would they still go for the guilty verdict or do they have a duty to be like... Well, that's called the Brady violation. So that again goes to evidence. The prosecutor has a duty.

I don't want to go too far in the weeds with you guys, but there are two different ways to do this. One is constitutionally, the prosecutor has a duty. So there's I don't want to go too far in the weeds with you guys, but there are two different ways to do this. One is constitutionally the prosecutor has to disclose any evidence that could go to guilt or mitigation at sentencing. So if they know you're innocent, they have a duty to do it. Some states have what is called the open file law. So if you're a prosecutor, you just have to give your file to the defense. That way you can't say, well, I don't think this piece of evidence is really going to be what's called exculpatory evidence. It's not exculpatory. So you don't even give them that choice. And most people like me advocate

open, or most people who are civil libertarians advocate open files. If you're going to, whatever you have, you have to give it to the defense, right? Because your duty is to do justice. That's the myth is that, that you know if you're a lawyer and you're suing me in a litigation case your job is only to your client you don't know anything to me but the idea is prosecutors have a duty to quote unquote do justice it's all fake you know what you're saying though is is it's always been like it's always been bad yeah it's always but you know what's sad to me prosecutors are supposedors are supposed to, aren't they supposed to seek justice? That's the point of prosecution.

Right. Then they have grand juries, which is, okay, we're going to impanel regular people to see if they agree we should bring charges, and it's all broken. Yeah. Well, there's another aspect to this. When people go to jail, they come out way worse. Jail is usually a university for criminals where they learn how to do more criminal activities and network with other people.

And they come out of that place a lot worse than they came in, and they become more destructive towards society. And it's a cycle where they keep going in and out, in and out. And the system not only tortures them, not only deprives them, especially with the January 6th people who were sent to jail, the inhumane situations that they're put in, cells that are flooded with sewage,

denied basic medical attention, denied even proper food, getting beaten by guards. We're talking about a system that corrupts a human being and robs them of their life. And again, there are some really bad people out there. They deserve punishment, but a lot of times what they get in the prison system is not that.

I think it's very unfortunate that when you talk about having better prison conditions for prisoners, a lot of people who are conserved would be like, well, they shouldn't have done this, lock them up, throw away the key. God help you if this prosecutor's name decides you should be throwing away the key. Well, they're in jail right now. They're called the January 6th people.

I don't like the idea of deserve punishment. I don't like a justice system that is actually just a punishment or retribution system. I look at people who do bad things and say, how can we make them not do a bad thing in the future and then welcome them back into the warm loving bosom of society but then you guys were just saying that you define people by the lowest moment though right i don't people yes and some people go to prison right saying no no but but that's the whole idea though is in a way you you have to choose do you want do you want retribution do you want redemption how do you find redemption oh yeah but i'm not saying it's it's a zero-sum game some people are not worthy of redemption and i i think we can try or we can say of people like rosenbaum who committed atrocities we say this guy should

probably be locked up forever because that would happen when someone like that does get released well that's why if you asked me and other people like you know people have thought about these issues we send way too many people to prison but we don't send violent criminals away long enough right exactly right yeah yeah it's wrong in both ways yeah it's like we got to sharpen the curve you know the very violent get more time and most people get less q anon you know q anon uh shawn is gonna do did more time than that. He got charged for 41 months as of today. In addition, he got 51 months

because 10 was time served in solitary confinement. He was in solitary? Yeah, 10 months. No, they completely broke him. Torture. Solitary confinement is torture. Check this out. We do have this story. This is from Daily Mail. I have no excuse as it was indefensible. Contrite

QAnon shaman Jacob Chansley is sentenced to 41 months in prison for his role in the Capitol rights. 41 months and I will tell you this. There's one reason why he got 41 months because he wore horns. And you think I'm joking. I'm not joking. Seriously? It was iconic photography. It was iconic to see.

That's what the prosecutor was arguing. That he's a symbol of the insurrection? Yep. So there were people there who were shoving against cops, who were violent and attacking, and that I get. Arrest them. Charge them. You committed a crime.

But there were people who bumbled in, who were walking around, doors opened by the police. And many of these people are getting charged. But it's worse than that. It's the torture that's going on in the jails. For any one of these individuals, it's wrong. And it's the torture that's going on in the jails for any one of these individuals it's wrong and it's the p it was that woman i think in alaska right the feds raided her home the overreach on this is insane it's the expansion of the capital police nationwide what the biden administration's uh doj has been doing across the board has been nightmarishly corrupt but i want to make sure we focus on the torture. How do you get a guy who's wearing horns and he bumbles in and he goes

and then he leaves? 41 months. 51? No, I guess the prosecutor wanted 51. He got 41 and he'll get time served for the 10 months he did. Did you hear what Enrique Tarrio said? Enrique Tarrio,

chairman of the Proud Boys, is in jail because he confessed to tearing down a Black Lives Matter banner and then burning it. And I think he got only a few months. Six months. Six months. And he said his cell fills with sewage. Oh, my gosh. Basically, was he being abused by guards?

Or was that him who said that? There was a letter written by him that came out that people could read and they could see what he's going through right now. I don't want to put words in his mouth. I think he said it very eloquently in his letter, and I think people should read it to bring attention to this. But six months for that charge? Compare that to all the other rioting and crazy stuff that we know the FBI has drone surveillance footage of. Gage Grosskreutz goes to a riot in kenosha with a gun he's not legally allowed to possess i think by uh i'll say this to you michael i believe he has the right to the

constitutional right the human right to but for statute reasons and how we're just we're arguing law enforcement he wasn't allowed to have it what happens the prosecutor instructs the detectives not to execute a signed search search warrant against his phone he gets charged drunk driving charges dismissed just before the trial. And he's getting no charges when they know he lied to the police. That's obstruction. They know his gun.

He was not allowed to have concealed because his permit was invalid. No charges. But Enrique Tarrio, well, he vandalized something. Now, I tell you, look, vandalism is bad. You shouldn't tear down someone's banner and burn it. That's theft of property and destruction, right?

It's disproportionate. And this also speaks to this kind of ridiculous idea of equality before the law, which has never existed and can never exist, because everyone knows it's an absolute given that a district attorney will cut a deal with someone who's lower on the totem pole in hopes of getting a better person. So if there was equality before the law, people would be treated and prosecuted equally. But they are perfectly willing and able on a daily basis to say, we know you committed these crimes. You're getting away with it, just as long as you cooperate with us.

Do you think that if everyone was treated equally under the law, that inevitably everyone that gets a certain position of power would do something illegal and be taken down, and the system just couldn't function? Like, the CIA is an illegal... Its whole purpose is to do illegal things in secret. I don't think the system is in a position to enforce

itself. You know, I just had this tweet today, like, so the Supreme Court has to go through the Senate, right? For confirmation. So it's basically like asking prisoners to choose their own corrections officers. Are they going to pick corrections officers that are going to restrict their freedoms? Or are they going to pick the COs that let them do whatever the heck you want?

And that's exactly what you see with the Senate and the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court gives them basically a blank check to do whatever they like. To be fair, the president nominates them and then it has to go to the Senate for confirmation. So they don't just get to choose whoever they want. They have to agree and say we'll accept this. Right, but they are giving the rubber stamp. They're not going to give the rubber stamp on someone historically speaking who's going to tell them you at Congress can't pass whatever laws you want. Yeah, but also we have

way too many laws. We have way too much of a bureaucracy. According to Harvard University professor Harvey Silvergate, he estimates that on average the American each day commits three felonies a day. What the heck?

Felonies? Three felonies a day. What the heck? Felonies? Three felonies a day. Harvard University professor Harvey Silvergate came out with... I don't buy that. Yes, come on. Well, it's over-criminalization. I do. There's been a lot of research on it.

So let's just say, for example, you dump your gray water tank in a parking lot. They could come up with an environmental regulation violation into that and turn something that would be you know at most a civil offense with a fine and they could cook that up so there's laws about junk mail there's laws about all kinds of things that would really surprise you and it's all about what they can get away with and and you could be like you know it's like a regular old high school teacher who takes an rv out to the desert to cook some blue meth and all of a sudden you get the dea show made about you tv show is that did that say your average

person commits three felonies per day uh yeah so that would mean that some people might do nine and then two other people might do zero yeah yeah this is a book that's called three felonies lying on your i mean lying on your resume is technically wire fraud because you commit fraud because you're trying to get money or a thing of value from an employer. You transmit it via an interstate commerce via the internet. So that's technically wire fraud. Wow. I wasn't that sheath underwear model. They used a body double.

It was beautiful. They got this really fit little person. I love it. It wasn't that sheath underwear model. They used a body double. It was beautiful. They got this really fit little person. I love it. It wasn't you. No, take credit. No, that's why lawyers are always paranoid because you realize that if they want to get you – like the way I describe it to people is if they want to get you, they will, but don't give them your head. Yeah.

Because people do a lot of reckless things. So, for example, I didn't even go to D.C. on January 6th because in the back of my mind, I said, I bet you they'll cook up something. They'll cook up something against me if I'm even there because that's the lawyer in me. And then a lot of people, they just walked in. Well, technically, those people didn't violate the law because trespass requires that you know that you're not supposed to be there you get a warning yeah and if you're if you were just some like maga rube who came out from ohio because you believe in q anon you you don't you don't know if you're not pushing forward you're just like following the police opened the door for them took selfies with them yeah so they didn't actually break the law because they didn't have notice that they weren't supposed to be there.

It doesn't really matter. Or like they did with James O'Keefe, it sounds like they're trying to cook up something against him even though he didn't do anything illegal. But they'll cook it up. Well, you add three felonies a day with the constant surveillance that happens on the average american with almost everything being tracked trace and database with the fbi using their counter-terrorism division to investigate parents who go to pta meetings when you add all of that up you have a recipe of disaster you have essentially the kgb going after political dissidents who of course disagree with the current political structure and dare challenge the narrative that they're trying to invoke onto everyone.

And look, conservatives were the law and order people forever. I was always a... You can go back. I was writing about this stuff 20 years ago. This is just my wheelhouse. And conservatives never gave a shit or never gave a crap. And now suddenly they care and they're like, oh, we're being unfairly treated.

No, you're not. This is what happens to people charged with federal offenses. This is what happens to everyone. Oh, the January 6th people are being treated differently than the rioters. Dude, everybody who goes to that federal system gets cooked. They say you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. They'll grind you down, destroy your life. That's what they do to everybody.

They've got infinite money. It's your tax money. And there's that old line about how a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. But a conservative is a liberal who's been arrested. But a liberal is a – hold on. A liberal is a – a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Yep. And a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. What happens if you've been mugged and arrested? Because I've been both. Have you? I've been mugged and arrested? Because I've been both. Have you? I've been mugged and arrested. I think you're a moderate at this point. Were you mugged in Chicago?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was a guy well, so a guy tried mugging me and I just left. So a guy comes up next to me. He's like 6'6", 6'7". He's this tall, blonde dude. And I was in Lincoln Park and I'm crossing the street and he's like, hey, how's it going, man? How's it going? How's it going? And I was like, good, good. And he goes, awesome, awesome. So why don't you give me the money that you have? Give me the money you have right now because I got a knife on me and

I want to do the right thing and you want to do the right thing and we don't got to get things bad. And I started laughing. And then I was like, yeah, okay, I don't have any money. And he goes, you think I'm stupid? You think I don't know? And so I pulled out my empty wallet and I'm like, here's my no money. And I put it back. As I'm walking, I'm like not facing, I'm just keep walking. And he's like, I told you I have a knife and i know you got your money in your shoe and i started laughing again we crossed the street and we walked about a half block when all of a sudden a cop grabs him like a plainclothes anti-crime cop slams him up against the wrought iron fence and screams not in my town true story i'm not kidding and then two beat cops run up

and they said apparently that they had gotten a report. They saw the guy. So when he went up to me and tried shaking me down. But my attitude in Chicago has always been like, you know, maybe it's from being depressed in that city. You can't shake me down. I'm just like, yo, it's Chicago. The high school fights that were near my neighborhood ended with gunshots. You come up to me and tell me you want money, and I'm like, this is not the worst thing I've ever run from. But I wanted to get into the Fed overreach and all that stuff

because you briefly mentioned James O'Keefe. Guys, I got a conspiracy theory for you. You ready for a conspiracy theory? I think you will agree with me on the plausibility of this conspiracy theory. Alex is a Fed. No, not that one. James O'Keefe was investigating the FBI, so they raided him to try and

seize the evidence. Let me lay out my case. Oh, this is a no-brainer. Right. The FBI raids James O'Keefe and Project Veritas and James himself and his home and his journalists. They claim it's over some diary that he turned over to the law enforcement a long time ago.

So this is, what are they searching for? A diary he gave away already? Okay. Within an hour or so of the raid, the New York Times calls for comment on some of these journalists, meaning someone tipped off the New York Times. Information, electronic devices were seized from James O'Keefe. Privileged legal communications were then leaked to the New York Times. It is widely believed the FBI were leaking privileged communications to the New York Times. The New York Times stated that in those communications, James O'Keefe was discussing with his lawyer the extent to which they could undercover

record federal law enforcement. On October 20th, I believe it was, an FBI whistleblower sent documents to the Republicans outlining how Merrick Garland was using counter terror tactics against parents right the fbi must have found out and this is my theory my hypothesis that they had a leaker within that within the bureau and that james o'keefe i believe they knew

someone was communicating with him but they didn't know what he was giving yeah yeah so they said we can't let him release this so they raided him under false pretext, seized his communications. Activists within the Bureau said, give it to the New York Times and destroy them. That's my theory. I would even add that they probably were the ones that gave him the diary in the first place since this diary was going around. A honey trap. Yeah, and they didn't expect them to give it to law enforcement, which Project Veritas did. They didn't run with the story

and I just think they were extremely desperate. This isn't even a conspiracy theory at this point, I don't think. This all makes perfect sense to me. Like the fact that this got leaked when it did, the fact that they raided his house, the fact that he didn't even have the diary but they assumed he would because I guess

that's what they would have done if they'd been in his position. This is not a conspiracy theory to me this just sounds to me like what happened an October so I don't know when the leak happened so this is a correction Fox News reports an October 20th internal email from the FBI's criminal and counterterror divisions released Tuesday by House Republicans instructed agents to apply the threat tag edu officials to all investigations and assessments of threats directed specifically at education officials could it be and this is what we will all issue an update and correction it wasn't that the fbi whistleblower set the information on the 20th what if this fbi

whistleblower went to veritas first following the raid by the fbi earlier this month the whistleblower then brought it to the republicans interesting i I think the FBI went after James O'Keefe because they were scared that O'Keefe had information on them. And I will stress, the New York Times said in the legal communications that Veritas was asking about the extent to which they could secretly record FBI agents. Yeah, I think this is

legit, dude. I mean, it's still a conspiracy theory. I gotta say it because there's no evidence, or well, there's some, I guess you could call it evidence, but there's no proof in any way. So we're still theorizing, but I mean, that's what the FBI does. James would know. Didn't they, and James might know. Didn't they set up the whole, what was it, the Michigan governor?

Yeah, yeah, Whitmer. The FBI plainly, like, I don't know if they admitted to it or what, but they were like causing that to happen. Before social media, if this was 20 years ago, all of this would sound ridiculous and crazy. Well, now there's enough evidence in a paper trail that people are like, alright, this is plausible. Well, 20 years ago, we had the FBI scandal with the 1993

World Trade Center bombing, which also put them in a very questionable situation. So when you look at the history of the FBI, Colettelle probe, and all the other things that they have done, there's a long history of doing things that were absolutely illegal

in the name of fighting the law. So this is nothing new, what the FBI has been up to throughout their entire existence anyway. This is a scary and nightmarish reality. It's like we were in the Matrix the whole time you know you're talking about how 20 years ago we went to figure this out but the internet basically for lack of a better term red pilled everybody yes man now they're all watching it happen from the outside like oh dear lord this is horrifying yeah yeah

i feel like the humanity's been under the boot since the beginning. And then the founding fathers were like, yo, the war, they didn't actually, well, Washington fought. But that sacrifice to kind of get us out from under the boot. But at what point did they put the boot? They all sacrificed. They all did. Each and every one of them. Ben Franklin's son joined the British. Oh, of course they sacrificed.

They staked their, what did they say? Their blood, their treasure, and their sacred honor or whatever there was a one founding father's wife was taken prisoner to be used in a prisoner exchange a good majority of their homes were under british occupation shout out to all the founding mothers man just think about this especially fancy the the signers of declaration of independence who who sat down and could have just went guys it's a tax it sucks but i want to make sure my kids have food so I'm not going to war. And I will throw it to Mel Gibson

in one of the best movies ever, The Patriot, where he says... Is that the one where he is with the beaver? The beaver? The Patriot, it's a long movie about him getting revenge for the British soldiers killing his kid. Oh, okay. Amazing movie. And he's in South Carolina, he's in, I think, Charleston, and he says, if you're asking me if I think Oh, okay. He's tending aid to all of them. And his son was a writer for the American revolutionaries.

So he's like, who is this man? Who are these orders? And then Mel Gibson, one of his kids, got a bunch of kids, runs to try and save the older brother who's being arrested. And the British officer shoots and kills him. Mel Gibson then uses his American frontier war training and goes on like a one-man. Not a one-man. He has like a group of militia men and he goes and starts raiding the British. But anyway, I digress. That was an excellent scene

where you see a guy who doesn't want to fight. He doesn't want to go to war. Then I think back to the founding fathers and what really happened. They all said from young ages of like, what, 26 to like 50s or whatever, I will say to the king, I declare war on you. And you know what's funny? You know, it's really really funny and i say funny and not in the haha way they knew they believed we'd lose the founding fathers thought war with britain would never play off and they would lose but the french intervention saved us so these were guys who were like i am so pissed off at them quartering in our homes taking our belongings telling us we can't defend ourselves, that I am willing to say I will fight you and lose,

even if it means my children. And at the time, England had the biggest military in the world. They were the biggest might. They were the biggest power. And that movie, along with Braveheart, tells a very similar story. Absolutely has your blood pumping and motivates you. And it really shows you the larger consequences of what is routine in human history.

And it's not an exception to the rule. It is the rule. And the other thing that they're not taught in a high school civics class is what a huge percentage of the American population were loyalists. That's right. That they wanted nothing to do with this nonsense. We're loyal British subjects. Shut the F up, George Washington. Leave us alone. We're not revolutionaries. That's right. That they wanted nothing to do with this nonsense. We're loyal British subjects. Shut the F up, George Washington. Leave us alone. We're not

revolutionaries. This is crazy. So victory is never a function of persuading the majority. They're always going to follow the leaders. So I've tried to do a lot of, I've done a decent amount of research, not a historian, probably people know better than me, on the percentages of... So yeah, I've looked into it. There's a famous

misconception where, I think it into it. There's a famous misconception where I think it was Ben Franklin. Someone said, a third are loyalists, a third want independence, and a third want to be left alone. But that's not actual numbers. So I looked it up,

and the best assessment I could find is that the plurality wanted nothing to do with anyone. The plurality said, shut up and leave me alone and go away. The next largest group was in like the 30. The plurality said, shut up and leave me alone and go away. The next largest group was in like the 30 percentile which said, we want independence

and then in the high 20th percentages were people saying, long live the king. All that mattered was those who actually cared. So the people who were uninitiated and said, leave me alone abstained. The revolution won the vote, basically. And the other question about, this is really interesting.

When it came to voting on whether to declare independence, a lot of colonists, they were British. They all consider themselves British. They said, by what authority do you declare independence in the name of our state? They said, who elected you to go there and say you're a representative of a free state of Virginia? They just did this.

They were like ad hoc pop-ups of people being like, we hereby declare. And then they sent the letter to the king and the king was like, but people need to understand that the revolution was over 20 years. The British regulars were coming here and getting into conflicts and doing right control and getting shot at and shooting back for decades. So it wasn't just one day they said, we hereby declare independence here's a letter and then the king said send in the troops the troops were there they were fighting and then within i think it was like 1865 is when sentiment started rising and we started seeing conflicts 1765 and then 1776 is when they're like we are now asserting our independence outright

over 20 years this process took place and then it was what another decade or so before the bill of rights right so it was a long but it's also funny when it's like the king gets the declaration it's like that's it i'm sending the troops like one month later because he got away from it across the atlanta but check this out i talk about this quite a bit they all gather uh so so all these founding fathers are sending letters to each other and it takes a few weeks for the letter to arrive in virginia and then to go back so the communication around independence is taking years they have their their continental congress they have their meetings and they say okay we're going to send a letter to the king with our list of demands because they sent demand letters first several how long did it take to get back to the to the king three months by sale then the king

responds three months later so six months for one question yeah yeah one question and then a year goes by and then i i'm like i'm thinking i've talked about how funny it is you know you know he's like uh thomas jefferson says we hereby declare independence ha ha they fold it up hand it to the guy he gets on his horse he rides to the boat everyone goes back to work they go farm and they forget all about it. And then a year later, a boat arrives and they're like, look, big British vessels are coming and they're angry with us for some reason. Oh yeah, that

letter. God damn it, Hancock. It's like, no, no, Thomas Jefferson is like, he's like, did I send a letter last night? I was drunk. I was with Sally in the barn. Regulars show up.

They're bombarding the coast, and they're like, remember that night a year ago when we all got drunk? And we're like, I think we should be independent. I'm going to write a letter. Yeah, you write a letter to the king. You tell him. And they all sign it, and they're like, cheers. I can't even read your signature. Wait, you actually mailed it?

That was supposed to be a joke. I thought you burned that. We were just letting off steam. Right, right, right. You're supposed to not send, you write the letter, but don't send it. That's the therapy session. I'm just imagining the king

like three months later gets the Declaration of Independence and he's like, they've already been acting as an independent country for three months. You know? So then he's like,

okay, I guess, you know, go quell the revolution. And then he's like, what a coincidence this would be dated, go quell the revolution. And then he's like, what a coincidence this would be dated the same day as Independence Day. That's right. That's so strange.

That was the weirdest part. That was the weirdest part. You know, my understanding is that Independence Day was July 2nd. Right. Nice. Yeah.

Why did we choose the 2nd? I don't remember. There's like this, this like trivia thing they say. Did you know that the signing was the 2nd? But it wasn't until like they... Oh, didn't they have to wait

for a couple signers or something? I don't remember. I think it was like they mailed it out, you know, on the 4th it wasn't until like they. Oh, didn't they have to wait for a couple of signers or something? I don't remember. I think it was like they mailed it out, you know, on the fourth or whatever or something like that. So I don't know if that's true, but I remember reading that there was a quote from like John Adams, where it's like July 2nd will be the day that America declared independence. And it's July 4th. So we have the boot on the neck now kind of right in the metaphor. Is it like the global banking system? And we're like, we will use Bitcoin and all crypto.

And that's our way of saying we don't respect your authority king george yeah i would say so for sure crypto not using fiat money yeah i think people need to realize that as much as we can talk about the founding fathers saying like hurrah and then taking up arms we're not in that era anymore you know first of all we're joking about the time gap between sending a message now you can literally be like yo we declare independence mf or haha and like anything And like, they'll get it instantly. Anything's trigger, it all happens. Everything's ready to go. Like EMF your phone. Yeah, everything

starts to trigger. Fifth generational warfare is the most important point. The liberty-minded individuals, whatever you want to call this group, have been winning because we've been very persuasive and peaceful. When Black Lives Matter rioted, Black Lives Matter lost tons of support among the politically uninitiated.

When we start winning hearts and minds and change the culture, that's how we actually win. And you don't win by freaking people out with violence. Violence is wrong. So what effect did January 6th have on people? Not the media, but the actual government. It empowered the federal government to create a national capital police force and torture people. Right. And you get 80 million people going like oh

no an insurrection and he's politically uninitiated buy into it so i often tell people there's this there's a funny episode of frazier i saw a long time ago i don't watch frazier but it was when i was a kid where something happens where um frazier is is is sitting down for coffee he gets up someone takes his seat he gets angry and says this is my seat i was sitting here and the guy says shove off frazier having a bad day grabs him and throws him out of the seat yeah very angry so the guy comes back one day with like a neck brace and he's like i'm suing you because you accosted me and then frazier's like oh no it's a big lawsuit at the end of the episode he's at the cafe trying to apologize to the guy i could be getting the show wrong but the gist of it is here he's trying to

apologize to the guy saying look i shouldn't have done that to you i'm really really sorry please drop the suit and the guy says no and then n shouldn't have done that to you. I'm really, really sorry. Please drop the suit. And the guy says no. And then Niles, Frazier's brother, gets up in between and says, you listen here, you cretin. You don't do that, you know, to my brother, you imbecile. And so the guy says, no, no, no, you listen to me. And then pokes his chest lightly. And then Niles goes, whoa, whoa, and falls over and slams into a table full of like silverware.

And he goes, countersuit, countersuit. And then the guy drops his lawsuit. The point of that story is... Niles goes to federal prison. No, the guy attacked him. He was like, I didn't do anything. And they're like, we all saw you touch him. You pushed him.

So when you look at what's going on with Antifa violence, we might be upset that the feds aren't charging these people. But rest assured regular americans saw all of that and one by one they started figuring out what was going on now the media narrative was strong and a lot of people didn't realize the truth about the rittenhouse case but now we're seeing the young turks we're seeing chris hayes we're seeing progress days too chris hayes said in all likelihood he said i've been looking at the the case and it looks like an acquittal in all honesty. Wait, just because he's predicting acquittal doesn't mean he thinks the guy's not guilty.

No, no, no. I'm not saying he said Reinhardt's not guilty. I'm saying his attitude is now he's going to get acquitted versus he's, you know, like he's put like it's a lightning on the narrative. Got it. And I experienced that I was wrong about what happened. Okay. Progressives are tweeting. I didn't realize what had actually happened.

So the more we're persuasive, the more we're correct. And the more that the corporate press is dishonest. Because if there's a big asymmetry, I make this point all the time. If I tell you, Tim, my friend, like 10 truths and one lie, those are not equal weight.

Especially if the lie is this egregious when there's this kid on trial who's 17 years old who's crying and then you're laughing at his PTSD. That's right. So I think there are a lot of – I think most people want safety, security, peace. They want to live their lives. They want to pursue their goals. And they're not really interested in politics.

And so when they see the mainstream media, the corporate press say X, Y, and Z, they say, yeah, yeah, yeah, X, Y, and Z. I get it. But then one day X, x y and z don't equal one two and three and they start getting confused yes and it keeps piling on and piling on and piling on but when you get a january 6 that reinforces the the narrative from the corporate press from the cathedral the establishment so we need to make sure if we tell if we if we are saying 10 things and we are all honest individuals trying our hardest, but we get one wrong, people will say,

Oh, they, they talk, they, they made some bad predictions, but the stuff they said, I found out to be true. The media is an inversion of this. Yes.

They say 10 things and nine things are wrong. And people finally get fed up and say, this is BS. They're lying to me. And then they say, I come to you for a solution. Yeah. So we were talking about how you would wait something like a moral weight,

whether someone does something bad. And Luke brought up Henry Kissinger. And I was going to say, one of the things that we should take into account is whether or not this is a pattern. And I would say that this is the same case with the media. If they're making a pattern

of lying to us egregiously about everything all the time, then they decide maybe they might throw in a truth every now and then. We can say, you are full of nonsense. So what ends up happening? Those uninitiated individuals who aren't paying attention are starting to ask questions about

why their gas is so high. Yep. Why they can't buy turkeys because the price of turkey is double. And why are you telling me this is a good thing? Right. Oh, this is a rich people problem. Oh, yeah. And then what happens?

A truck driver in New Jersey wins his election against the incumbent Democrat after only spending $153 because we're getting to the point where people will elect a ham sandwich over an establishment Democrat. This also happened with Dave Ball when he took out Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader at the time that no one saw coming. When was that? That was during the Obama administration.

I'm sure someone can look it up. I've got to sneak out, guys. I've got a birthday dinner with my wife. Happy birthday, man. Happy birthday, man. Thank you. Happy birthday. Thanks for coming by. How old are you?

Is that public knowledge? 44. Congratulations. We got you a cake. You got to take the birthday cake with you. I'm 100% going to take the cake. Can we show the cake? Please do.

I don't have it here. It says at least you tried. You don't have it? Oh, no. No, no, no. It's in the fridge. I bought the cake. Enjoy your retirement.

Yeah, I bought the cake. It should be in the refrigerator. Yeah, we can show it. I'm going to have to grab it. You got any plans for the next few months or anything? But, you know, just put the camera on Mike. It's his birthday. Grab the cake and walk it right over to him.

It's a nice cake. This is Mike Cernovich. It's his birthday. Shout out to Luke Rutkowski for thinking of the cake. Very thoughtful. Thank you, Luke. Luke's a very thoughtful guy. Well, thank you for coming and being a part of the show.

And I bet you probably have a lot of lessons you've learned throughout the years. You've been very prolific on Twitter. Look at this. What kind of cake is this? We could light it too. I don't know if anyone has a lighter. That looks really good though.

I don't have one on me. Just hand it to him. Hold it up. Show the camera. You got them all. We could have lit it. Pick it up. Hold it up. Show the camera. You got them all. Oh, we could have lit it. That would have been fun. I still have good lungs. Yeah, it was a good time, bro. Thanks for having me. Thanks for coming, man. Happy birthday. What kind of food are you going to go get? They're at a beer

garden, I think. Oh, nice. I haven't been to one of those in years. Well, we're going to jump over to Super Chats. You can slip out. Yeah, perfect. Feel free to slip out. You're not a prisoner. Right on. We'll take... I'm sure there's a lot of people who are eager to get questions in for you, but if you've got a bounce... There's a couple for me.

I'll hit them real quick and then hit it and forget it. Yeah. Let's do it. Maybe, but I've got to find them. That's the challenge. That's always the challenge. Can you control F Cernovich?

No, I doubt. Or Mike. Or Mike. All right. We'll hit them next time. Thanks, guys, everybody. Thanks so much, man. Always a pleasure, Mike.

Thanks for coming. You want to bounce out? I probably can't find him fast enough for you, but just do your thing, and we'll do our thing. Feel the love psychically. Why is no one talking about Jelaine Maxwell? I mean, that's a great point. Yeah, I know.

I know. That should be talked about as much as the Reinhardt case. Or more. Or more. Absolutely more. Yeah. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Mike.

All right, man. Thanks for coming. All right, we'll just start with the Super Chats like normal, and we'll just carry on through the night with Mr. Michael Mal guys. Thanks, man. All right, man. Thanks for coming. All right, we'll just start with the Super Chats like normal. Yeah. And we'll just carry on through the night with Mr. Michael Malice. Yes. We only have one Michael now. I'm sorry.

Now we can say Mike again instead of last name, Cernovich and Malice. All right, so we got here. Oh, we didn't even talk about the locals thing. Yeah, we should go into this. We'll do that on this bonus episode. Talk about locals. I brought up... Why don't we talk... Why don't we just... I brought up like'll do that in this bonus episode. Talk about locals. I brought up... Why don't we talk...

Why don't we just... I brought up like a couple weeks ago that... Let's talk about it. Basically that Dave Rubin sold you out and all the locals people by... This is a deep... There's a couple tears to this. That he basically got a bunch of people like,

hey, come join my new Patreon. I'm going to do it right. You can trust me. No one's going to ban you because I have the keys. All these people signed up and then he was like... and then he sold it to another company and now they have the keys. He doesn't have the keys anymore.

He misled people. That was my whole thing about he sold you out. I have a lot to say about this. Sorry, real quick. The context is Dave Rubin started Locals, a subscription platform. He recently sold it to Rumble. I don't know the full details on what he got for it. He got stock in Rumble

according to his announcement video. i hate when people online are like explain yourself or how are you friends with this person i always usually block them or ignore them it's different when someone is friends with me and i know them and so on and so forth so because it's you guys and we're all friends i've hung out with lydia one-on-one hung out tim one-on-one uh luke and i are basically cousins because of our views and our backgrounds and even you and i've never hung Lydia one-on-one, hung out with Tim one-on-one. Luke and I are basically cousins because of our views and our backgrounds. And Ian, you and I have never hung out one-on-one. We've had pretty intense conversations. So I'm perfectly receptive to something like that happening.

Here's the story with why I'm at Locals, why I'm happy to be at Locals. I was on Patreon, and I was unhappy with Patreon for a couple of reasons. One is, the bonus thing I had was a Facebook Michael Malice group, but then I'm at the risk of getting zucked at any minute, right? Number one.

That happened to Dave Smith, who some of you guys know. Really? This very failed comedian. They zucked his Facebook group for his fans. It just vanished overnight. So that was an issue I had with Patreon. And number two is I didn't like how Patreon also vanishes people overnight. I did it to Lauren Southern, some other people.

Carl Benjamin. Yeah, Sargon. One night you're going to wake up and your revenue is gone. Ruben calls me up. I was the second person he called after Bridge of Fantasy. And I also think it's important if I'm taking money from people or if anyone is to be transparent about it. Absolutely. So this was the advantages I had with locals.

One is if I had an issue, I knew I could talk to Dave right away, right? Me and him have a close relationship. I'm not just going to wake up and it's going to be deleted. Two, he was going to promote it, so that's going to encourage people to support me. And three, I own the content there. Now, it's kind of a community. I don't post that much on there.

There's some exclusive content. The primary thing is I use it like a Patreon and also it's not beholden to Facebook, right? So when he sold this to Rumble, none of my data went anywhere. It's still my dad and always has been my data that i could take with me so i same thing is true for patreon well i fine but the point is the there's no upside for me of being patreon that's being on patreon and these are some

very specific upsides that i could have for being on locals so i don't see what the issue is you think it's like the least worst subscription-based service right now yeah and i had some big benefits from doing it i'll explain my my perspective on this and why i'm not a fan uh and i think the easiest way to explain to people is that i actually am rather economically left libertarian okay when patreon as a massive silicon valley you know vc funded enterprise emerges and starts uh coordinating and colluding to destroy people's careers. And they did because we saw that after Patreon banned certain individuals, they started going after any competitor. Subscribestar was a good example.

They had their access to online financial services terminated from a couple companies. And people pointed out, I'll say in my opinion, because I want to be careful on legal issue, following the exodus from Patreon, all of a sudden these rival companies started losing their access to online financial services and it was very obvious what was going on. I think it is great that a rival service emerges like Locals. But my belief is that if we are to succeed in terms of freedom, liberty into the future, we must empower individuals to have access to this technology at their own fingertips. Immediately, my response was, I'm going to start a nonprofit that creates a decentralized open source Patreon that anyone can have for free to install on their own server or a server where they pay for it. So instead of going to someone else, instead of giving away a percentage of their income and being beholden to someone else's political whims, they can say, it's my server. I upload, I press enter on the software, instantly networked with all of the other sites that use this,

have their own privately controlled subscription service, and give money percentages to no one. It was a non-profit solution where I said, I don't want to make money off the fact that people are being oppressed by massive manipulative monopolies. And I think that's terrific. And what Dave Rubin's solution was is, and it's also equally valid, was I'm going to create a service to offer up to people a safer position with their subscription platform. And for this, I will get a premium.

The reason I disagree with that and don't like it is that Dave Rubin then has the ability to sell those promises to someone else off of the names he's collected. And he has. Rumble, I also think is fantastic. And we use Rumble fans. But what happens in 10, 20 years? Has this actually solved the problem? No. so what it says to me is that we had this great crisis moment and instead of solving the problem individuals of merit said we will just recreate the same problem and profit off of it that's fine because i believe in free market all the stuff but i actually think the solution to this will be to create a perpetual open source community-based free networking software to give to everybody. I agree that that is the solution, but

I'm also saying that if there is a problem and there's something that mitigates the worst aspects of the problem, that is clearly a concrete improvement. We agree. I'm actually all about people creating proprietary tech and selling it, but the reason I went after Dave so hard is because he's very vocal about big tech and the problems and kind of

beating big tech, and what he did, whether he realizes or not, is he built big tech. He built proprietary social networking and sold it to another proprietary social network, which can now sell to Microsoft for $6 billion and own it all. Okay, I did not know that. So look, look, I think that we need competition. I think that Silicon Valley's monopoly is horrifying. Sure.

I think that Rumble buying locals is massively beneficial towards freedom liberty because it creates competition and then puts these other companies on notice. Rivals are emerging, they're powerful, and they're taking away large portions of your market share. It's really, really good. The end result, I believe, however, is I know the guys at Rumble, and how long will it be until an investor, because there are very big investors involved in this, who say, what's my exit? And they say, well, I mean, look, Google, Alphabet's really excited about what we're doing. And they want to buy up competition. So they're offering us half a billion.

Boom. And then what happens a year or two later? They roll out new updates. So it's like a stopgap. I think it's still a net positive across the board. But it's just, for me, my personal worldview is we should be working towards decentralized

solutions. That being said, it's a net positive, what Locals is doing, what Rumble is doing. And I think nothing is stopping us from doing what we're doing. So in the end, everyone's just doing well. And I'm just going to say one more thing. You said he sold me out. That site gives me peace of mind because people contribute five bucks a month and I don don't have to worry about being homeless, and I don't have to worry about being canceled. Because if my Twitter goes away, if my YouTube goes away, I know I can make rent.

And that is really a big deal for someone who's unemployable and doesn't have a job that I can sleep at night not worried about. Am I going to wake up tomorrow? Is my life going to be ruined? So my question for you is why didn't you just spend the three hours to install WordPress with the free membership plugin? What? I don't even know what you're talking about. That's the issue I take here. You could have, in a matter of hours,

bought... You can join my locals for free. You just have to pay money to post. That's it. It's free. Pay money to post? Yes. And what is your locals, by the way? What do you mean? It's mouse.locals.com but my point is anyone can join the community for free you do not have to pay to join if you want to be a supporter i have some hidden posts and if you want to comment but that's it but it's free right so

what i'm saying is you have free content and then member content right so for 70 you can buy a wordpress um um uh it's a pre-made WordPress site, like a template. Okay. And then, how much does the, you can get like a membership plug-in for a couple hundred bucks and then the website

is basically done and people can do the exact same thing and you never pay a cent of percentage to anyone else ever again. Because this is the first I'm hearing of this

because I'm a fucking boomer. And this is my issue. Sorry. My issue is, I feel like people got worried they were going to have their lives destroyed by Patreon. And along comes the person saying, give me 10% of all of your money and I'll make it all go away. When he could have said, Michael, I will.

Why are you yelling? Because I am. I'm not yelling at you. I know you're not yelling at me, but yeah. Because I tell people this all the time. You give me one day and I will give you your own, your own Patreon, your own subscription platform, and you will never have to give away your revenue to anyone else. But they go around and collect those who are scared. They say, I see a crisis.

People are scared their livelihoods will be destroyed. Lauren Southern, Carl Benjamin. It is time for me to go to them and assuage their fears by telling them, if you give me 10% of all the revenue you make in perpetuity, and it is in perpetuity, then I will make that go away. And when they called me and asked me that, I said, I've run tech companies before. I've built apps before. In one hour, I can make my

own site. And they said, no, you don't understand how hard it is, Tim. You're wrong. You're wrong about this. Trust me and give me 10% of all your revenue. And so I got a dev through Luke, a good friend, and for a couple grand, we built our initial site and we pay no one anything. And the amount of growth

we've had, 10% would be ripping money from our pockets by exploiting our fears and ignorance. Look, I'm lefty on these issues. I am not the kind of person who says, buyer beware. Caveat emptor. I don't believe in that. I am not the kind of person who says, buyer beware, caveat emptor. I don't believe in that. I believe that convincing someone to hand over a portion, 10% of their

business, and it only costs me a couple hundred bucks to operate their infrastructure is wrong. But you know what? It is free enterprise, and I can respect the entrepreneurial behavior. And if people make those choices, it is individual choice. I feel like I am actively combating things like that, trying to convince the good people like Michael Malice. We can make you powerful and we can make sure that money stays in your pocket because I don't want your money. I don't want to be in charge of you. I don't want control over your revenue. I want to help you. I want you to be bigger.

And I want you to have all the money in the world that you earn. Yeah. And then I watch these people come up and say, are you scared they're going to ban you? If you give me a cut of your money, don't worry, we won't. And yet still, Locals then sells to Rumble

and Rumble could sell. Now Dave Rubin made you those promises, but he doesn't have control over whether or not you get banned. And I assure you, Locals will ban

certain people who sign up and we all know it. So what effectively happens is you have built up your subscriber base on someone else's platform once again, just like Patreon. And if you leave, it will be very difficult for you to inform all of those fans where to go. They're getting a cut of your money and it is a massive amount. I know the costs. I know the expenses. We host members only content and it is expensive because we have a lot of members. But if you were to host everything you were doing on your own website with your own couple hundred bucks members plug-in,

you would be paying 99% less than you would be paying now. And guess what? They knew it when they sold you it. Now, that's free market. And if you're on the right and you're a libertarian ANCAP type, you probably are fine with it. That's where I differ, and I believe I would rather decentralize and give away the tech and the power for free. Well, the tech has been out there for over 10 years. So I had my own website.

I called it Members Lounge, Subscribers Lounge. I call it lucumcensored.com right now. It's been around for a very long time. And instead of giving 10%, instead of giving your audience, because also people who follow you are going to go on that website and they're going to stay and they're going to sign up to other people's different kind of locals and groups. You could keep your own in-house group directly to you. With an email list and everything. You keep a larger portion of your audience and what you pay for is payment processing and hosting, which if you do it intelligently is 1% to 2% compared to 10%. And real quick, Odyssey has – Oh, I got to link my stuff to there.

I keep forgetting. But I believe they have – Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because look, there's video hosting services that are decentralized torrent-based, and the costs for them are minuscule. And you can get a membership – you can get member-locked videos on some of these platforms. I'm not sure if Odyssey does it open to the public, but I believe it's a business thing they do.

And it's, we'll call it effectively free. So I'll just put it this way. When Carl Benjamin is a good friend of mine, he helped, when I was starting my YouTube, he said, Tim, will you do a video for my channel, you know, talking about something? And this was a huge opportunity for me. He had hundreds of thousand subscribers. I had none. And then I broke 100K with his support because they were people who saw my work and believed in me. And when I saw him get banned from Patreon over BS issues, I was personally

offended. They lied, they cheated. And I spoke with the CEO of Patreon and he assured me all of the exact same things that Dave Rubin said as well. It was to the T. I'm on the phone with this guy in Vegas and he's like, listen, listen, listen, man. I don't want to ban anybody. We're here to support free speech. But here's the issue. When the processors come to us and say you ban one person or you ban them all. We didn't do this. We didn't trust us. We're here to protect you guys. We respect the creators and we assure you we're going to let you go. And then I think it was Lauren Southern first. I think it was after

Lauren Southern had this conversation. And then he said, we'll never do this again without giving notice. I can't remember which one was first. But then Carl Benjamin got banned. I think he was second. There was a mass exodus. And then I'm like, some of these people are my friends whose lives are being destroyed.

And this guy lied to my face. Yeah. Well, to my ear over the phone. Yeah. And then Dave Rubin starts a business, and with all the good intentions, again, I think it's a net positive, and it's the same narrative. And now he's got you, your members are locked on his platform, and he sold it. The promises he made to you no longer matter because you don't know who's in control of

the investments into Rumble, which means tomorrow night you could be banned and you could lose everything. More importantly, 10% of your revenue, whatever percentage they take, is substantially higher than if you just took a day to do it yourself, and that's what Ian and I are dead set on. Ian's been running the On Foundation stuff much more than I have, but there is a team of people doing this for free, people who used to work for big software development firms

who are excited to produce a decentralized networked software. So when you install this on your server, all of a sudden you're connected to all of the websites, like a big social media platform. No one can access your data because it's on your server. No one can ban you because it's your server. No one can take a cut of your revenue because it's going to your financial accounts. That's what we're working towards. Yeah, and that's the On Foundation. It's a 501c3 charity. After January 1st, you're going to be able to donate tax deductible.

It's going to be legit. Then we're going to be able to start paying developers and kick this into overdrive and make a metaverse that is free software so that you can watch the algorithms and see what they're doing. And it's not going to be spying on you, the technology, and it's going to be awesome. All the people who sign up for this, I don't want one red cent from any of you. I want people to have the right to free speech, to be safe in their careers and things they build. And after you build up your site

and through your hard work and dedication and merit, you end up with 100,000 paying members. Zero will ever go to any of us who built it. It will all be yours. Now, if you're an AN an ancap you're a capitalist you know whoever and you believe that if you create it you deserve a cut i do not disagree with you we can both coexist no one's stopping me from doing what i'm doing but i tell you this my goal is to put all of those companies out of business patreon subscribe star and locals i hope that our software ends them yeah and it was Lauren that I got hit first,

and I guess what we're trying to say here in a short, concise way is decentralize and build your infrastructure. That's it. Yeah, and you need the code to be free. That's the problem with Rumble's private code because it can spy on you and sell your data, but you don't know because you can't see

that the code is instructed to do it. It's not just... I'll put it simply. If you trust Dave, you could call him on the phone. You're in good position. That's great. But Dave's not your guy anymore. He sold the company. So I don't know who you call now. I'm sure it still would be Dave.

I'm sure he's involved. But selling the company means that... So who's on the board? What happens when MasterCard calls up Rumble and still on contract with Rumble. So who's on the board? Who's on the board? What happens when MasterCard calls up Rumble and says, look, we got this guy who's made some very offensive jokes and now I'm gone? I think that's what happened with Patreon.

It was when the Swift payment system came in and they were like, we're going to shut it all down if you don't get rid of person NBAC. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. And so what happens then when a financial service goes to a subscription service and says, if you don't ban this one person, we will shut down your network.

They go, oh, no. Oh, heavens. What do we do? We have no choice. What happens when it's decentralized? They go to the one person they don't like and they suspend his service and he opens a new account with a merchant account from another bank. And it's whack-a-mole, but they can't ban anyone else and they can't put the network at harm because it's decentralized. So, with respect, Local's fantastic.

Dave Rubin's awesome. I love Dave Rubin. Better than Patreon. You know, Patreon is bad for a lot of reasons. They're in the Silicon Valley VC system. Rumble, I believe, is as well. Isn't Peter Thiel an investor in Rumble? He is, yeah. Yeah, isn't he an investor in Facebook as well? I'm not sure. No, I'm not saying that. I got beef't Peter Thiel an investor in Rumble? He is, yeah. Yeah, isn't he an investor in Facebook as well? I'm not sure.

Now, I'm not saying I got beef with Peter Thiel. He's actually done some things I agree with, but that being said, it's the same people who are owning the same projects and who have the same control, and now that control's been relinquished back to Silicon Valley. So, all it's done is tricked you, in my opinion, into staying within their ecosystem, but

giving you a false sense of security. Now that the rights have been transferred over they've you know you build your platform up on youtube they could ban us at any moment and all those years of hard work has been just annihilated so we're very that that's why i'm like we got to do our own timcast.com become a member because that's where we persist in the event they try to shut us down when we start demoing i'll i'll try we could try it out and And it works already. It exists. It exists already, right?

Like the guys had working versions of it? No, I wouldn't call it working. Alpha? Pre-alpha. Pre-alpha. But the structure is there. You can tell it's a building being built. The scaffolding is in place. And it is cool.

You can be in a 3D realm. I mean, there's a lot of cool stuff that's being... Then you can paste a website on a wall in the 3D realm. I mean, there's a lot of cool stuff that are that's being then you can like paste up a website on a wall in the 3D realm. Like we're really kind of taking this all the way.

I'm very passionate about empowering other people to be independent and all that stuff. It's like a driving force for me, but we went long. We should go to

Super Chats. So smash that like button. Thanks to subscribe Michael by the way. To the channel. I love my locals. It makes me feel happy that there's a community of people

who are friends with each other now. Locals.malice.com That's not nothing. I think it's a net positive. You took the best case scenario of what exists. That's why we've got to build something. With the Patreon thing, the locals situation is a plus one and the on foundation

is a plus one thousand. Once we is a plus 1000 like once once we get this tech up and running no one will be censored i mean people will try and ban your bank accounts they'll try and shut down your servers they'll go for your hosts but this is imagine if your account on locals was on your website no one could ban it that's just the easiest way to put it or like on a raspberry pi in your house that's also mirrored on other people's raspberry pies in their houses. Little tiny computers you put wherever you want and then there's no one person who can ban the network.

Let's read Super Chats because we went long. Way long. All right, let's see. Riona Ntaka says, prosecutors knew who Jumpkick Man was and hid it. Yeah, I saw that there was a report there that they believe they know who the guy is who kicked Kyle Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and he fired at him.

But we'll see, man, because the judge doesn't seem ready to take action. When the verdict comes in, the judge might say, we're not doing this. That'll be interesting. All right, let's see. We didn't talk about this. Maybe we'll talk about this in the member segment. OSHA has suspended the vaccine. Yeah, yeah yeah yeah this is because the fifth circuit court of appeal i believe circuit court of appeals the appellate court said unconstitutional for now

we're putting a stay but they say they will move forward with it as soon as the litigation passes through and they said they think they'll win so the battle has just begun all right let's see hey abbott says hey guys loving the timcast bonus content by the way have you heard sad little man by five times august it's a song he wrote about fauci and today at number one on the apple singer songwriter charts oh really i've had you guys heard of uh five times august negative no but i thought that song was about me oh uh five times august is like a bunch of like political i think it's like acoustic folk stuff i've. I've seen a lot of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, sounds pretty good. Five Leos, I'm guessing.

Five Leos? I don't know. August. All right, let's see. Gerald Armstrong says, Michael was also on Cash Cab. That's true. Oh, I saw that.

I didn't know that. I'm so glad I saw that. It was so good. It was really great. It's on YouTube. It was my finest hours. You scored. And I messed with Ben Bailey, the driver,

as much as I could because I knew they were going to edit it out and at the end he yelled at me and as soon as I got out that cash cab they give you fake money they mail you a check later and I looked at the camera and said this is all going up my nose they edited that out though right of course but I'm like let me see what I can say

let them sweat did you just get into a random cab and it turned out if you look up Thought Catalog Michael Miles Cash Cab there's an article. I broke it all down. They interview you pretending to be in another show and they say you're going to meet the producers at this place. And if you watch my episode, I point to my hand because I'd written on it Cash Cab.

Wow. Right when I walk into the cab. Really? Yes. Wow. Not just the hat rack. It's in the episode. It's in the episode, yeah.

It says Cash Cab on your hand. You point to it. I point to my friend and I say Cash Cab. Everything's fake on television. Everything. How funny. you point to it I point to my friend I say cash everything's fake everything funny that was brilliant I gotta check that out there's a very important super chat from a member brony ninja you laugh but let's get serious yes sir late Tuesday night I

had to bury one of my dogs Oh listening to your podcast this morning at work with only three hours of sleep kept me from falling apart. Oh, that's really great. I'm a dog bite victim. I'm a survivor. How's recovery? It's been traumatic. I want to let all

of you guys know an important lesson. It was several years ago that we had to put down my dog that we had since i was like 14 he was a wheaton terrier poodle mix named barley and uh i'm already giving away too much information and he was a very very very intelligent dog and he got old and he passed away we had to bring him to the vet because he couldn't stand anymore he couldn't go to the bathroom and these things happen but i will tell you this when we there, it was one of the most horrifying experiences I've had.

Sitting there seeing, you know, one of my best friends. And we have to watch the vet take his last moments. It was extremely painful to watch. Because he didn't want to die. My dog. But he was already there at the door. Even your dog was mixed race? Jesus, Tim.

You're really committed to that bit. I am committed. I'm very committed. But I will tell you this. In the following days, I would sporadically cry. Of course, yeah. I cried all night. For the next several weeks and months,

I would randomly just start crying. But I will tell you, I am happy. The feeling of sadness and depression and anger was one of the greatest feelings i ever had because that was all of the happiness and joy that my dog had brought to me just bursting from me at that one moment randomly and i was crying because i was remembering the love and the happiness i was crying because it gone, but it was a memory of the good and all of those great things, and I would never give up any of it. So in those moments

when I would cry, remembering that my dog had passed, I would know as I'm crying that it was actually tears of happiness for the gift I had been given. We all hung out on Saturday, and I told you, on Sunday, one of the great honors of my life, I went out with my friend Matt to different kennels to help him pick out a dog, and I told you, on Sunday, one of the great honors of my life,

I went out with my friend Matt to different kennels to help him pick out a dog, and we picked out a beautiful girl, and she's very smart. She figured out how to open the garbage. She figured out twice how to get out of the kennel, and she just goes into her crate by herself. She's just an adorable beauty. I have her picture on my Instagram. I always had dogs my entire life, and my family always had dogs their entire life. And there's incredible stories of dogs protecting them.

There's dogs that saved my grandmother's life. And I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the relationship that my family and my lineage had with dogs. So I have crazy, insane stories with just – yeah, there's something else to them. And shout-out to Lily, the cutest Frenchie on earth. Who's that? She's in LA. What's up, Lily? All right, let's get back to the silliness.

Joe the OP says, is the underwear model a new intern, Tim? We have an underwear model on the show. Yeah. Works for her. Oh, man. You know what we should talk about in the member segment? That tweet I had that triggered the left. Oh, my God.

With the sex works? Yeah. Yeah. Aren't I smart, Michael? Sure. You are, Dan. Here I am on your show. So for those, I'm not going to say the tweet because YouTube would get mad at me, but I

had a question about- Oh, my God. Yeah, let's discuss this in this bonus. I think it's a really- I think it's a- I was a legitimate question. I wasn't being silly. You were being kind of silly. Because of the way I crafted the question. But it was basically a question about the sex-positive feminist view of sex work.

And there's a really, really good question that I thought needed to be – it was a shower thought. I was just like – not a literal shower thought. But I was just like – they said sex work a literal shower thought, but I was just like, they said, you know, sex work is work. And I went, is it? Then can an employer make requirements? We'll talk about that in the member segment. Let's read some more super chats. All right.

John R. says, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Same with cannibalism. We talked about that. Some of the people at Cass Castle. I don't know about that because a lot of AA AA is like, every day you wake up and you tell yourself, I'm an alcoholic. How does that help you kick liquor? Confrontation?

AA is not the only method. But also, what AA says is, it's not the caboose that kills you, it's the first car. So by thinking of yourself as an alcoholic, you know you're not in a position to say, well, I can just have one drink now. Because you know your pattern is to get blackout drunk. But what's the difference of getting up every morning

and being like, I am a danger to society? Like, if you tell yourself that, aren't you just going to become more of a danger to society? I tell myself that before I hit the gym. There you go. Now we're talking. But you say it with fierce determination into the mirror. I am a danger.

Someday I'll have a reflection. I think that it's more about the more about the community of AA that's a big part of it yeah than telling yourself what and apparently LSD if you read Bill W I think Bill W is the guy that founded AA he credits a lot of his kicking alcohol to LSD but they removed it from the literature

alright Captain says Adam Baldwin is the best Baldwin how dare you how dare you I should be in school as the other size of the ocean Adam Baldwin is the best Baldwin. How dare you? How dare you? How dare you? I should be in school as the other side of the ocean. Adam Baldwin is an actor who's not part of the Baldwin family who's actually, like, based.

I assumed he was Alec's brother. No. Oh, that's good to know. Okay. Is he the guy from Backdraft? Is that Adam Baldwin? He's the guy from... Full Metal Jacket, isn't he?

Full Metal Jacket. Didn't Max Kaiser go to high school at one of the Baldwins? Don't know. Adam Baldwin's also in The Patriot with Mel Gibson. Oh, I didn't know that. I'm pretty sure, in The Patriot with Mel Gibson. Oh, I saw that. I'm pretty sure, right?

I think you're right. Oh, I love that guy. Yeah, he's cool. I'm going to fact check that. Look up your phone, will you? Yeah, yeah. I'm pretty sure that's true. He plays the traitor.

Oh, I think you're right. I'm pretty sure he plays the traitor. Let me see. A turncoat. All right, let's see. But I love that movie so much, man. Enigma says, Isn't calling Reza Aslan a cannibal forever.

The same argument the left makes about the founders and slavery. Doesn't that viewpoint completely validate them when they say they're nothing but evil? No, the founding fathers, many of them were slave owners. That will always be true. That doesn't mean we throw away all of the good things they fought for. It means we denounce the evils of slavery and we criticize to an extreme degree the horrors that were perpetrated by

founding fathers who were slave owners, which is almost all of them. And then we point out the ideals that they put forth, the seed they planted, helped end slavery and it led to brilliant people, Frederick Douglass, and so we champion the good while condemning the bad, and we remember both, so we know what not to repeat and what to expand upon and I don't think I would feel comfortable

calling him a cannibal I think cannibalism involves murder and involves human flesh as opposed to like if you're or like extreme situations also this is kind of like what is being gay he's cannibalized is being gay but he's not a cannibal is being gay wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex or actually doing it? Let's save that for the next question. Can I say one sentence, though? When I was doing, just like with Cash Cab, I'm like, let me throw out all the jokes and let them worry about editing later. When I was doing my book on the new right, I asked that very question. And it was a mainstream publisher.

And I had the line, are you gay if you're on your knees but your heart isn't in it? Because I knew my editor would cut it out, and he left it in. And I'm like, okay. So it's in the book. Same with cannibalism. If you don't want to do it, but you do it. Or if you want to do it and you don't do it.

Ryan Long has a Man on the Street bit where he asks this question. We'll talk about this, actually. This is really good. In the member segment, because it's all not family-friendly, but the Ryan Long segment comedian, you guys probably know him was hilarious the way he talks to people on the street and ask them the same question is just well let's read some more let's

read some more we got black rock beacon who says the theological term for willfully benefiting from the acts of evil is appropriation of evil allowing evil to take place without resistance is complicity with evil specifically mediate mediate material cooperation banality of evil only implies that it is commonplace wow that's really great really great super chat thanks black rock begin that was very insightful david strasser says sort of it rocks tim uh give out our small business grossed vodcast on youtube shark bite biz Biz. GWAR is airing Monday morning. Right on. Let's see.

Balian says, if Gage did all these horrible things to kids, how was he able to possess a gun? No, no. It was Rosenbaum who did the horrible things. Gage Gross writes, just like smacked his grandma, I think. That's all. Something like that. And he really likes Prodigy. Is that why they do?

That's one of their songs. Smacked my grandma.? Smack my grandma up! Smack my grandma up! It's not grandma. I now remember the song. I wasn't big into... What band was it again? Prodigy. The Prodigy I think they're. The Prodigy? No, is it The? Maybe it is. Maybe you're right Ian.

Ivan Chavez says, I feel that evil is much like cold and dark. It's the absence of cold is the absence of heat, dark is the absence of light and evil is the absence of good no no no, a lot of evil is so intentional it's not just passive, it's predatory and intense

that's the intensity, because it's like electricity a little bit is good, it makes your heart beat but a lot of it can kill you good is the visible light spectrum which warms our skin and we enjoy. And evil is the ionizing radiation, which destroys our DNA and kills us. So the intensity of good is evil? Hugging someone to death?

What? The intensity of good is evil? You can be so overwhelmingly good that you are committing horrible acts. Well, C.S. Lewis has that quote about he'd rather be under the thumb of someone who's corrupt than someone who's a do-gooder. Exactly. Because a do-gooder will never let you sleep. Yep. Because he's doing it with the benefit of his own conscience.

It's yin-yang, right? Am I saying it right? Well, you're like Asian. I don't know. I know. I should know. So you know yin-yang? You have the white and the black.

Yeah, the Tao. But within the white, there is – within the light, there is dark. Within the dark, there is light. So they say that there is good and there is evil. But within good, there is evil. Within evil, there is good. So it's like a symbol of the balance. Redemption.

But I think about, can you do good to the point where it's evil? Definitely. Utilitarianism. Thanos. And like... I'm going to kill half the universe's population to save the other half.

He wants to save quadrillions of people. Here's an easier example. When you are not allowing someone to make their own mistakes and you're saying, I'm going to make the choices for you and those choices are genuinely good, you are committing some act of evil because this person is not having a sense of self. Lawful good.

Lawful good. They tend to become insane. People that are lawful good can be completely insane because they'll zealously attack evil at every possibility. Or what they perceive as evil. That's the thing. Ignorance can lead good people into dangerous, evil territory. True neutral is the only way.

It's one way. All right, what do we got? We need some super jets here. Okay. Boop, boop, boop. Nerdius Maximus says, how can Kyle be tried as an adult on murder when the foundation of the state's case

was no self-defense because he illegally had the gun as a minor? That wasn't the premise of their case. The state wasn't arguing that it wasn't self-defense because of the gun. They didn't argue that. They just argued he was too young to have a gun. That's it.

Yeah, I think it was a mistake a lot of people made when they were like, the left was saying it. And I said it early on, too, and was corrected, that he's in the act of committing a crime. Therefore, he can't be in self-defense because he's committing a crime. And people were quickly like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not true. That's not true. So it turns out, anyway, the gun charge was dismissed. He was legally allowed to possess it, so it's moot anyway.

If there's a mistrial now with or without prejudice, can they reintroduce the gun charge or is that completely unadmissible evermore? Do you guys know? I don't know. That'd be a question for Cerno. Yeah. Josh A. says, Rogan's meme about Alex is outdated. Human monkey chimera are already a thing

2021 415 NPR human monkey embryos that was it well that was kind of his point was like they were just checking him off the human Z

legend has it was made in the 1900s you know the story about the human Z what does this mean Stalin is he the one who did it well Stalin was trying to make

like a super race of like breeding humans and apes wow is that for real double check it Lydiaydia please but i've read this michael but no no but it was adam baldwin maybe my source was it was adam baldwin it was captain wilkins i think yeah the traitor traitor yeah yeah but we're big fans let me look that up let's look up the human ape hydrant yes stalin kyle uh petty says please ask the lawyer about the prosecutor advising the investigator to use marcy's law as an excuse to not fulfill the warrant to obtain

bicep man's phone uh well mike had to go uh sort of had to leave he was our lawyer but uh i don't know if we have any analysis on that i don't know if you're i don't know marcy's law was where it was like we can't subject the victims to you know police force in this direct in this way. But I think it's an excuse. I think they were like, we want you to testify. And he was like, no, I plead the Fifth. And they were like, what if we give you immunity?

We can't say we give you immunity because that will hurt the case. But what if we, you know, come on. You know what's really crazy? In the closing arguments, the state said that the Zeminskis have a Fifth Amendment right to plead, so a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. And the defense objected. The defense was correct. The judge would not sustain this, and it was wrong.

What they said was the defense cannot call the Zeminskis, the guy who fired the gun in the air, because he has a right to remain silent and doesn't want to implicate himself. But the state controls whether you have a Fifth Amendment right or not, because they can offer immunity, which means the state could have called the Zeminskis, given him immunity, and then gotten evidence against Rittenhouse. But they didn't, likely because their narrative was not true. The judge should have said, you can't claim they have a Fifth Amendment right because you can take it away with immunity. By force. If the state comes to you and says, you're testifying, you say, I plead the Fifth. They say, you've been subpoenaed and you have immunity.

You have no choice. They can take it away. But if they don't give you immunity, then you do have the Fifth? Yes. Okay. But that means they control whether or not you testify, and the defense has no ability to do that. The defense can't give you immunity. So you plead the fifth.

All right. Garhant says, Michael, could you please reach out to Mike Rowe and have you travel America doing blue-collar jobs with Mike? It would be awesome. Odd couple watching a New Yorker hoeing corn or doing a roof. First of all, I'm a Texan and not even a gunpoint. Do you know Mike Rowe? I don't know Mike Rowe. I interviewed him before, and he's a very, very interesting blue-collar guy,

and he's making a lot of very good points throughout all of this madness that I think is definitely worth paying attention to. Yeah, we're going to get him on. We are? We are at some point, yep. Wait, really? I love that guy. Yeah, we are.

He's already in the works. Okay, perfect. I'm a big fan. Yeah. He's such a good dude where he's like, you know, work hard and do your thing, and I'm like, yes. He'm a big fan. He's such a good dude where he's like, work hard and do your thing. He's a realist. I had a lot of fun interviewing him.

He's great. Super cool guy. Okay. Let's try and find something good. We got a big one here. Theodore Abbott says, Washington was zero for four before he crossed the Delaware.

He wasn't a born military general. He figured it out because that was what was required. He was only promoted in the French and Indian War because his CEO fell off his horse and died. The founding fathers were all just humans who rose to the occasion. I watched this great documentary about the Congress and building up to the war and everything. And Washington would go in every day to Congress every day. He went in in his military uniform. Before war had ever been discussed,

just letting everyone know without saying a word, I'm ready. And he never spoke. He barely ever spoke. He just sat and listened. And they also thought he was sterile, by the way. Oh, interesting. He never had any kids.

Martha, who had kids. A while. And then the Congress voted. They were like, we've got to pick somebody to lead this thing. And they picked him. And because he was a statesman, he didn't become a Napoleon. I think a big part of it is because he understood law. And maybe because he was friends with the other fathers.

But I think it was more that he just understood judiciousness and law. Like, Napoleon was just a military guy. And he also wanted to very clearly have the precedent that the president is very different from a king. Because they didn't know what to call him. His Excellency, he goes, no, no, no mr president is what they settled on all right matthew fumi says actually the pennsylvania senator spent near eight thousand dollars on his campaign the 153 dollars was what was spent during his primary which he ran in a unopposed he was on crowder today and talked about this uh the guy we're talking about is in new jersey yeah this

is in pennsylvania yeah there's the New Jersey state senator ran against a Democrat. The majority leader. You're right. And beat him. And the Democrat refused to concede for a little while and finally did it. He didn't believe it. He did concede. He finally conceded.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He did. I don't know what the Pennsylvania thing is, though. Yeah, I'm not sure. Interesting. Still not much money. $8,000. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, here we go. A lot of Adam Baldwin fans. John Curry says, Adam Baldwin played Jane in Serenity and Firefly. Yes. That's right. Ooh, very cool. Also excellent, Firefly.

Yes, Sarah Hart says, Adam Baldwin is in Patriot, also Jane in Firefly. Very cool. All right, let's see. What does that say? Blue Shirttail says, Tim, you asked if you can do so much good it becomes evil. Aristotle addressed this 2,500 years ago. Any virtue taken to excess becomes a vice. I hate

that. It's a little simplistic, right? It's just semantics. Right. Yeah, it's just, you know, too much love equals minus one. Too much cheese equals farts. Too much love.

Like, what would... Too much of anything is bad, obviously. But by definition, you're saying too much is... Right? Too much Taco Bell equals mud butt. Mud butt. I think if someone is kind 24-7 till the day they die,

like, genuinely kind, that's not a sin. Reminds me of that Soft Work episode where they meet the Mormon family. Have you ever seen that? And the Mormon family is just really, really good people. And they're just like,

they believe, you know, this thing that the rest of South Park finds weird, but they're all just good people. And finally at the end, they're just like,

you guys are assholes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, one more, one more. Semper Ives says, Tim, Marine Corps birthday was November 10th. Birth in a bar

called Tun Tavern. Imagine getting so drunk with the boys you create the deadliest fighting force in the world. Captain Samuel Nicholas did. Amazing. That's great. Sounds like one of Dankula's dudes. A captain. A captain in the military started the Marines. I don't know anything about this

story. I've never heard this before. Alright everybody, here's what we're going to do. We're going to have a members segment coming up where we talk about naughty things. And it's going to be really, really funny. So I hope you're ready. Go to TimCast.com. Become a member. It should be up around 11 or so.

Don't forget to subscribe to this channel. Smash the like button. Share the URL of this video wherever you can because that's how we fight the censorship. It really does help the show. And follow us at TimCastIRL basically everywhere. You can follow me personally at TimCast. Michael, you want to shout anything out? Sure.

You can follow me on Twitter at Michael Malice. I got Robert Barnes discussing the Rittenhouse case on YouTube.com slash Michael Malice Official. And, of course, SheathUnderwear.com, promo code Malice. I think you also have a book. Isn't that the case? The Anarchist Audiobook, which Tim read a chapter of. Yes. Honored.

The distributor cleared it, so it's going to be percolating out to wherever you get audio books over the next coming weeks. Awesome. I know I'll update on Twitter.com. I'll update at malice.locals.com. Definitely. There you go. There's a lot of very interesting comments about what people were wearing today, especially when we were talking about the felony bit. I'm going to save it for the after show.

My YouTube channel is We Are Change. I have a to save it for the after show. My YouTube channel is WeAreChange. I have a lot of fun on there. In yesterday's video, you could see me translating German. And if you're interested in that, you will go to youtube.com forward slash WeAreChange. I hope to see some of you guys there. I love you guys so much. Thank you so much. Last night

was one of the most surreal, greatest moments of my life. We broke the internet. I'm still unbalanced. Yeah, I couldn't sleep. I was too hyped up. I was too much energy. Beautiful reality. Thanks for coming.

Ian Crossland, see you later. Thank you guys for tuning in again. While we're touring Austin in our super awesome little sketchy RV that Joe Rogan was unsettled by, we're having a lot of fun down here. Thank you all for continuing to tune in. You guys may follow me on Twitter at SarahPatchLids. Thanks, Linda. We're having a lot of fun down here. Thank you all for continuing to tune in. You guys may follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patch Lids. Thanks, Linda.

We have one. Linda, honey, listen. Yeah, I know, I know. You guys, thank you all so much for subscribing and sharing. We have 1.3 million views on yesterday's show.

It was wild and insane. To clarify, it was Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Blair White, Drew Hernandez, Michael Malice, Luke Rekowski, Ian Roslin, Tim Pool, Lydia. It was amazing. Linda. Linda. Yeah, yeah. All right, everybody, go to TimCast.com.

You're not going to want to miss this one. It's going to be dirty and naughty. And we will see you all at TimCast.com. Bye, guys. you