Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #447 - Bank TERMINATES MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's Bank Accounts w/Darren Beattie

Episode Date: January 15, 2022

Tim, Ian, Luke and Lydia join founder and editor of Revolver News to discuss Mike Lindell being cancelled from his own bank, Ray Epps role at January 6th, the Oath Keepers charges from January 6th, how harshly Newsguard rates Revolver News, and YouTube's temporary suspension and demonetization of Dan Bongino. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So welcome to the show, everybody. Big news on Mike Lindell getting his bank accounts shut down. Darren Beattie is here. You're the founder and editor of Revolver News. Yes. Do you want to just quickly introduce yourself again? Yes, briefly. Founder and editor of Revolver.News. Before that, I was a speechwriter and policy aid for Donald Trump in the White House. And before that, I was a professor of political science at Duke University. Right on.

We got Luke. Hey, guys. If you like giving unsolicited history lessons to random people like I do, maybe the shirt I'm wearing would be perfect for you, as, of course, it says, FYI, the government is way deadlier than any virus. A very true, accurate

historical fact, especially if you know what democide means. And if you'd like to support this historical fact to the wider general public, you can on thebestpoliticalshirts.com because you do. I'm here. Thanks for having me. This should be a great conversation. I also heard that compound interest is more dangerous than standing armies.

I believe that was Thomas Jefferson pointed that out. So we'll keep that in mind as we talk about banking and Mike Lindell maybe starting his own. Did you introduce yourself? I'm Ian Cross. That's who that is. You know me. You love me. What's up everybody? Hey, check it out at iancrossland.net

if you want to see some of my stuff. And we'll talk to you soon. Very cool. Yeah, thank you guys for setting me straight on the audio. I could not hear the difference and I was afraid to restart while everybody else was talking. So I'm glad we had a chance to do that. Hopefully we have some good sound. I'm Sarah Petulitz. I push the buttons in the corner. Don't forget, go to timcast.com, become a member

because that directly supports our work. We're going to be hiring another journalist very soon and we're going to be covering more of gun rights and gun culture stuff too as we expand. We've got some ideas for new shows that are coming and it's all thanks to you as members. We've got a new episode of The Green Room up with the

CEO of Rumble and a massive library of exclusive members-only podcasts. We've got Mike Rowe in this past week. We've got Marjorie Taylor Greene. You don't want to miss it, so sign up at TimCast.com. Let's talk about this big news we've got from the post-millennial. Minnesota Bank and Trust moves to cancel MyPillow founder's bank accounts. The accounts in question are Lindell Management, Lindell Outreach, Lindell Recovery Network,

Lindell TV, Lindell Foundation, Lindell Publishing, Frank Speech, Michael Lindell Personal, and My Store. It's kind of crazy. They've gone after everything associated with this guy. The announcement came on Friday's episode of War Room, where host and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon played a recording of a telephone call between a top executive at Minnesota Bank and Trust and Lindell's controller. The executive stated during

the call that the bank, a subsidiary of Heartland Financial, had concerns about being connected with someone who could be in the news. Quote, not that the FBI is even sniffing and looking, but what if somebody came and said, do you know what? We are going to subpoena all of his account records and this and that, and then all of a sudden we make the news. So it's more of a reputation risk. I'll just tell you this, Minnesota bank and trust. I would never go anywhere near if they, if you're running a business and your bank gets shut down because they're scared of bad PR, do not bank with these people. And it's not just that you think it's just as Mike Lindell's a big famous guy. CNN has gone after regular people over

memes. So yeah, if a bank is saying we don't want to be involved with someone in the news, well, we know these media companies are willing to go after regular people and little old ladies. I would not feel safe banking with that company. I don't believe the reputation excuse at all, especially when you look at the history of big banks, especially institutions like HSBC and their money laundering for drug cartels knowingly doing so. When you look at what they did with Jeffrey Epstein, especially Deutsche Bank, that literally had to settle a fine of over $150 million because they ignored all of his red flags. Jeffrey Epstein was able to bank with JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Deutsche Bank. He never got debanked.

Who gets debanked? The MyPillow guy and then people like Julian Assange that was debanked in 2010 politically when he was shut down by a Swiss bank. He was shut down by PayPal. He, of course, then went into Bitcoin and then had a 50,000% increase of his money and is estimated to have around $37 million because of that switch from

Bitcoin. So again, this political debanking is nothing new. The big banks are, of course, tied into big government, the intelligence agencies. And I think this is another lesson showing that, yes, they all work together in many extensive ways, which is absolutely troubling because it's becoming more and more political by the day. I think this is a big red flag for centralized banking in general. You see the amount of control that I think is desired from this. If you want to buck the system and all the money is controlled by one person, then you don't get to have any money anymore and live in this world with no money. That's not how this world works.

I don't like privatized banking at all at this point. Public banking. Yeah, I would have a couple of things to say about that. One is the astonishing and really unfortunate thing is there is a certain case to the reputational argument, which is to say that in the present regime, you're worse off reputationally being Michael Lindell and associating yourself with Donald Trump in various ways than being somebody like Jeffrey Epstein. They're just as a result of the peculiar hierarchy of taboos that exists in the regime. And secondly, I think it really speaks to this point that anyone in Liddell's position who speaks out against the regime in various ways, debanking is what the United States government does to adversary governments. It is the domestic recapitulation of economic sanctions.

And so it needs to be understood, I think, broadly in this context of the government and its associated institutions wielding its power domestically against American citizens for political purposes. Do you think that the government told this bank to do this, or was this just a private bank making decisions? Well, I mean, I think that this is all part of the same ecology. So the fact that banking institutions, that major platforms of the communication infrastructure aren't technically part of the government, they are part of the regime. And that's what's more relevant. And it's simply, if you reach the level of Michael Lindell, if you are a dissident on that level,

you jeopardize your capacity to exist in any normal way. And having financial freedom and being able to bank is part of that. And so basically, Lindell's position is similar to the position of, say, the government of Iran, for instance. I mean, that's how I would interpret it. And functionally, it's the same. It's just in Lindell's case, he's an American citizen. And in Iran's case, it is a foreign adversary, or at least allegedly an adversary. Yeah, the public banking thing, I don't know if I'm a fan of. Yeah, after I said it, I was like, not only public. I do like the options.

Like nonprofit banking, credit unions. Nonprofit banking. Imagine a bank that wasn't trying to profit. Well, that's basically a credit union. Yeah, thank you. So for me, my credit union, it's like no ATM fees. I get international free ATM transactions, which is crazy because when I was traveling around for vice and stuff,

that was amazing. It was amazing. And the credit union industry was able to – they're able to absorb a lot of losses because they're not in it for a profit. So during all the Occupy stuff, they gained billions of dollars. People were switching over. I think that's one big move you can make, but there's still the problem of a credit union still being a private institution who can ban you. And so I think what we're seeing from here is the power of cultural enforcement over, say, legal enforcement. You don't need to make something illegal.

You don't need to violate someone's rights to still violate their rights. You know what I mean? Like Joe Biden doesn't need to go to this bank and say, get rid of this guy. He's in my way. They need only put enough pressure. They need a reporter. We'll call them up and say, why are you doing this? I broke this story.

It was a few years ago. I think it was actually four years ago. It was Enrique Tarrio. He got banned from Chase because a quote-unquote journalist sent an email basically threatening the bank, saying, why are you providing financial services to white supremacists? And the bank internally just said, terminate. We don't want to have anything to do with this. I understand why the bank freaks out. Journalists do this stuff as an attack and they know they're doing it the way they ask the question, right? For what business,

for what public good do we need to understand why a bank provides banking services to a person of a certain political persuasion? We don't. Everybody has a bank because people have banks. So a journalist who contacts a bank and asks those questions knows what they're doing and why they're doing it. That's interesting the way you said everybody has a bank and uses a bank because that's kind of what we believe, what we're brainwashed to believe growing up. But like you're saying, Darren, the government can just sanction anybody at any time, anything. And that's a common tool that it uses in the war against its adversaries is

shut off the bank. It's their favorite tool. If you look at the way that the Americans have been kind of pushing their will on the world, economic sanctions, economic warfare are their main ways of achieving a lot of their objectives. They go to a country and they say, hey, we're going to take away your ability to even have money in the world if you don't implement this policy. And this is what the United States does. This is nothing even compared to the World Bank and the IMF. And if you look at what, you know, the stories of the economic hitman, if you look at what really happens behind the scenes with a lot of these banks and powerful people all around the world, it is absolutely corrupt and sinister to see the corruption that really is happening that we don't even know about. Right. It's the analog. So what happens to Lindell and their various other

cases, he's not the first, as you point out. It is the analog to using the leverage of the SWIFT system to cut out foreign adversaries or to use that leverage to pressure them to do something we want. It's an extension of the same basic principle and done for the same reasons. Do you have any information on the SWIFT banking system, maybe a brief overview? I know a little bit about it. I believe that it kind of oversees Visa and MasterCard. I mean, it's just the United States government essentially controls it. It's essential for any kind of transactions that go through, particularly in dollars. And it's a major part of being able to participate in the global economy. And particularly in the past five years or so, the United States has really leaned on economic sanctions because there's no appetite for war since Iraq.

There's just no no appetite for war since Iraq. There's just no public appetite for war. And so it's sort of the middle ground that they can use to really be severe, but not send troops into a place. And so they've leaned on these sanctions. And the cost is it really puts pressure on the US dollar. There's only so much pressure the dollar can take having to sustain the United States foreign policy objectives before the pillars collapse. But they've been leaning on it very hard. And the result is Russia and China have been talking and cooperating and thinking about developing alternatives to the SWIFT system and so forth. So ultimately, it might be counterproductive but we love to sanction

people economically uh overseas and that's what you see more domestically because the domestic political adversaries like michael and dell are considered enemies in just the same way that the u.s government considers iran an enemy i remember uh man 12 12, 13, maybe even 14 years ago, Alex Jones is talking about one world currency, global currency. All these people on the internet were talking about the Amero, that there was going to be a Canadian, Mexican, American currency. And that always confused me because I was like, can't you just use your credit card any country you go to? And so within only a few years, I'm traveling around the world working for Vice, and I've got a Visa card. And I go to all these countries and swipe it with no questions asked. I walk in.

I'd say, you know, let me get the schnitzel when I'm in Israel, whatever, and then swipe. No questions asked. No problem. Just right there. And then I started telling my friends when I'd hear people say, like, yeah, one of these days they're going to have a one-world currency. And I was like, bro, it's called Visa and MasterCard. You can go to any one of these countries, just use it. It's here.

It's happened already. Wait till you learn about Bitcoin, Tim. And I've been telling people Bitcoin is the perfect global store of value. Decentralized, instant, trackable. And when they've got AI that is tracking all of the transactions, they know who you are, where you are, what you're doing, and you don't even realize. People are like, I can use Bitcoin to buy things you're not supposed to buy. It's like, dude, they know who you are.

That's if you let people know your address. So if no one knows your address, you could still – Well, there's different ways of finding out. Amazon and Jeff Bezos are working on a lot of different technological advancements that would kind of break Bitcoin and make sure they could track, trace, and database everything. So there are exceptions to the rule. I would say at this point, Bitcoin itself is broken in that capacity. It's not private. A lot of ANCAPs, libertarians thought it really was,

but they don't need to know your address to see the transactions made and then have an AI just calculate it was you based on the things you post on social media, based on the phone you use, your Mac address. They can easily track this stuff. They're working on that technology. I haven't heard of them developing it or using it yet, to be honest with you. Let's be real.

Are they going to publicly disclose they can do it already? No, but it's not that hard to calculate. If Facebook is already – if you're getting – so I'll tell you something funny. I ordered these little cards. They're really, really cool. It's a, it's a, it's a black card. You it's, it's got a joint in the middle and on the sides and you flip it and it forms this like kite shape. And then you can pull the sides up and it's got two little holes where you can put your phone and use it as a tripod. It's so awesome. It like flips around, you can manipulate it and you can take your phone and set it up so you can, you know, record yourself with your phone or record people with your phone. The funny thing

is I posted a video to my Instagram of me playing my guitar and I was trying to set my phone up. And I'm like, it's so annoying. Like how do you get your phone to stand up? And then within an hour, I didn't, I never said anything to anybody about this. I didn't go, gee, I sure need a tripod or some kind of stand for my phone, I get an advertisement on Instagram being like, buy this to set your phone up. And I was like, that's really weird. It's, and it's not because they're reading your mind or listening to you. I never said any words about this. It's because there are algorithms that just know based on your behaviors. There's the famous story of the guy, this, this father, he gets maternity advertisements in the mail for his daughter. And he's like, why are they sending my daughter maternity stuff?

So he complains. And they were like, oh, sir, it's because our computer identified your daughter's pregnant. That's it. And he was like, how? The things she was looking at. And it wasn't. This is the crazy thing. She wasn't looking up diapers.

She wasn't looking up anything. She didn't know she was pregnant. The algorithm knew that when women start looking up certain items, certain foods, before they even realize it, the computers know they're pregnant and sent the information to her dad because she still lived with them. So I'm telling you, man, with Bitcoin, if you think they don't know who you are and what you're doing, you are wrong. No, it's all public. But there's Zcash. There's Monero. And those are a lot better. They get banned.

They have been in the past being being banned from trading networks, unfortunately. Yep, Monero in particular. And that's the thing is once you reach a level like Monero and you're actually a threat, it becomes a national security issue. And so they try in the periphery. They'll ban it from all the major exchanges. It's particularly hard to get if you're in the U.S. And then if it persists, then it becomes a mechanism for terrorism financing, and they'll go after it more aggressively. Or they'll just say it's a mechanism for it.

So that's the ultimate bottleneck is once something becomes a national security threat, all bets are off. Well, let's talk about national security. So the big story that came out the other day was about the oath keepers being charged with seditious conspiracy yes something that's really interesting in this whole january 6 debacle is a man named ray epps and yes you guys at revolver covered this to a great extent yes we saw uh tucker carlson talked about it and you have an article up for those that aren't familiar ray epps is this guy who's seen in multiple videos telling people to storm the capitol yes and funny thing is, it is actually the right wondering why he's not being arrested

and charged. So we have this article from revolver.news. Meet Ray Epps Part 2, Damning New Details Emerge, Exposing Massive Web of Unindicted Operators at the Heart of January 6th. And in this one video, I'm going to try and lower the volume a little bit. I want to play this just real quick for you guys. This is on January 5th, by the way. I think the audio is not coming through properly.

That's my mistake. It was coming through just very, very poorly. Now it should be better. This is Ray Epps right here. You hear that person go, what? they start yelling fed at this guy right so there's questions around this guy notably that he was actually outside the capital as well right yes and he was saying something to somebody he was seen in videos saying this and for some reason it's not just that they haven't indicted him it's that that Adam Kinzinger on the January 6th committee actually publicly defended him.

Who is this guy? What is going on with this? That's a great question. And the video itself really tells the story. And so for any of your listeners, your audience, and I know you have an audience of, you know, the full political spectrum, I encourage everyone, if you're curious about

what really happened on January 6th, take my challenge. Go to revolver.news, read this piece in particular, watch the video, and then look at me with a straight face, look at me in the eye and tell me that there's not something fishy here. I don't think anybody can, in good faith, meet that challenge. And so who is Ray Epps? Well, Ray Epps is the person we heard. Ray Epps is in the mountains of documentary video evidence of January 6th. He's the only person repeatedly calling and explicitly calling for this mission to go into the Capitol. The video that we saw was on January 5th, and he's going to all different types of groups with different agendas saying, we need to go into the Capitol. The Capitol is our enemy. The Capitol is what we

need to do. And then he's not just some drunk guy who's just spouting off and you never hear from him again. He's there on January 6th. He's a veritable Where's Waldo figure. He's there telling the crowds, after the Trump rally, go to the Capitol where our problems are. And then at 1253 p.m., by the way, this is as Trump was still speaking. So this guy, Ray Epps, who's such a big Trump fan, he's wearing his Trump hat. He flies all the way to D.C. from Arizona and skips the actual Trump rally in order to hang out at the Capitol and to orchestrate, evidently, the first and decisive breach of the Capitol barricades, which is interesting given what he was saying on January 5th. And so there he is right by the Capitol barricades, 12.53 p.m.

He whispers into someone's ear. That person is called Ryan Samsell. Two seconds later, Samsell engages in the first breach. Pretty amazing. And in fact, there's other video of Ray Epps telling another individual, who also incidentally is not charged with anything, he said, when we go in, leave this here. When we go in, leave this here. And the this in this case was a bear spray. So he's already anticipating people going into the Capitol and fulfilling this mission that he was calling for the night before. And so the amazing thing about Epps is in the midst of all of these random grandmas and random

people who are being slammed with the most draconian charges imaginable for basically nothing. Many people wallowing away in solitary confinement indefinitely. This guy, Ray Epps, is untouched. He's uncharged. He's unsearched. Nobody wants him. And until Ray Epps essentially became a household name on the basis of our reporting, there was zero interest. Now we're told, okay, shut up about Epps.

Epps spoke to the January 6th committee. He says he's not a Fed. So go back to what you were doing. Maybe he's not a Fed. I don't know or care. I can tell you this. Whatever it is, the story of Ray Epps, whoever he is, maybe he's not a criminal informant, maybe he's not a fed, maybe he's just some guy. He has completely discredited the entire

January 6th committee narrative for one reason. Adam Kinzinger, who's on the committee, who's retiring from Congress, by the way, said on Twitter on January 11th that Epps was on video the day before saying, quote, we're going into the Capitol. Yet he goes on to say that he never went in the Capitol and therefore, you know, he cooperated and his name was taken off the most wanted list. OK. Their claim is that Donald Trump incited an insurrection. But Donald Trump never even went that far. They're claiming that Donald Trump said we got to be strong and we're going to fight.

That was enough. Right. If it's not in any way an infraction or criminal activity to tell people overtly on more than one occasion to enter the Capitol, then what is their claim against Donald Trump in this regard? And the negligence with respect to Epps, like he was a Fed, is the selective non-prosecution. To compare the neglect of Epps in relation to the severe charges against much more minor people for far less egregious offenses in relation to January 6th. So it doesn't make any... For instance, Ray Epps says to one individual, he said,

when we go in, leave this here. Well, there was another individual called George Tanios, who was originally charged with basically conspiracy to murder an officer on the basis of when his friend was asking, let me have the bear spray. He said, no, no, not yet. On the basis of saying, no not yet they charged him with serious charges and yet epps is saying when we go in leave this here and nothing clearly showing he he had he had planned right the entrance right following through with the fact that the

last night he was saying go into the capitol and leading and he's whispering in the guy's ear two seconds before the initial breach. And they don't want him. And another interesting detail that's in the Revolver piece is that initially the FBI put him on their most wanted list. He was originally so important to them that he was one of the 20 people considered egregious enough that, OK, we're going to put him on the most wanted list. They begged the public. They said, help us identify this man, Ray Epps. The internet being the amazing sort of crowdsource investigative vehicle that it is, identified this guy within days and the government had no interest. And the only time they took action on Epps was the day after Revolver News published an extensive report on his fellow oath keeper stewart rhodes the day after and epps is an oath keeper he was a president

he was a president of the arizona chapter of the oath keepers and so the day after revolver hold on sorry sorry uh when did he leave the oath keepers that i don't know because i i put a put a pin in your thought don't lose your track i. I just want to say the Oath Keepers, 11 of them are being charged with seditious conspiracy. Yes. Here you have a guy who was in the Oath Keepers overtly saying down to the Capitol and he's not he it's not just that they're not charging him. I don't know why any of that's going on. It's that Adam Kinzinger is actively downplaying what he did. And I don't know why. I mean, there's no – if there's an innocent explanation for the Epps issue in particular because he was originally on the FBI's most wanted list, and they quietly took him off and didn't want to hear from him again.

And in fact, the only additional remark they had on him before this blew up on a national scale was Phoenix FBI agents denying knowledge that he even exists which is remarkable because he's from arizona is it confirmed that his name is ray epps yes so maybe another organization hired this guy to go ruffle some feathers the fbi didn't know so they put him on the most wanted when they pulled him in they the other agency came was like hey this is our guy that's that that is a very plausible scenario it's entirely possible that um he's giving them everything they wanted you know at first they were like who is this guy find him and then he gave them something substantive right i wonder what he would have given them because you know he was the most egregious player there so who would he be giving

up that's you know that's the question i would have. If he's – from the video evidence – Well, maybe he had Oathkeeper Communications, and they said he can provide encrypted communications and access to their whole network because he was a president. But he wants immunity, and they said deal. The problem is – look, Adam Kinzinger comes out, and he's like, this is a conspiracy theory. Not only is he not an agent, he's not even an informant, and he never went in the building. And I say to all that, Adam, you are correct. You are also correct when you say

that by yelling at people to go into the building, he did not incite an erection. An erection. Who said erection? It's a family-friendly show here, Tim. Who was the politician who did that? That was Schumer I think

was it Schumer I pulled a Schumer Chuckie I pulled a incite and insurrection but when we do it on the show

we laugh and it's funny not only so the point is it's not a crime so now they can drop all the Trump stuff and

they can now Marjorie Taylor Greene Madison Cawthorn all of these Republicans who they're accusing of incitement. Nope. Sorry. By Kinzinger's own words, that's all done with. And you make fun of me for messing up words.

Anyway, this is an interesting situation because it does suggest that there was some kind of federal involvement here i mean obviously we're going to find out through the the oath keepers uh a court case that's going to be happening very soon if there was you know someone that released information if someone gave them something but again there's also something that's odd about the timing of the u.s government going after the oath keepers all the way up until now, almost a year after this entire incident. It raises a lot of important questions, especially surrounding the pipe bomber that also placed pipe bombs all throughout Washington, D.C. the day before. There's a lot of different theories about this to why this happened,

but that story came and went extremely quickly. No one's talking about it. That guy or girl was never found, and they were responsible for setting up bombs all over Washington, D.C. Why isn't this a bigger story, especially in a surveillance state in Washington, D.C. that has security cameras almost everywhere? How does that make sense? And the remarkable thing is that it seems like the FBI does these sort of fake gestures of calling on the public to help them find a person in this sort of full-on surveillance state, as you point out. It's the same thing. It's like when they initially called on the public to identify Epps. It's clearly disingenuous because the Internet identified him and they did nothing with it. And similarly, in this Pipebond case, which is very interesting for a number of reasons,

in the Pipebond case, they provide to the public just very limited, grainy, ridiculous video. And we know for a fact they have more video because the video itself is not continuous. We know that there are more cameras in the area. We know that there's better resolution stuff. And so it's just not a genuine effort on the part of the feds to identify this person. So I kind of wanted to ask you, and I don't know if it's fair to go off into the realm of speculation, but there's some people assuming that the pipe bombs were placed there in case the people wouldn't storm the Capitol, and that was used as another pretext.

Some people are arguing and speculating that. Of course, we don't have any evidence. But, Darren, how would you speculate everything unfolded in Washington, D.C. on that day? How do you think things went down from your perspective? Well, that's an interesting question. In relation to the pipe bomb in particular, there are a number of possible explanations. One is simply that the bombs were there as certainly it's it makes for a scary headline that you know feeds into the narrative that the media wants but also it was a had a diversionary function too is the capital

already had limited security personnel and when they called in the pipe bombs, the law enforcement actually addressed the pipe bombs basically contemporaneously, coincidentally enough, with that first breach that Ray Epps was involved in. So that's kind of – Well, it was slightly – I think it was about an hour before the first breach at that barricade. The security went door to door to members of Congress and told them to leave the building. Right. Which is really interesting. Right. I mean, it just...

Yeah. I mean, just think about it. Something just so happened that before the breach, members of Congress were able to be evacuated from the building. Right. That's very... It's convenient. I mean, it's kind of crazy to think that if it wasn't for this person who put these pipe

bombs out, AOC might have actually been caught in people storming the Capitol. Of course, she lied and fabricated that whole story. And I'll give you the simple context. AOC told this story on Instagram where she said there was a banging on her door of her office and she went and hid in the bathroom and then thought to herself they've got in and that she might die. But that story about someone banging on her door was the police sweep for the pipe bomb which happened an hour before the first breach right so you act i'm not not the first breach it happened around uh 10 minutes before they crossed the barricades but no one had to enter any buildings right no one had had breached the the stairs or

anything the crazy thing is you had people on the left advancing her claims and even people on the right. I got into an argument with a guy from the Huffington post when he said I was wrong about my timeline. So I went through the timeline and I responded to him and I said, actually AOC story took place an hour before the doors were breached. Why would she think someone would go to her office an hour before anyone had gotten anywhere near the front doors? And this Huffington post guy went, Oh yeah, right good point i'm like yes aoc fabricated the claim the whole story some cop did knock on her door and he said ma'am we're evacuating the building i still find it crazy that that bombs were placed all throughout washington dc and our national security state

that has n NSA agents literally caught doing unspeakable things to themselves in a pleasurable way to people's private photos that they were not supposed to have, the NSA that knows almost every little thing about you, the phone that knows when you crap, couldn't find the person that put bombs all throughout Washington, D.C. the day before?

Are you kidding me? It's even more peculiar when you think of all the other reasons that they would have had to have enhanced security on that day. It would be a scandal unto itself if the Capitol building had normal security. But in fact, the Capitol building

had uniquely poor security on a day that was sure to be politically charged and requires additional security. And this is one of many things. Here's a pipe bomb. But on January 5th, there was this so-called hippies for Trump van. And this hippies for Trump van was stopped right outside of the Department of Justice with explosives and firearms in it. And in fact, one of the people who was in the van turned out to be one of the curious characters caught on video methodically cutting down fencing and barriers as Trump was still speaking.

And so the feds knew who he was. There was this terror scare right at the Department of Justice on January 5th. And even that didn't justify or get people to say, OK, we actually need enhanced security on the 6th. So that's another very bizarre discrepancy there. It's not just that. It's that Trump was actually preparing a massive rally. Hundreds of thousands of people. That alone should warrant massive security.

Precisely. There's a video where the guy at the Capitol goes to the cops and says, what are you doing? Get people down and stop this. Yep. I get the feeling that the news or whatever isn't going to really tell us about the real threats because they don't want us to panic. So like the pipe bombs, they played that down. If it was a real threat, but it's the stuff that they want you to focus on that tends to seem like it's not really a threat. Like they want to get you wired up and confused and angry about something that can just be there while they're secretly investigating the real threats. By the way, a cherry on top to this, originally the guy on video, the FBI guy, D.C. field office guy who did the public service announcement to the public saying we need your help identifying the pipe bomber. This was a guy called Stephen D'Antuono, and his previous job was running the Detroit FBI field

office, where he basically ran the infiltration operation that's now known as the Michigan kidnapping plot. It was the same guy. The plot where there were more federal undercover agents than actual people that were doing something. Literally, 12 out of the 26 people are either FBI agents or FBI informants. And this happened just months before January 6th. The same plot, they called it a kidnapping plot, but it was also a plot to storm the Michigan state capitol. It involved one of the three major militia groups imputed to 1-6, the three percenters. It was fed infiltrated with a percentage that you wouldn't believe.

And the guy who ran it was subsequently promoted to head the D.C. field office where he went on to oversee 1-6 investigations. And the guy that they indicted. Stephen D'Antuono. The guy that they indicted also had very serious mental health problems. Oh, yeah. That wasn't a thing in that. Come on. Come on.

Come on, guys. Let's just be real. The government wouldn't lie to us. Our best interests. There is no circumstance in which a government would ever stage something like this against their own people. That is absurd. But I did hear that Russia is going to stage a false flag against their own people. That's different.

They're Russia. They're bad guys. And Kinzinger, by the way, is all in on this. Kinzinger buys it completely. I was joking, by the way, for those that may have not bought into that. Some people will be like, is he serious right now? My point is we can sit here and have an adult conversation about things we want answers to, and you'll get smears in the media that it's conspiracy theorizing to simply question

whether or not the government could be lying to you. Well, I mean, the Gulf of Tonkin is an example of the government lying to you. They lied to you. They told you that their ship was fired on by Vietnamese war vessels or something, and it wasn't. But right now, one of the big stories, too, and I don't want to get too much into it, is that Russia, U.S. Intel, Russia is preparing to false flag attack their own troops to justify an invasion of Ukraine. And I tweeted this saying, no, false flags are conspiracy theories. No government would attack their own people to justify an invasion of any other country.

You can't because false flags don't exist. So you can't do it. Even though historically most wars are started through false flags. That's a good point. False flags do exist. But now we're living in a magic fairy tale land where false flags don't exist. No, it's just the US government that doesn't do false flags. Oh, that's a good point. False flags do exist. But now we're living in a magic fairy tale land where false flags don't exist. No, it's just the U.S. government that doesn't do false flags.

Of course. That's because we're benevolent. The only people who do false flags are Iran, Russia, and China. And maybe Venezuela sometime. It's funny because this conversation

is a conversation 10 years ago I'd be having with a bunch of leftists like anarcho, you know, antifa types where they'd be like the American empire and the economic hitmen and South America and now they're the ones who are basically like oh the government can't be wrong well this thing it's it's new for people on the right and that's one of the hurdles psychologically as I said is

the political psychology of the right is largely that they want to venerate just and well-functioning institutions of authority. I think people on the left like to challenge corrupt institutions of authority. And we're in a position now where all the institutions of authority are corrupt and actuated against the right. And people on the right need to adjust their political psychology in order to digest this new reality. The right is now the left and the left is now the right. In the classical French Revolution sense, I was talking about this yesterday, that we were talking to Matt Kibbe. You know, in the French Revolution, the right was the aristocracy maintained the status

quo and the left in the room were the revolutionaries. And that was the big argument. And that's where they come from. Now, left and right, I don't even know what they mean. It means economics. It means cultural issues but if we're talking in the classical sense the right has become the counterculture which was the left in the in the in the classical sense and now you have the quote-unquote left supporting massive pharmaceuticals supporting massive multinational

corporations and their collusion with big government. And I'm like, wasn't that always the right? You know, like the big industrialists and the revolving door policies where they went and worked for government. Now, all of a sudden, the right is critical of this and the left supports it. Right. Well, there's a reason that, you know, one of the journalists who've been most supportive of our of our work at Revolver.news is Glenn Greenwald. Yeah.

Another one is Aaronaron aaron mate yeah he's great so you know it's because they've been covering this for years and years and this is nothing new like merrick garland the current attorney general this isn't his first rodeo he he cut his teeth decades ago under bill clinton where he was at the DOJ under the domestic extremism portfolio, right at that period in the 90s when the U.S. government was kicking up its infiltration operation into various militia groups. And Merrick Garland played a big role, I think, in massaging the public's knowledge about what happened in Oklahoma City. So yeah, this is nothing new.

A lot of the same people, they're getting the band back together and some things just never change, I suppose, except in this case, the target has changed to some degree. But if your listeners would be interested, I would like to address the seditious conspiracy charges.

I think a lot of people might want to know about that. No, definitely, definitely. We'll get into that in a second. I'm curious if you guys have a way for people to contact you if they have tips or information or anything they wanted to share. Yes. Just email editor at revolver.news or tips at revolver.news. We get a lot, so it's hard to look at everything but we i really try to look at everything because every now and then you get a really good tip

you know 90 maybe nine ninety percent of it is weird stuff like i got one that uh the scaffold commander who is one of the people featured in our story of guys saying you know fill up the capital fill up the capital, fill up the capital. He's unidentified, uncharged and everything. They're saying, this guy is Bill Ayers. We get a lot of weird stuff like that. But every now and then we get a really good tip. So it's really important.

It's hard too, man. People who are listening need to understand. I think we have like 15,000 emails. Yeah. It's just we can't get that number to go down. Right. As much as we go through as much as possible. These aren't like – we have emails for support on the website, which we get to every single one of them.

Right. And somehow, sometimes, look, for those that are listening, Gmail or your email service might get booted into spam or something. That we try to go through as well. But we get through all those. But then we go to like tips and information and stuff. We get not only a lot of crazy stuff. We get a lot of stuff. And it's really, really hard to sift through. And that could be bad because buried in there is that golden nugget.

It's hard, yeah. I brought this up because someone chatted that they had met a Fed down there. Interesting. Who knows if it's true or not? I'm not trying to disparage this individual who commented this, but maybe they have something. You never know. You never know. And so that's part of the job. A real journalist is a conspiracy theorist.

It's true. When they come out in the media and say you're a conspiracy theorist, then they're just trying to discredit the fact you're doing real work. Because a journalist should see something and then say, I have questions about the government's involvement in this and what their real intentions are. And then when the government says, we have done nothing, and you're a conspiracy theorist, that is to imply that because you don't blindly trust whatever this person says, I don't care if they're with a government or a corporation, you must be wrong or crazy. There's two types of conspiracy theorists. There's the ones that can take a conspiracy theory

and put it in their mind and understand it and look at it without believing it. And then there's the conspiracy theorist that sees it and believes it without being able to critically understand and think about it. And you could say that they're both conspiracy, but we're going to have to define a difference

between those types of people and that way of behavior because I love taking a conspiracy theory and bringing it down and thinking about it without believing that it's real. And just what if, what if, it's awesome. And that can lead us to great places. If you believe things when you hear them, you're in a very dangerous place.

But let's talk about the seditious conspiracy. This is the big play the Democrats needed. They needed to be able to say that there were sedition charges for their narrative. You've got The Daily Show now coming out saying the no sedition talking point is now officially dead. Rest in peace in memoriam. We have this story from CNN. Oath Keeper's leader appears in court on seditious conspiracy charges. But it wasn't just him.

It was 10 others. So you want to break down for us what this is about? Yes, I'd like to say some things about this. First of all, the seditious conspiracy charge is a rare one, and it's one that's even more rarely used successfully. If you look at the history of it, there's only a handful of cases. The first couple of cases are weird, like cases involving Puerto Rico for whatever reason. Then you have one successful case against an Islamic terrorist and you have a couple others that were not successful.

So this is a very rare charge. It's an extremely serious charge. Everyone else, I believe, on the who is charged with seditious conspiracy, they already had lesser charges. The only person who was just added completely was the founder and leader of the Oath Keeper, Stuart Rhodes. And I think there's probably a lot of public interest in a reaction to this, particularly because my news outlet, Revolver.News, has run several detailed investigative reports on Rhodes calling into question the seeming protection that he enjoyed from the federal government for not being arrested and so forth. And so I think a lot of people are confused and some people are probably erroneously concluding, oh, he was hit with this charge, therefore he couldn't have been

a fed. And I think that there are a number of things to say for that. First of all, I don't think any of the questions raised in Revolver's reporting are dispelled by this. I think they're only intensified. And here's some interesting things about his case. So seditious conspiracy is a very serious charge. So, we're supposed to believe that the government's been building this serious charge for an entire year. And yet, they didn't bother to search him for an entire year. Well, asterisk to that, they searched a single cell phone on his person four months after January 6th. So here's the founder and leader of the most prosecuted boogeyman militia group who is all over the media, and he's so dangerous that they wait

four months, give him four months to destroy all evidence, and take a single cell phone from his person, and then wait an additional eight months of zero search before they hit him with this serious charge? If they're taking him seriously enough to hit him with seditious conspiracy, how do you explain the fact that they only took a single cell phone four months after? And contrast that with an individual called Thomas Caldwell, who is one of his co-defendants now. Caldwell was arrested very early on in mid-January. Caldwell got the full fed raid treatment where they went in with guns, they raided his place, they took every electronic in sight. Then they charged him immediately with a conspiracy charge to obstruct an official proceeding.

And if you look at the conspiracy charging documents, the whole conspiracy of the government's case is based on Stuart Rhodes's statements and actions. And so that raises another question about Rhodes's seditious conspiracy indictment. Why did the feds wait an entire year for this big indictment when they could have taken him off the streets with a lesser indictment, either for the same conspiracy charge that they hit Thomas Caldwell for and others, or a trespassing charge, which we know he trespassed. There's footage of him on the Capitol grounds, and they've charged others with trespassing, even who didn't go into the Capitol. So putting these things together, you have to wonder, okay, they were taking him so seriously

that they were building up this mega seditious conspiracy case through the course of a whole year. And yet in that year, they only search a single cell phone four months after January 6th and they neglect the option to hit him with a lesser charge

and just do a superseding indictment for the seditious case. So those are really important questions that linger. And I think the seditious conspiracy charge is actually a way for the government to get away with the perfect crime. And I'd love to explain that, but I'll stop here. Do you think that Rhodes is a Fed or in some way involved with Feds? I think that that is the most powerful explanation for the questions that I just raised. When you guys say Fed, you mean a federal agent, not necessarily a federal bureau of investigation? Yeah, Fed is a vague term. I think that

the most likely explanation for the questions that I raised was that he had some relationship with some government agency. Is it possible that the reason they didn't go after him early on, the reason they didn't try and dredge up any other information was because they knew there was none, and the only reason they're bringing charges now is that it's an election year and it justifies establishment political talking points? I think that would be a plausible explanation if none of the other people were charged. But if they knew there was no information, then how did they get this guy Thomas Caldwell on conspiracy where the whole conspiracy in the charging documents is full of Stuart Rhodes' statements and actions?

So if they thought that amounted to nothing, how do you explain that they hit this minor figure who's just a fellow traveler, not even an Oath Keeper, and this guy who's built up as the big boogeyman head of the Oath Keepers, they leave him untouched and unsearched? I see all of the – the Daily Show did that thing where it was like, rest in peace, there was no sedition charges talking point. Yeah. I just respond with, has anybody been convicted of insurrection or sedition even? Well, innocent until proven guilty. I don't care if the government says you are. There's going to be no conviction. And here's what I...

Well, look, when a lot of people came out and said, was anybody charged with sedition or insurrection? We've brought that talking point up as well. And it's relevant up until the government decides to do it. So I'll say this right now. Maybe someone will be convicted. But the talking point isn't that it'll never happen is for right now, with the January 6th committee coming out and saying all of these things, just because you charge someone, I don't care. When these people are convicted, we can have a conversation about that we found in a court of law they attempted to do these things and that being

said the federal government when they charge people they have a very very high conviction rate so is this except for seditious conspiracy ironically except for so just two more really important points about roads in particular in this charge. One is the timing. Okay, part of the timing was the whole, you know, fedsurrection narrative was at its absolute apex. I think more important than that, though, is just like a week before Rhodes was charged, an attorney for another Oath Keeper subpoenaed Rhodes and was getting him to testify in the Oath Keepers case. And one consequence of actually charging Rhodes is it clears him off the table so that he has a perfect excuse not to testify because he just pleased the Fifth. And this is part of the playbook. In fact, it happened

in the Michigan case. One of the big informants in that case was named Steve Robeson. Once he was outed, the government immediately slapped him with an unrelated gun charge that clears him off the table. So that's one aspect that I think is really important in relation to the timing. Another thing is this, is if I were the feds and I wanted to cover up the perfect crime, I would do precisely what they just did with the seditious conspiracy charge for the following reasons. Think of what the charge achieves. One, it gives a big headline that for lower information people or people who don't really understand the argument, they say, oh, he's hit with this charge. He must not be a fed.

So it, quote unquote, debunks the right wingwing people who say, oh, Fed's erection. On the other hand, it assuages and satisfies all of these left-wing people who have been furious that he hasn't been charged for a year because in their minds, the government is protecting him because the government's a bunch of Trump-loving Nazis. So it assuages them. But thirdly, there's a problem. If they hit Rhodes with a serious charge and Rhodes is a Fed, then Rhodes has leverage over them and can say, I'm going to go rogue if you guys betray me. But I think they have the perfect cover story for

that, too, because they could go to Rhodes and say, look, we're going to hit you with a seditious conspiracy charge. It's going to sound serious. but the public story is you are going to cooperate and tell us what you know about Alex Jones. Tell us what you know about Roger Stone. Just smear a bunch of dirt on Trump's inner circle, which is what the media wants more than anything. And so the public story will look like, oh, Rhodes is cooperating because he's giving up Trump's inner circle. And so they won't follow through the charges. And so they don't force roads to go rogue. They shut up the feds erection, quote unquote, conspiracy theorists on the right. They shut up the people on the left who are

furious he wasn't charged. And they put more dirt on Trump's inner circle all in one move. So I think I'm not saying that's necessarily what it is, but if I were consulting with the feds and saying, what's the most elegant solution to this problem that you're in right now, this looks pretty close to that. It would also shatter the Oath Keepers, I would imagine, by ripping the head off the snake. Well, let me just point out one very obvious and definitive fact. The federal officers here are conspiracy theorists.

They've not proven any conspiracy. Literally. They've actually just theorized a conspiracy took place and have yet to prove it to anybody. So for the time being, a bunch of conspiracy theorists are ceding information to CNN who reports it as fact. Mind you, the reporter, I won't say her name, is one of the lead reporters in Russiagate. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I got that one wrong, that one wrong. That was wrong.

Not that reporter. That was the Russia thing. But I'll just leave it at that, and I got that one mixed up. Yes, and just in light of this conspiracy theory, you're absolutely right, and you're right in the literal sense. Benny Thompson, who is the chair of the January 6th committee, in his personal capacity, sued Trump, Roger Stone, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys and laid out his literal conspiracy theory, which is that Trump's inner circle colluded with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in order

to do January 6th. That's actually the conspiracy theory, which is weird because given the prominent role that Stuart Rhodes played in the January 6th chairman's theory, he waited until November to subpoena Rhodes. I find that also a little bit weird, and he only did that after Revolver News put on the pressure by saying, what the hell's going on with the committee?

They're neglecting Rhodes, and they're going after seemingly anyone who was within a mile radius of the Capitol on January 6th and taking their phones and communications and so forth. So where does it go? They're not going to convict him. I think that's extremely unlikely, but I think a very interesting dynamic is in play. A very interesting dynamic is in play. A very interesting dynamic is in play. I think these are – it's an elegant attempt, but it's also a risky attempt because the more that they do this, just like their cover-up with Epps saying, oh, Epps isn't a Fed because Epps talked to the committee and told us he wasn't a Fed without releasing Epps' exact statements and without even telling us that EPS's statement was under oath. And it's a weirdly precise statement of EPS not being a law enforcement official. Well, DOD is not law enforcement. There are a lot of

other agencies that aren't law enforcement that he may have been affiliated with, Department of Energy. I want to ask you about this. So a lot of speculation, a lot of theorizing. But to be fair, there's nothing definitive here when it comes to Ray Epps. No charges, which is strange to me, to be completely honest, because Kinzinger is downplaying the incitement of insurrection. And when it comes to the Oath Keepers, you bring up a lot of interesting points as to why they're only charging them now. However, when I go to revolver.news, what's this? NewsGuard says you're fake news, good sir. They give you a zero out of 100 credibility score. Now, why would that be? Are you spinning yarns here? Well, yeah. What'd you do to Bill Gates?

Right. So NewsGuard is this sort of scam organization that basically their shill is they say, we are going to provide a nutrition label to websites. And the websites that cover stuff about COVID, that the pharmaceutical industries don't like the stuff that covers stuff about natural security state, that the various authorities don't like. Those have bad nutrition labels. And so we reported on them pretty strongly and pretty severely and the organizations that are involved. So just to give you a sense of what this organization is like,

one of their strategic advisors is Michael Hayden, who is the former head of the CIA, also former head of the NSA, whose claim to fame was basically lying to Congress about the existence of the NSA's surveillance program, which Edward Snowden went on to reveal. So Michael Hayden's part of their group. Another guy, let me see his... Funded by Microsoft. Exactly. Funded by another guy is Rick Stangle.

He's a real champion. He's also an advisor for them. He identified himself in a panel as Obama's chief propagandist. And he stated he has no problem whatsoever with propaganda and, in fact, supports the idea of countries using propaganda domestically against their own citizens. And so this is Rick Stangle, who is advising NewsGuard to apply nutrition labels to websites. They have financial ties to pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and others. Simply put, this is an organization

that's so compromised with such conflicts of interest that the idea that not only are they so, the arrogance and the chutzpah of them saying we have the authority to judge other sites, but we are going to ask other people to pay us to tell them what sites they should look at and trust. It's really amazing. And I guess it's, you know, it's a good grift if you can get it. Well, I don't think they're as bad as you put them out to be, but I do think they're bad. I've criticized them for being heavily biased.

One of the things they do is, you know, these mainstream news organizations are the basis for which they decide things are true. So if you publish something, they're inherently biased against you to say that's probably not true. If the New York Times publishes it, even if it's not true, it's inherently true. Right. Because the only way they can actually fact check something is by checking it against mainstream news sources, which creates a feedback loop of mainstream media will always be credible because they are. That's true. But I think it's also quite remarkable that they have, you know, deep financial ties with Pfizer and that on their board is literally the head of the NSA and the CIA, whose basic

job it was to lie. If you're the head of the CIA, your job is to lie. So here's the way I see it. And he's their advisor? So one of the sources we like to use, Post Millennial, they're certified as very credible, like very much so. There are a lot of websites, Daily Mail. You probably shouldn't have said that because they're going to go to the site tomorrow and

Post Millennial is going to say that because they're going to go to the site tomorrow and most millennials have like one star. The reason why we use NewsGuard is because we know their bias and it's effectively a shield. So I love it when early on when I started producing videos, I'd get a lot of these claims that I was pushing conspiracies or fake news. And so I installed NewsGuard. And now when we have a segment up and we have the article on the screen and it's got the NewsGuard shield, we say, oh, it's OK. Bill Gates approved us. Bill Gates approved us. Hayden approved us. We only use sources that are certified by NewsGuard. So in doing so first and I'll say this, too, I don't think it's actually it's not even that difficult to get certified by NewsGuard. It's just you need a corrections policy. You need

to put bylines in your articles and let them know who people are. The Economist doesn't have bylines. What's NewsGuard's rating of The Economist? Actually, let's check it out. The Rothschild-connected Economist. Ooh. I know they don't have bylines. It's annoying.

Let's see if we can pull it up even. Well, they're good, and they're actually labeled as – There are no bylines on The Economist? Not usually. I don't think so. Some websites don't... Oh, yeah, look at this. Look at that.

No byline. And NewsGuard says, this website adheres to all nine of their standards, including the site provides the name of content creators along with either contact or biographical information. Well, the first article I pulled up doesn't have one. Let's pull up another article and see if we got Australia cancels visa.

No byline. No bylines. None whatsoever. No byline. So this is what I've been saying about their bias. Is it at the bottom of the story by any chance?

Is that possible? Typically, the byline needs to be at the top. So when it says international, there's nothing there and you scroll down and there's no bylines, then suffice it to say

there are no bylines on The Economist. Good call call out by the way yep this is the issue i say with their bias and it's and it's and it's obvious but there are many outlets that you know they'll get a few strikes but it allows us to to to break through and effectively provides us a shield and that it can be like hey look when this happened and it's reported by this outlet and they say it's true well it's certified by newsguards they say it's true, well, it's certified by NewsGuard, so good luck. The elite level is zero stars plus being fired by Biden. That's how you know you're doing something right. Have you guys heard this IPG Media Brands strikes exclusive deal with NewsGuard to go beyond website ratings to rate individual cable and broadcast TV news shows?

Well, there you go. This is from early December 21. They're creating, they're trying, they've been trying to create at YouTube and with NewsGuard and with his other outlets, an acceptable lane of conversation. Within reason, I'm willing to accept, I'm willing to use websites that are NewsGuard certified. When it comes to an article you guys publish

about like Ray Epps, and it's just, it's showing videos and asking questions about it, that's credible. You literally published a video that's been published in other places. I have no, I have no qualms with that. I can fact check what you put and be like, they're telling the truth. The fact that I don't know who published it, but I know you run it is immaterial to me. When it comes to project Veritas, they give Veritas a strike saying they're not credible, which is absurd to me because Veritas does original reporting and publishes all of the videos. Right.

So how could you argue that's not correct? Well, you're absolutely right that I think largely it is a kind of grift. It's basically the Theranos of content moderation. But it's got all these national security crooks advising. But I think it's very instructive. So Rick Stangle, the guy that I mentioned who described himself as Obama's chief propagandist, Revolver ran a piece exposing NewsGuard, which may play into their less than charitable rating of us. But in our piece on NewsGuard, Rick Stangle goes on to say, you know what? It was a Q&A

period and someone asked, so why aren't you going after Fox News? What's the matter? And he basically said, I'm paraphrasing, but people are free to go to the article. He basically says, you know, I understand why you would want to go after Fox News, but we have to basically have this semblance of some kind of neutrality. And if we go after Fox News, it's just not going to work because Fox News is so mainstream. Plus, there are some good reporters at Fox like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace. So those are the two examples. And Shepard Smith, of course, is not there anymore. And Chris Wallace is not there anymore.

So what is it, CNN and MSNBC? Or where is Shepard Smith, of course, is not there anymore, and Chris Wallace is – Not there anymore. Right. So – Was it CNN and MSNBC, or where did Shepard go? Yeah. I think he went to NBC, but I'm not sure. But that's the attitude they have. And so it's like, well, we can't ding Fox News completely. Otherwise, we have no pretense to credibility. And plus, Fox has some good people like Shepard Smith.

That's the attitude that they bring to this content moderation, assigning nutrition labels, which in itself is a bizarre and somewhat creepy analogy to apply to information. You know who's got balls? Tucker Carlson. Oh, yes. Because I think he's better than... If I was going to look at their primetime lineup,

I'm not the biggest fan of Hannity. He's all right, whatever. I'm not the biggest fan. Laura Ingraham is pretty good, but I'm not the biggest fan. Tucker. Boring. Yeah, and it's about originality. It's about am I hearing something new, something unique, and like – Tucker?

Right. He's willing to be – make jokes. He's willing to – he brings up new information, new questions. He covers things that I'm like, wow, he's well, he's somebody like I really, really am a fan of Tucker and friends with Tucker. And I've been you know, he's done, you know, a lot in terms of, you know, helping our reporting and so forth. But I have to say about Tucker is, what I commend him for the most is he's in a position of tremendous power and tremendous responsibility. And he's one of the few people that you can say

he's actually discharging that responsibility in the right way, not in the way that's easy, but in the way that's right. And there are so few people that in that position where you have a cable show and millions and millions of people are listening to you and he actually uses that position of authority in the way that it should be used and um so i think we have to give him a lot of credit he doesn't just play party politics he's willing to criticize the

republicans he criticized donald trump when donald trump committed acts that were totally what he promised not to do so he's willing to go there he has a tweet where he said something about like the elites ripping off the working class and dsa like democratic socialists were posting it on their forums like what bizarro world are we when when are we in when tucker is actually on our side these issues. I bring him up because you look at Shep Smith and you look at Chris Wallace and they're the opposite. They're the cowards. There's no world in which a sane, rational person reading the news looks at what Tucker Carlson does and says he's making this up

because certainly he gets things wrong, but he's willing to actually address factual issues that people in the media are lying about. And touch things that no one – there are so many things that would not appear on American cable television were it not for Tucker. Absolutely. Across the entire spectrum of cable news. So what is it at Fox News that Shep Smith has to flee from? Brett Baier?

He's a fine – Brett Baier's fine. He's just a straight news guy. So why is Shep Smith like, oh, I can't be here? Cowardice. They're scared. There's a cult phenomenon happening where if you don't just toe the line, even Fox News came out, and I will not drop this one, on the Ahmaud Arbery case with Mick Michaels, cheered for the conviction of a guy who was just filming.

Cowardice. If Fox News is unwilling to challenge something that was clearly unjust because they're spineless, Shep Smith was still scared enough that he'd leave? These people are terrified. We were talking about this earlier about cancel culture on the right.

And you were mentioning something to the effect that the right is actually more willing to cancel people further right of the moderate conservative because they're too scared to look like they're outside of the opinion of mainstream corporate press. My favorite moment on national television was a few months ago when Tucker Carlson was handing it off to Sean Hannity and they got into an argument over Jeff Bezos. Yes.

Because, again, Tucker Carlson wasn't afraid to talk about the billionaire class and the globalists that are, of course, are connected to the CIA doing horrible things. And Hannity tried to correct him on it and it made for just the perfect awkward television moment that was awesome to see. Tucker was like, we're being ripped off by these guys. And then Hannity in the handoff goes, if someone provides a service and makes money, I got no problem with that.

And Tucker did the Tucker face where he's like, you know, the girl's brow like, what? Right. But so you look at these people who are now what you know nbc or cnn and what about fox news's partial capitulation to corporate mainstream narratives scared them that they had to go full-on capitulation of the corporate press spinelessness i i've i've been in the fox building i've been on a bunch of these shows i've been on tucker i think maybe once or twice i've been on the Fox building. I've been on a bunch of these shows. I've been on Tucker. I think maybe once or twice.

I've been on the primetime show very often. I went on Jesse water show several times and I'm in the building. I'm in the makeup room. I'm hearing what these people are talking about. These people are questioning a lot of these narratives. They're in the Fox building for heaven's sake. So how is it that Shep Smith could, could be surrounded by questions, nuance and factual information and go, I got to get

out of here. One reason. He knows it's right, but he's a spineless coward who's scared of being ostracized, so he jumps ship. Right. And he was tremendously unpopular with the Fox audience and probably got a better contract at NBC. And Wallace.

But I think there's a really important point to be made about the economy of media. And the typical kind of metaphor used, this sort of marketplace of ideas, simply doesn't apply to the media. Because if it were the case, Tucker is the most popular cable news channel in the country. And so you would think just out of self-interest, if it were all just a business, people would copy him just to get his ratings and get the money that comes with it. But that's just simply not how things operate. The profit motive is not the core of what a major media institution is about. Influence always supersedes profit. And that's why you don't see everyone lining up to just copy the Tucker model, even on Fox News, because it's about influence. And it's also why

you see Tucker having advertisers cancel. It's why, in my situation, what would seemingly be a really great moment in my career with Revolver News where I'm on Tucker and Tucker said, wow, you guys did a great job here. And the next day we're canceled from Google ads. And what other kind of business is it where you maximize your influence and that commensurately diminishes your earning capacity. So the business of information is just too important to the system to be left to the profit motive because it's the business of creating people's reality. It's a propaganda industry. That's why Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. Precisely. Even though the Washington Post doesn't make enough money, he doesn't care about that because he's buying the game.

Exactly. Post doesn't make enough money, he doesn't care about that because he's buying the influence. Did you see the meme where it's like the Washington Post writes an article saying the problem of the billionaires and elites. Then the next one is Jeff Bezos purchases the Washington Post. The next article is we should cut some slack to the billionaires and the elites. Something like that. Let's talk about this story we got from

the Hill. YouTube temporarily suspends and demonetizes Dan Bongino's channel this is huge notably because dan bongino plays a huge role in rumble i believe he's one of their principal investors and he's been moving off the platform anyway not to mention his podcast the audio version is one of the biggest in the world the hill says youtube took action against conservative commentator dan bongino's channel friday suspending it for violating the platform's COVID-19 misinformation policy and demonetizing it for at least 30 days. The week-long posting suspension stems from a video where Bongino said that masks are useless

in stopping the spread of the disease. YouTube's COVID-19 policy specifically prohibits content denying the effectiveness of wearing masks, which the vast majority of the scientific community agrees reduces the risk of infection. This is true. Even the frontline doctors have said to wear masks. This is one of the things that really bothers me. But Dan Bongino, in my opinion, is entitled to his opinion. YouTube doing this is driving a nail

into their own platform. And not only that, useless. Is it a fact statement or a hyperbolic statement is he saying it's not effective enough and just being hyperbolic was his intention to say that they do nothing or that they don't do enough is the issue there's no room for nuance when i see things like this it says to me that youtube's actual intent is just to get rid of people like dan bongino yeah people that are on their way out anyway and and they're like, well, he's obviously sending his energy into Rumble right now. And he's driving viewers from YouTube to Rumble.

Exactly. So they're like, cut him off now. But I do want to point this out too, for a lot of people, because we've had people on the show question the effectiveness of masks. It is true. On the box, on the mask box,

says it doesn't stop the COVID virus. Right. But it does stop you from spitting on people. And for some reason, there was this flippening where early in the pandemic, conservatives wanted to wear masks and then all of a sudden didn't. And now we're in this era where the right is saying, you know, things like masks are useless. Let me just say this.

I've looked at a bunch of studies and a bunch of data. The virus, as my understanding, can be transmitted aerosolized through vapor, as well as from spit. If you're spitting, if you're wearing a mask, you're blocking that spit. And I think it's fairly obvious that would stop you from spitting on people and help reduce the transmission of COVID. The frontline coalition of doctors that they do the mask protocol and talk about alternative treatments actually tell people to wear masks as well. So I don't understand why there's like a tribal thing to say, not wear them. That being said, I oppose the suspension.

I oppose the censorship, obviously. But you know what? If it builds up Rumble, not necessarily even the biggest fan of Rumble, mind you, but if it breaks the YouTube monopoly, then so be it. Let them be their own demise. I think YouTube is also dealing with a very tough situation, Rogan getting 40 million to 50 million views, according to some estimates,

with his latest interviews with Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough. And I think those big, huge instances that everyone's talking about is something that, of course, YouTube is missing out on. And that's why we even talked about a few days ago why Joe Rogan's move to Spotify was a kind of genius move, a smarter move, because YouTube could deal without having Rogan on their platform, but Spotify can't. YouTube's already

censoring the videos that were on there, but there comes a certain point where people start seeing YouTube for what it is, and I think YouTube is reaching this kind of pivotal point where they're like, holy crap, everyone's kind of jumping ship here. What do we do? I think this is a kind of very important turning stone moment where a lot of people are asking the questions, where do we go next? Turning stone moment. Yes. Another Luke-ism. That's a

good one. I don't know what a turning stone is, but I do like the sound of it. We should make like a root, a stone with like, you know, ancient carvings on it, you know, changing the narrative. The turning stone. No, I think, you know, what we're seeing right now, the fear and panic over Joe Rogan. And I believe what we're seeing here from YouTube

is fear and panic over Dan Bongino. So there have been a bunch of people, we were talking to the CEO of Rumble, who was saying that people do live streams on YouTube and then tell everybody, okay, the rest of the show will only be on Rumble. So they simulcast at the same time on both platforms and then halfway through the show say bye-bye youtube and turn it off to drive

everyone to the other platform that's massive yes that's that's very damaging dan bongino puts his show on rumble suspending him will do nothing in fact it will just hurt youtube now my ultimate fear is youtube plays a dirty game. They Google alphabet. They subsidize YouTube. So it's very difficult for the likes of, say, Rumble to compete with a partner program like YouTube where Google gets all this money from external sources and then pays people. But as super chats are becoming the principal driver of revenue, you look at Salty Cracker, who's on Rumble. And we were talking to the CEO of R rumble and he's like this guy is getting insane amounts of super chats he's doing better than he would be on youtube because people support

him and they're involved and you'll get a better community on these other platforms i don't know if rumble is the answer but you know what with the more i see the censorship let these big tech companies be their own demise it's not yeah i wouldn't say the rumble is the answer but it it's definitely a soothing mechanism for the pain you know for the moment It's not. Yeah, I wouldn't say the rumble is the answer, but it's definitely a soothing mechanism for the pain for the moment. It's not solving the problem of tech censorship because it's still a proprietary censorable network that is censoring actively. It's just more maybe more judicious in its censorship.

Currently, I'm all for it, but we got to free the software code. The absurdity of the YouTube position on this as it pertains to COVID misinformation is that so much changes every single day from even Dr. Fauci himself. How are we supposed to know what the rules are or abide by rules when the science keeps changing? There's a meme of Fauci as Vader where he's like, the science has changed. Pray I don't change it further. You know, the line, you know, he's like the deal has changed or whatever the arrangement. So when we're looking at their policy

on COVID misinformation and then you get breaking news where it's like in New York, they have record breaking cases. What are we supposed to say? How are we even supposed to follow those rules? Unless you are blind to history, to even recent history,

and you just repeat whatever it is the mainstream media is saying, you're going to get banned whenever they feel like banning you. Well, that's a great point because what you're saying means that it's all about controlling who's able to shape and drive narratives. You can exist downstream from sanctioned narratives and you're fine, but if you're in the business of shaping narratives, then you're in trouble because you can't get out ahead of the mainstream authoritative sources. It's as simple as that.

This is part of what's leading to impact investing. Have you followed this impact investing? Sorry, my headphones just cut out and back in. Have you heard of this at all? Impact investments? This is like 21st century people with big money are coming to basically buy off influence. It's all about purchasing influence now and getting ahead of it. Well, I mean, influence is incredibly important,

arguably more important than money itself. I think so. And that's how it's treated. Influence is, you know, the media really is in the business of creating people's reality. And the system needs that to sustain itself. The entire ecology of how the ruling class exists,

the regime exists, it all rests on shaping narratives for people. And that's why it's more important than any profit and why profit motive is not, never going to be the ultimate factor in any major media organization. Controlling the myth. Do you remember when Mika Brzezinski said that?

I don't remember. She said it's our, Mika Brzezinski said it's our job to control what people think or something like that. I understand there's this shared myth. That's Bigniew Brzezinski's daughter, by the way, who's also a very interconnected globalist. But the big aspect here is that this was a temporary suspension. This is why I think this is an important moment with YouTube at first cutting Don Bongino off and then coming back and saying, okay, we'll give you your money back.

I think they're in a desperate situation. I think they're losing a lot of key critical viewers. I think overall people are realizing, hey, I don't want to be dictated to. I don't want an algorithm curating what I should see. I don't want my perspective limited to a few tech oligarchs and their flip-flop wearing latte drinking limousine liberal viewpoints. I don't want that. I want the internet that was first given to us, that was free, that was open, that was weird, that was wild.

I loved when I was able to go on there and see raw humanity in front of us and not a corporate Disney World viewpoint that is watered down to save slogans and talking points. And I think youtube is is realizing that and i think i mean let's they're making a big change here and that's why i think they brought back monetization for bongino let's brought back what do you mean they suspended temporarily no no he's kicked out of the partner program he has to reapply in one month he's done

he's out but let's play a fun game. This is called Mika Brzezinski, whatever, our job to control people think, followed by her public statement after the fact. Let me play the audio for you. That is that's exactly what I hear. What you just said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talked to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, yeah, you guys are going crazy. He's doing, what are you so surprised about? He's doing exactly what he said he's going to do. Well, and I think that the dangerous edges here are that he's trying to undermine the media,

trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think and that is the that is our job yeah if you look at the issue and that is our job she said and then she tweets today i said it's the media job to keep president trump from making up his own facts, not that it's our job to control what people think. Yo, she said, Trump could make up,

you know, he could tell people exactly what to think, but that's our job. Yeah, right. And then she tweets, she didn't say it. That's,

you gotta be a special kind of stupid to fall for the media at this point. I'm sorry, man. I just, I just can't deal with these people.

I think that when you talk about a shared mythology, humans need one. Otherwise, they fight. So we had Christianity. Religions developed because of a shared myth. And now, like, news media is kind of like a shared mythology. Everyone can tune in and organize and believe the same thing.

But obviously, when they're lying to you, you don't want that myth. We've got to find a more stable, real myth. But what do we do in this fractured information economy? What's the real mythology of today? Their ratings are down by 90%. I'm going to have some champagne. I'm going to sit back. We're going to have a good night.

It's Friday night. We got news earlier in the week that MSNBC and CNN's ratings are down by 90%. Guess what? Our ratings are going up. Your viewership is going up. So you know what? I don't care about these people. I love exposing them and showing these duplicitous

evil people are lying to you and manipulating. And I long for a world where people, they assume personal responsibility, they work hard, they strive to be the best person they can be. And that's only that only will be possible when they're getting correct information for which to build their lives off of.

Yep. And there's even poll numbers showing that Americans trust the media on COVID for an estimated 10% of Americans. 10% of Americans trust the media when it comes to COVID. Just that little. Yep. Amazing. You got to be careful. And Fauci's at 31%, I think.

Even if the media is being honest, like if I draw a six on the table and you're like, that's a nine. And I'm like, that's a six, Darren. And then we get into an argument. We're both right. But we're obviously not saying the same. We're seeing different things, but we're both right. So even if a media is being honest with you, you're still going to have people seeing different

things. And we got to figure out a way to communicate a shared understanding of reality even when we're seeing it differently. You know what I think? I think I'm going to buy a bunch of CNN swag and memorabilia because it's going to be – not that they're about to – they're collapsing and crumbling. Yeah, it's going to become – like once CNN is gone, people are going to be like, oh, whoa, I remember that. I see them in the airport. It's going to be like the Buffalo nickel. That's right.

That's right. It'll be like – it'll be five years from now and it'll be like, yo, check this out. I got a CNN mug. No way. Crystal Pepsi. Yeah. Good. Good.

You know what, man? We have a decentralizing media environment. There's good things and there's bad things about it. The bad is that some people go off in rabbit holes. That can happen. But for the most part, you end up on YouTube and now with competition forming on Rumble, the ability to get multiple voices of differing opinions, which gives you a healthier diet. When you go on one of these platforms, and this is why I think it's bad that YouTube is censoring people, because here's the benefit. You can go on YouTube and look up something about immigration. You can

find videos from me, kind of moderate. You can find videos from Crowder, more conservative, videos from Jimmy Dore, anti-establishment left, and maybe even, you know, the Young Turks, establishment left. You get all of those different views. You get a healthier diet through YouTube. YouTube censorship is turning them into everything wrong with CNN and MSNBC, that all their hosts are the exact same line, say the exact same thing, and do not give you a healthy perspective. I like the fact that there's more websites, more channels, more personalities, that people have less centralized power in this, because now you can have people who watch this show, watch Crowder and Jimmy Dore, and be like, hey, Tim, you were wrong about this. Jimmy Dore

said this, and Crowder said this, and I can be like, hey, Tim, you were wrong about this. Jimmy Dore said this and Crowder said this. And I can be like, oh, wow, good point. More voices, better. Censorship, bad. Diminishing return. More voices, better. Diminishing return on that. For sure.

If you have too many voices, then it becomes incoherent. Although, as long as you can select the way you view the voices, Maybe more voices the better. I don't understand how YouTube thinks that they could have a future when they're trying to shove down our throats this nasty crap that is CNN that people don't even want to watch in airports and hotel rooms. I think that Google's given up. I mean, their viewership is going down dramatically,

as Tim just mentioned. And this is their strategy. Whenever you look up something user-related, we get CNN, something that people overwhelmingly don't like. How can a business keep sustaining? Well, again, it gets to the point. It's not a business in the usual sense.

And the fact that they are continuing this trajectory of presumably hurting their customer experience and so forth indicates, for one, that that's not their primary objective is to be important because they don't really have to. They're subsidized by the most powerful company in the world, essentially. And secondly, it shows the more that they censor, it shows that they're actually betting on all of these incipient alternatives to be crushed in some fashion or another. And I think that's another thing that we should really think about is that, yes, Rumble is growing and there's alternatives are growing. But there might be just an ultimate bottleneck to a genuine alternative to what YouTube was supposed to be.

And when something gets to be too influential and too subversive, the regime will find ways to destroy it. That's true. But they are losing, it looks like. And we had this funny article. I don't think we'll get into it in greater detail, but Joe Rogan mocks Getter, saying, I don't know how to get off. He complained the site artificially bloats follower counts by including a person's Twitter following. And he's right about that. I like Getter. There's a lot of users on it. That's important. But I do think Gab is substantially

better in that they run their own infrastructure, and they're actually challenging the establishment and becoming a real thorn in their... Well, it's just a different enterprise. Gab is really doing a full spectrum. They're taking very seriously the idea of just build your own X, and they're doing it with the platform, with the server, with the browser, with the payment process. They're going full spectrum, and they're just playing a very different game, a much more difficult game. I give them tremendous credit for Andrew Torba, for his ambition, his persistence, his boldness.

And I wish him all the best in it, but I really think if you want to be on the main stage as a communications platform, you're ultimately going to come up to that bottleneck of the national security state and of the regime, and they have many ways to deal with emerging threats like this. They can go after centralized services of any kind. So if you control the logins, if you control the passwords, if you store any data, the CIA can come take it at any moment. So you want to decentralize services in that manner.

And they can also take your code, your source code, and force you to shut up and do what they want. And if you're the only one that has the code, they basically lock it in and they make it do what they want. So you free the code out so that if you get stuck, at least the code is still out there for people to wrap up more organizations. He's a communist. Don't listen to him. Cyber communist. We argue about the free the code thing. I don't think it's a solution. For me, it's a vulnerability for the deep state to take a hold of your company

if that's the only place where that code exists. If someone builds code, the code belongs to them and their company. To the CIA. It belongs to the CIA when it gets popular. If the CIA builds it? No. If Google builds it, the CIA belongs to them. To the CIA. It belongs to the CIA. If the CIA builds it. No. If Google builds it, the CIA controls it, basically. Unfortunately.

Take a drink, everyone. Ian said free the code. I'm not. It is another one. We need a bingo card. It's not just that. Ian's talking points. But I imagine along with what, Darren, what you're saying is that the government does

come when the organization gets big enough and will start to control it from the outside. Even look at Parler. Parler, I think it's fair to say, is a joke compared to Gab, and it's a joke compared to Getter. And even in that case, when it looked like, oh, it might be some type of threat, January 6th completely destroyed it. On top of, I think, probably incompetence and so forth. But all it served was, oh, there's a bunch of chatter on parlor pertaining to this insurrection event. Now, all of a sudden, it is a vehicle for threatening the national security state, and it's treated like a threat. And that gets back full circle back to the Lindell situation is that if you are a genuine threat to the regime or in any in any remote sense you become iran let's go to super chats my friends if you haven't already smashed that like button subscribe to the channel share the show with your friends

and if you haven't already get those super chats in we're going to read your comments all right a lot of the first super chats was everyone telling us our audio was bad and people were like, Tim's, their conspiracy theory was that we purposefully had the audio bad to get a bunch of free Super Chats. It worked. It worked. All right. Let's see what we got. Nerd Gamer says, just wanted to say it's been a rough couple months for me from my GF of five years cheating and some other family issues. But whenever I watch the podcast, I feel like I finally have friends to talk to even if I can't respond.

Nerd Gamer Buddy, thanks for being our friend and hanging out and watching that show. It's because of people like you were able to do this and it's possible. And you know what, man? Go for a walk. Go to a bar.

Pick up a hobby. Ian and I, we like playing Magic the Gathering. Go to a game shop. You'll make a ton of friends and that's always really important. And the best thing is once you're in the shop,

you can put on the podcast and get a whole bunch of new friends to listen to our show and it's great marketing i'm just kidding man oh yeah do right by you and we appreciate your you know you hanging out we appreciate the super chat yeah dalimar says monday morning and over the weekend withdraw everything from minnesota bank and trust to make them insolvent destroy that bank well i don't know about all that all right you guys do what you think is right but i will tell you this if the goal of this bank was not to generate negative press and be involved in this then the stupidest thing to do would be to terminate a very high profile individual's bank accounts and all of them at the same time and now here we are

everyone talking about it congratulations minnesota bank and trust you've put yourself in the spotlight all right joe burns says hey tim and friends can you please do a favor from one chicken fan to another there's a breed of chicken known as show girls they're fluffy white chickens with naked necks and purple skin fans will love them that sounds very silly so the the uh the black star chickens that we have, the girls are beautiful. This is when you breed a Rhode Island red with a barred Plymouth rock. Oh, those are silly looking little things. That's it.

The girls have like these black feathers that glisten green and purple in the light. It's crazy. But the boys, they are goofy looking. They've got like brown spiky feathers on their heads heads. They're all mismatched and off color. Raggy. And they're silly and funny. They make funny sounds, too. The showgirl's incredible.

It looks like... What's the dog that looks like that? Pomeranian or poodle? Poodle. It looks like a poodle. The haircut's like a poodle. So poofy. So interesting.

All right. Ghost of Recon says, public banking. You mean you want your bank to be run by politicians and have authority codified in law? Dude, you literally want communism in banking. No, I want banking to be run by no one. I mean, maybe that's what cryptocurrency is, is public banking. I mean, the ledger's public, so maybe that's what that is.

Perhaps. Glizzy Water says, trucker from last night, I just had one of those effin' stink bugs scare the ish out of me in my truck. He was hiding on the cap to my drink. They're the worst. They're annoying. Have you seen the stink bugs around here?

Because they're in the DC area everywhere. They call them shield bugs because they look like little shields. They're doofy, and they're kind of funny. They just stink if you scare them. But we also have wasps out here. And so in the middle of the workday, when it was hotter out, a wasp would somehow find its way in. Now, that's a problem for me. That's an issue.

And then I'm fighting a wasp in my room like you've got to stop that thing. With the stink bugs, though, they're just really dumb. And I don't mind them. They mind their own business. And one time, I finished a segment. So I record my segments if you guys watch them at youtube.com slash TimCastNews and TimCast. I finished recording because I recorded all live. And then I saw a stink bug clapping.

I don't know what it was actually doing. Oh, that's awesome. I don't know what it was actually doing. But it was just banging its little hands together. And I'm like, yeah, they're doofy little things. And then I suck them up in the vacuum and throw them outside. They dance. They communicate with movement.

Insects do, yeah. It was clapping for me. I hung hung out with bugs outside and you'll get real close and just watch them and they'll dance back and forth and then do a jig and then dance to the other side and do a jig i was also on lsd that day but it was dancing it was dancing maybe you don't actually maybe you don't know what you actually saw i've seen it on multiple occasions i that that reminds me of that like that in the vlog we had that segment where ian was like i was on a roof and there was a wolf spirit and it was like i accidentally let it my soul and i was high i was high that explains it that was thc that night that was crazy all right let's see we got trash panda says part of the reason japan attacked pearl harbor was because we froze their assets after they invaded China, mess with the money, and get clapped. Is that what happened?

I did not hear that. Exactly. How is that not more public knowledge? Whoa. Is this true? Mr. Brightside says, Trump booed for saying he wouldn't investigate Hunter Biden. I don't want to hurt a family.

There's a new variant of TDS causes blindness. Is that true? Did Trump really say that? I haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. Yep. Samuel Pyle says, I live in North Carolina and I saw on the local news the U.S. Army is doing training across two dozen counties to prepare to fight guerrilla freedom fighters. The military is not on the people's side.

My friend, this is fake news. It's actually true. They're doing this, but this is Operation Robin Sage sage which has been going on since the 1970s it is a standard training exercise for special forces i think they have retired green berets do it they've been doing it for 50 years it's not a new thing yeah yeah don't don't don't you know the media is definitely trying to to hype that up all right let's see oh yeah yeah this is a good one seth covington says please someone show me the video of the girl who was rubbing onions in her eyes you remember that i don't on january 6 as a woman it's the weirdest thing i don't think it means i'm not saying i know what it means

but she's like you can see her rub an onion on her eye and then someone records her and she's crying about something this is a weird video bizarre yeah but you don't know what that means you know what i mean like it's certainly weird i can confirm uh in 1941 when the japanese invaded the indo china the french colony of indo china the u.s. frees their assets cut off japan from iron petroleum and tech yeah yeah and cut them off with uh energy and i think that's why they uh they needed the oil for their navy yep all right h music says in a senate hearing this week the the FBI and DOJ were asked why Epps was the first person listed as main suspects on the FBI website and then removed, even though he hasn't been charged.

Additionally, I think it was, was it Ted Cruz when he said, were there any FBI agents or informants? And they said, I can't answer that question. Right? No, that, I mean, that's true. That was first reported at revolver that Ray Epps, it's not like they can say we don't know who he is. He was considered to be one of the 20 most important people immediately after January 6th that they wanted to identify. The internet

identified him within days, and they did nothing until Revolver ran a report on his fellow Oath Keeper Stuart Rhodes, and the next day they scrubbed him off their public database. And since all of this blew up about Epps, the only subsequent official comment from any FBI agent, as I mentioned, was the Phoenix FBI people said they had no idea who he was. So it's a very, it's a strange situation for sure. All right. Dusty says, Tim, I live in Colorado.

I was going to work the National Western Stock Show this weekend and chose not to because the state and national government is going to fine $5,000 per person for not wearing a mask inside. I do not comply. Well, I'll just tell you all this. Frederick County, which is right next to us has a mask mandate and um in the in frederick proper we got hassled over masks and it was the weirdest thing because like we didn't walk into a building and just start fighting with people like we walked into a restaurant nobody was wearing any masks except for like the staff members and then they were like put this on and i was like well nobody's wearing any masks and they were like that's fine they're eating and i'm like oh we're here to eat

like they said no so we got in it i was just. And I'm like, oh, we're here to eat. Like they said, no. So we got into it. I was just like, dude, I'm not going to do it. I'm going to leave because they wanted me to put the mask on literally for five seconds and then take it off. That to me is nonsense. Yeah. But we went out to outside of Frederick proper, the city and the county. No, no issues. None whatsoever. Nobody was wearing masks. Nobody cared. The businesses didn't care. And these were big chain businesses. Yeah. Barnes and Noble. Big corporate noble big corporate stores they're slight we ain't doing it and i was like wow i guess for some reason in the downtown area where there's probably government enforcement they're terrified but in the outer you know rims of the county people are like get out of here dude the border with virginia is five minutes and west virginia is 10 minutes and if people don't want if you're

told to do something you don't want, if you're told to do something you don't want to do, they're going to, they're going to go find the same store on the side of the river in a different state. It's that easy. We went to a sushi place and they were like, the chair was five feet in front of us. And they said, put the mask on. And I was like, nobody in here is wearing any masks. Can we just sit down? And they said, okay, fine. But if you get up, you got to put the mask on. And they handed me a mask. I said, okay. And then some guy at the counter yelled, put the mask on. And I said, we're going to sit down.

And they were like, no, put it on now. And I was like, are you serious? And they all yell, yes. And I'm like, I'm leaving. I bet they thought you were a fad that was about to find them if they let you walk in without your mask. Nobody was wearing masks, though. But they probably made them all wear one from the door to the table.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So, you know, we did. You're like a secret shopper. We drove only a few minutes because it was a border county. We're only a few one from the door to the table that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard so you know we're like a secret shopper we drove only a few minutes because it was a border county we're only a few minutes from the edge of the county and we got sushi no problem it was quite delicious at the other restaurant it's insane to me that they were like if you want to walk five feet you better be doing it wearing a mask because everybody knows what covid floats in the sky and at six feet and it's it's the stupidest thing man look i understand if they're like a private business wants you to wear a mask but i'll tell you this the government mandating vaccines or

masks in my opinion is a violation of our right to peaceably assemble the supreme court agrees with you i believe no i don't think they've ruled on this yet but there needs to be a lawsuit over this so i don't know who files it or how i do not live in an area with this perhaps i could sue over something like that but i wonder what would happen if I got a group of 25 people that said, we're going to be organizing a Black Lives Matter protest in this public location that is open to all members of the public. And when they say, sorry, you have to leave, I'll say why. And when they say the government is requiring that we check everyone for vaccination status, I say, aha, the government can't deny our right to peaceably assemble under 1A. And then we sue and say, the government doesn't have the right to bar your right,

to take away your rights through pressuring private organizations. The Supreme Court's actually ruled that. So I'm wondering when someone's going to file a 1A argument that our right to assemble has been shut down by the government, forcing people to kick you out. So look, it's quite simple. If Burger King wants my business, but the employees there are like, I'm sorry, man, the government's making me do it. That's all I need here. And that's exactly what they've been saying. I called 20, 25 or so

restaurants and they also, almost all of them said the same thing. I'm sorry, the government is making us do this. All right, then that is the government violating our first amendment rights to peaceably assemble. Somebody should sue him. All right. Dusty says, I plan on going and doing some journalism. Instead, let me know if you want my footage. Are you talking about in D.C. for that protest? I don't know.

I think we have to go through. It's very strict with how we have to run things. This is one thing a lot of people need to understand, too. When you're running a business, there's a lot of restrictions. I mean, I'm sure you deal with this stuff too i've had people they they assume that if you have a company you can just give someone money so i was arguing with this leftist who was like what are you know i challenge these leftists when they're like when they criticize reporting or they try and act like areas are safe like conan

o'brien went to haiti and said it was beautiful and great so when i see that and i'm tweeting with somebody, I'll be like, I'll tell you what, you go and cover this story for me and I'll pick the location. How does it sound? And they say, yes. So I challenged this guy. So here's what we're going to do. Legitimately, I will cover your costs, everything, and even pay you to go and cover gang rivalries in Chicago. We actually, it would be great to see how COVID has affected these more dangerous areas of Chicago. And we'll have you do it. And it's not even about, look, I think this person won't be able to pull it off. But if they're brave enough, they're confident, they think it's safe, that's exactly the kind of person you want to go do the reporting.

They won't do it, though. They always say no. But I had one guy who was like, nope, just give me the money so I can go travel wherever I want. And I try explaining to him, you can't legally as a business, just give someone money for no reason. They don't seem to understand this. They think if you own the company, you can just write someone a check and hand it to them. I'm like, you, you can't like you are opening yourself up for audit because people try. It's crazy to me that it's people on the left doing this as they're the ones complaining about

loopholes where family members will funnel money to family members. That's exactly why you can't do that. When we're hiring people, we're required to have like a breakdown of like what the person's job is and why we hired them. And we've gone through all of this stuff. Otherwise you open yourself up to audit. I wonder if many of these young people on the left started a business, they would really change their perspective on, you know, who to, who to vote for, to be honest. All right, all right. Bernie Katsuroi says, Tim, what about John Sullivan, who was a BLM agitator and also was there at the Capitol leading those inside? He was put on house arrest and still free.

Yeah, what happened to that guy? He was an anti-Fa guy, right? Well, he's an interesting case. He's also featured in the Revolver article he was a sensation part of the narrative early on and a lot of people on the right like to point to him and say oh it was actually Antifa that was before we basically changed the narrative to look at

Fed versus Antifa and I think in the case of Sullivan that's also consistent with Fed versus Antifa and I'm definitely not a fan of Antifa. I think in some larger sense Antifa is a paramilitary force of the regime, but it's also a law-breaking organization and they also have concerns about Fed infiltration.

And John Sullivan was actually, if you look at various Antifa blogs and so forth, the Antifa people basically banished him because of their concerns that he was actually a Fed. So I think the actual explanation is people are saying, oh, he's Antifa. No, he's not Antifa. He's probably something else. And Antifa itself had similar concerns. So there you go. I guess when it came to antifa he

would try and incite exactly and they were like get him out of here what is he doing and his brother is like some you know right wing equivalent it's a very really bizarre family that is connected to intelligence and so forth you know uh just to go completely off the rails insane i was thinking how funny it was that i saw this image of, what is it, a puffin? There's little birds and there's a fake bird that in Iceland. Oh, yeah, puffins. Yeah, they put a fake one up and then the puffins come and land thinking it's a real bird. And so they're not lonely and they'll hang out with the decoy or whatever.

Then there's also decoy ducks where it attracts the duck. They this they don't realize it's not a real duck i'm like wouldn't it be funny if aliens put decoy people here to like coax us into doing things and we can't tell the difference because it's the technology beyond us and so you end up with these really weird people you can't understand that kind of just appear and do weird things i'm not saying it's true i'm saying it's off the rails, but it's fun to think about. For sure. Omega says, Tim, you owe me an apology. You said I was wrong

about the left and right, and now you are using the same point I brought up over a week ago. Yes, I owe you an apology. I think I remember your comment, and perhaps you are correct, and I just did not realize.

The classical left and right was anti-establishment and pro-establishment, and the modern left today has been pro-establishment for the entire Trump administration. Trump was the bull in the China shop, and I was like, all right, fine, whatever. I'll take it. I didn't vote for him in 2016. And as I've stated the other day, Trump is now a bull on fire trying to break back in, just going crazy and enraged.

And that is not the establishment. When Obama got into power, it seemed like all the warmongers that had coaxed Bush over there were like, yeah, let's keep it going. So they don't care what side they're on. They're like, everyone, let's move. Obama walked in and he's like,

now that I'm president, I'm going to change things. And then they were like, no, actually, you're going to blow up kids. And he went, okay. And then he did. I think it was like, no, actually, you're going to blow up kids. And he went, okay. And then he did. I think it was like a few days after he got his first inauguration, he authorized a drone strike killing a bunch of women and children.

That was the day he became president. That's right. It's like what they said about Trump. It's like he strikes Syria, and all of a sudden all the bad coverage suspends for a second. They say, now he's president. They give Nobel Peace Prizes to people like that, too. You bow to Raytheon. That's when you're president.

You twerk for Raytheon. I love how they gave Obama a Peace Prize for not doing anything. Like, what is this? Man, the mask came off. The emperor has no clothes. All that stuff. The past few years have really shown the establishment, the regime, the cathedral, whatever, to just

be a barren wasteland. They have nothing to offer. Yeah, and let's be honest. Obama was talking a good game. He was talking about ending the wars, ending the surveillance state, holding people accountable, making sure we protect civil rights and people's personal liberties, and then he did the complete opposite of that. Riley says, today my boss said we have to wear masks again.

I said, I will not wear one in front of everyone. He said, he's just relaying the message. I guess I'm fine. Yeah, I love that. A lot of people have pointed out that their companies come to them and say, okay, mask mandates are back. And they go, no. And the boss goes, all right, whatever. Yeah.

Like we tried. If they won't comply, we can't shut down. I'm sick of it. I mean, look how crazy it's getting that. It wasn't in California. They're having COVID sick nurses. And Seattle. seattle right come on people over it well because they don't want to shut down yeah they can't it's it's what mike rose said that the bombs were dropping on london and eventually people just came out of their basements like well what are

we supposed to do and they just lived with it all right what does that say jolin says i plan to ask tim to host darren beattie asap after work i turned on tim cast iron irl and lord have mercy it's darren beattie there you go tim would you mind asking darren about the late bill cooper and why he was assassinated who was bill cooper and was he assassinated behold the pale horse i don't know oh did you guys ever hear about behold the pale horse i've heard that was that, it's a famous conspiracy book. William Cooper was Navy intelligence, and he had some very interesting theories. His book was very fascinating to read personally. I read it before.

And, yeah, there's a lot of crazy information surrounding Bill Cooper. Interesting. Is he going hard on 9-11? Because he died two months after that. Yes. Really? Yeah, he died November of 2001. Well, there's people saying going hard on 9-11? Because he died two months after that. Yes. Really? Yeah. He died November 01.

Well, there's people saying that he predicted 9-11. But again, there's a lot of different theories out there. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Darren with a mic drop on NewsGuard. Yeah. Pointing out The Economist doesn't have bylines. Yeah. It was a real smack. Catch.

Yeah. I've actually emailed NewsGuard numerous times just like, because there's certain points where I'm like, I'll use them because like I said, it's like a shield that's like, hey man, don't get mad at me. I'm using NewsGuard certified sources. Even the Guardian backed up Joe Rogan's claim on myocarditis and I think that's how you can

get through the manipulation. But there have been so many stories like one very important one was that BuzzFeed wrote a fake story claiming two black men uh got into a fight over the death for a fried chicken sandwich they claimed it was when the popeyes chicken sandwich thing happened and buzzfeed wrote an article saying that a man shot another man over a fried chicken sandwich and i and i reached out to the editor-in-chief at the time and i said not only is this story overtly false don't you think it's a little

racist to make up something like this and he was like well I don't know seems fine to me and I was like wow so I emailed news guard and I'm like how is it that project veritas puts out a video and you say it's fake news and buzzfeed literally writes verifiably fake news you can fact check and you guys don't care and they give me no response the story actually was a guy was at popeyes and someone cut in line an altercation broke out when he walked outside i guess the other guy stabbed him and ran they weren't fighting over a chicken sandwich it was just an argument that escalated and so the dude uh like the cousin of the guy who died came out and put up put a video online saying, stop pushing these lies, man.

My family was not fighting for fried chicken. What the hell, man? We weren't fighting for fried chicken. We were fighting for something much more important, which was someone cut in line. I bet Popeye's paid for that story. The dude who died wasn't even the one who started the fight, apparently. Like some guy cut him in line.

He said, yo, man, you can't cut me in line. So the other guy just stabs him. And so I'm like, how brutal. To be a regular dude just trying to go to a Popeye's. I mean, they got shrimp there, too. And then to be besmirched by all these news outlets because they wanted a racist story. And then these people at BuzzFeed have the nerve to call us and other people racist or alt right whatever i can't stand these scumbag you know left elites who think they're better than everyone and they say they're the anti-racist and they do stuff like that and i and the editor-in-chief doesn't do anything about it when you said that they backed up rogan's claim on the myocarditis

is that youtube friendly talking content you want to i mean i did a whole video on it oh today you did the guardian published a story that said a study suggests myocarditis risk from vaccines is greater than that of covid joe rogan referenced that on his podcast josh zepp said he was wrong they pulled up a source that didn't confirm what joe said and joe didn't have an answer for it okay and i'll say this to joe i got a keyboard right here in front of me so So not only does Ian have his own computer and Luke, but I actually can pull up information that I'm familiar with. See, Joe doesn't have that. He has Jamie. Right.

So often what will happen is Joe will be like, hey, pull up that source. And then Jamie might pull up whatever the first source he finds. And it's not necessarily the one that Joe was talking about. So Joe came out later on Twitter and posted the Guardian article and a subsequent study from Oxford backing up his claim. And I said, this is the problem with alternative facts. Joe is not wrong when he says this thing has happened because the Guardian reported it. Josh was not wrong when he said, actually, this is true because he had a source he read as well. This is the problem with the ever-changing landscape of news media.

That people will read something in the news, like, I read this. I read this from a credible source. And you can read the exact opposite thing a day later. So then people just fight with each other. And I don't know how you solve for that problem, to be honest. Maybe we all just have no choice but to ask Bill Gates what the answers are and just believe him to whatever he says. And Michael Hayden.

Michael Hayden has veto power. Absolutely. Particularly Michael Hayden. James Clapper, too, would be a good answer. Right. George Soros, he knows everything. George Soros. I'm not going to look at the sky.

Michael, just tell me what color it is. It's green. All right. Confirmed. All right. Where are we at? Let's see. We got some super chats.

We'll move down. Boop, boop. We'll see what we can get. Lone Wolf says, question, if I can smell a fart through the mask, does that mean the mask

is working? I tried three, still smelled it. I don't know. Those are Socrates-like questions. But I will tell you, hold on. If you are wearing

even a thin piece of cloth on your butt and you get the Hershey squirts, it will stop a whole lot of it. Okay. The droplets. Of the droplets. That's right.

The droplets. Mud butt. The droplets. Mud butt. There was a really funny story. We're going to get gross, but there's a really funny story that's like a classic Reddit post where a guy was like talking about how he was running down the hall in the middle of the night after eating Taco Bell or something. You get the point of the story. But it was like one of the all-time posts on Reddit.

How does it go? Do you want to share it? No, but I think you understand where the story is going. Like I ate too much Taco Bell, woke up in the middle of the night, and long story short, the underwear actually ripped. Oh my gosh. There we go. That's what I was looking for. How did you do that? Oh my gosh. Welcome to the grossest part of the show. Hey, it's Friday night. We're having a good time. There we go. That's what I was looking for. How did you do that?

Oh my gosh. Welcome to the grossest part of the show. Hey, it's Friday night. We're having a good time. Hi, everybody. After hours. Holy crap. That's the first I've ever heard that ever happening to someone.

Incredible. I'm impressed. Sir John says, I would love to hear a round table with the who's who to brainstorm how an entity would keep free speech and not draw excessive lawsuits over all the things people will be offended about. You can't. Well, you can sue a ham sandwich doesn't mean you're going to win. Um, section two 30 protects them. Twitter isn't, is absolutely able to keep people on the platform. They just don't want to because they're hypocrites and they're, well, look, man, this is the problem with the right conservatives and libertarians did not get jobs at these companies. And thus they were taken over by leftists who do leftist things.

I did do a segment, did do, on my TimCast News channel talking about how low testosterone is likely the cause of all of our problems, and it's that there was a study that came out from the New York Times talking about how women favor banning hate speech and men favor free speech. I think this is in line with the fact that men are more likely to take risks. Women are more likely to be risk averse. That being said, with the decline in testosterone and men becoming more feminine and less masculine, we're getting an imbalance where there's too much of a toxic feminine presence in government and not enough of a strong masculine presence balancing out. I personally feel like you need

a matriarch and a patriarch. You need a good female assessment of the risks and to pull back and tell the guy, like, that's crazy. Don't do that. But then you also need a guy who's going to be like, no, I'm going to jump off this cliff with a parachute. We're going to make it happen. That is not to say that all women hate risk and all men like risk. It's just generalities. But when you get an overwhelmingly feminist system because men are becoming weaker and weaker with low testosterone, then it stands to reason you're going to get banning of hate speech, you're going to get authoritarianism, you're going to get all of these things. I think Jordan Peterson talks about this too. Motherly like the long house, the long house. What is that basically just the matriarchy of the matriarchal societies that had these long houses where the women would basically just dictate all the conversation.

And everything's mediated through the social reality. It's truth value, not its connection with first-order reality. It's the social reality determines everything, and social harmony determines everything, and therefore conformity and consensus are dispositive. That's interesting. Hunter-gatherers where the men would go hunt, it was not about what they thought reality was. It was the bull is charging, run.

And the women would be at home talking about the men and how they want things to be. So you think that aspect has taken over our society as we're more talking about it rather than dealing with what's really happening. There's an interesting thing they mentioned is that more masculine societies tend to be more warlike. There's a pacifying effect to having more women involved in government, but there's an imbalance. When you have the right amount of men and women, you get less war and more stability, but still a balance of people's freedoms and rights. But when it becomes more feminine, this actually occurs in a lot of revolutions that tend towards the left,

you end up with internal conflict authoritarianism, which just makes the quality of life go down. Like China, with their one-child policy that has overwhelmingly too many males. So interestingly, I was reading about the Bolshevik revolution. Women were kept out because they were considered to be very

conservative because they did not want to be a part of the revolution. They said, we want to be safe. There's no point in striking or protesting. It's too risky for our families. And it wasn't until the food stores were getting depleted that women actually came out and protested similarly with the French Revolution. So you see there's an internal conflict when there's an imbalance. But to be fair, a lack of food causes imbalance.

I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with men or women. I just think right now what's happening is we've known this for decades. Testosterone is going down. Men are – like masculinity is on the decline. It's also being demonized. And then we're getting the rise of authoritarianism, and I think that makes sense. We need a good, healthy – And it is a feminine type of authoritarianism.

Right. And I think it gets to the point that we're talking about the distinction between first-order reality and reality as perceived through the social system. We're talking about the function of media, and we're in basically a media-run state in certain ways.

The media creating that reality is fundamentally a kind of feminine mechanism, that everything's filtered through this kind of manipulative social control, rather than just kind of interacting directly with reality and seeing what reality reports back. All right. Stachowski says, Tim, it's funny you talked about cia taking over watching big companies some people would say you follow under that guideline who's your cia agent ha very funny guys there is no cia agent um but let me tell you something for real let's be real

we're no longer in the era where there needs to be a handler for the manipulation of media. If YouTube decides that we do the right kind of media, they'll prop us up. What you need to understand about how media manipulation works and has probably always worked, these companies in New York don't take a journalist and then say, we want you to report propaganda for the left. They find people who are overtly leftist activists and then say, want to be a journalist? Bring them in and say, write whatever you want. That's what they do. Impact.

So if you think this show is, you know, like we're CIA agents, ha ha. It could actually just be that we do the kind of show that they want us to do. And so that's why we're not getting banned. That's why we're on YouTube. That's why we're getting views because they've just decided behind the scenes. We don't need to have condo with them. I pointed this out before too. I can't remember who we had on the show and I was just like, I don't know what's going

on, but they certainly tolerate what I do because we're making a lot of money. We're growing and expanding. So I don't know what it is the goal of Google and the establishment is. Maybe they're not as powerful as we think or they like what we're doing for some reason. I looked on Twitter and I saw you're trending under entertainment. I know. Not under politics.

And I've been trending for- That's good. On and off for like two months, nonstop. To me, that's a win from joining TimCast, the TimCast organization. Oh, sorry, my audio's going, cutting it out. To see us trending as an, or to see you trending as an entertainment icon instead of a politics icon is key because the cia they go

after the politics people if they're going to go after anybody the entertainers are here to put to calm people down what i was told um by some people who work at google is that there's a lot of people who are actually fans of the show who work there and so they actually play some kind of speed bump to the overt far left attempts at coming at the show i think there. And so they actually play some kind of speed bump to the overt far left attempts at coming at the show. I think the same with the CIA too. I bet there's a lot of people that are super cool and like, this is crazy, this world.

We need a better system. But it's only defensible insofar as you're not overtly publicly demonized. So there's probably a lot of people at YouTube who are fans of Crowder, but it's becoming increasingly hard for them to speak up in his defense because the media attacks and attacks and attacks anything with Alex Jones. So it's only a matter of time for us, in my opinion, especially in 2022 with an election year. But anyway, it's Friday night, my friends. We've got

a lot of work to do and a lot of fun to be had. I'm going to go crack some champagne and celebrate the decline of CNN's ratings. So make sure you subscribe to this channel. Smash that like button. Follow us on Instagram at TimCastIRL. You can follow me at TimCast. Darren, you want to shout anything out? Yeah. Follow me at Revolver.News to see all this reporting. Read it and share it with people to challenge them.

What do you think about January 6th? And follow me on Twitter at DarrenJBD, D-A-R-R-E-N-J-B-E-A-T-T-I-E. Darren, thank you so much for coming. Shouts out to everyone in the comment section that's calling me bloke. Yes, love it. Apparently there was a white balance issue with my camera.

And no, I did not take the jab. Anyway, if you're bored this weekend, check out LukeUncensored.com. We have three masterclasses on survival, journalism, travel hacking, all available to you. I think we have, travel hacking, all available to you. I think we have over hundreds of videos all available to you, LukeOnSensor.com. Thank you so much for having me.

And today was really fun. Appreciate you guys. Love you guys. Thank you so much for coming. And check out my website, IanCrossland.net. It'll portal you over to my social media accounts. And I will see you next time. I'm really enjoying Bloop myself. And I do think that cracking a bottle of Trump champagne is probably the single best possible way to celebrate CNN going down the tubes.

And you guys may follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patchlets. I just want to point this out, too. When we were over the holidays, I was hanging out with friends and family. We actually had Trump wine and Trump champagne. And we thought it was funny. And so we bring the Trump wine to a family gathering, and everyone has a laugh. They're like, I eat Trump wine. And it was, they loved it.

The whole bottle was gone in a few minutes. So then we cracked open Trump champagne. When we came back, we brought some with us. It was delicious. I'm not a big drinker. And then we got another bottle of champagne. Didn't like it. I was like, wow.

Like, I actually like the Trump champagne. I hear good things. But I'll leave it there. With that being said, that free that free shut up for Trump champagne. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. Friday night. Hope you enjoy the weekend. We will see you all.

We're going to be putting up on Sunday, the Sunday uncensored episode. So you can listen to those on iTunes and Spotify. But don't forget, we got a massive library of uncensored content at Timcast.com. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all next time.