Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #592 - Armed Man Who Attacked FBI SHOT DEAD, Posts Admission On Truth Social w/Bethany Mandel

Episode Date: August 12, 2022

Tim, Ian, Hannah Claire of Timcast.com, and Lydia join mother, author, and commentator Bethany Mandel to discuss the mam who tried to attack the FBI building, how people think it might be a false flag, the leftist commentator agreeing with conservatives about the FBI, Twitter's announcement that they'll ramp up censorship during the upcoming election season, and the NYT allegedly seeking Democratic politician approval before publishing GOP editorials. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Earlier today, a man went to an FBI office in Cincinnati with a rifle and a nail gun, and he tried to, I guess he tried to breach the building. He opened fire. They're saying in the direction of FBI agents, so it's hard to know exactly how it all went down. But we know that after an alarm was set off, he fled, ended up in a cornfield where he was opening fire on police. The breaking news now is this man is dead.

He was shot and killed after about a five-hour standoff. Now it's being reported this man's name is being reported. I'm not here to shout his name out, but we'll get into the story because apparently he was on Truth Social and he made a bunch of posts talking about why he did what he did. And if this is the correct person who's posting on Truth Social, it was about the FBI raid on Donald Trump. So we got to talk about that.

And then, of course, we have Merrick Garland has come out and stated that he signed off on the raid of Donald Trump's home. My opinion, revenge, of course. He's pissed off. Conflict of interest. And this is the dangerous this is one of the problems you have with weaponized and politicized

law enforcement. So we're going to talk about that. There's a lot of other stories to go through. I'm proud to state as much as I have my qualms with NewsGuard they have rated MSNBC as fake news. Finally. Share that one with your family when they're

obsessed with it they tell you you're wrong msnbc is true rachel manna blah blah blah yeah well news guard says fake news and don't forget head over to timcast.com to support our work directly and check out our after hours uncensored show monday through thursday at 11 p.m we've had some pretty crazy conversations this past week larry elder was particularly interesting naomi wolf was very interesting last night she mentioned that the government actually was targeting her to get her censored on social media platforms. So really crazy stuff. Plus, as a member, you get access to all of our shows. And soon, and because of all the members, we will have two documentaries launching, really great ones. One's about gun control. What about the Federal Reserve? We're

also working on a transhumanism documentary, but that's going to be coming in the next phase. So it is because you are members, we are able to produce these documentaries, and then we're going to release them and members will be able to watch them. So I'm really excited for that. I think our timeline is the rough is two and a half months from today. Maybe it'll end up being a little bit longer, but I'm really excited for this gun control documentary. So don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Joining us today to talk about all of these issues is Bethany Mendel. Hey, thanks for having me.

Would you like to introduce yourself? Yeah, so I am the editor of a children's book series called Heroes of Liberty, and I am a columnist at Deseret News and a mom of five and a half people. Five and a half people? That's a half person. Percolating people? Yeah. That's a half person.

Percolating a new person. Ah, making new people. Yeah. Oh, glad to hear it. You're watching it happen in real time. On this show, actually. Yeah, yeah. Right on.

Well, thanks for joining us. Yeah. We also have Hannah Clare Brimelow. Hi, I'm Hannah Clare Brimelow. I'm a writer for TimCast.com. What is that site? It's this super cool kind of independent news site. We do news on all kinds of things,

all kinds of issues. I post five times a day, and I think this is the longest my intro has ever been. Oh, very nice. NewsGuard certified. It is, but not good enough. 82 out of 100. Insulting. No, but it is. They posted a bunch of fake news about us, had to correct it,

refused to issue proper corrections, violating their own policies. And I take it very seriously. If they're going to claim USA Today, which admitted to fabricating 23 sources in their stories, is more responsible than we are when we've had one article out of 4,000 that required a correction that they noticed. We issue corrections all the time when we make mistakes. But they're like, we noticed one article, so you're irresponsible. Get out of here.

Anyway, Ian's here. Oh, yeah. Anyway, I decided to refresh last night. I took like an hour-long bath. I was telling you guys about it before the show. And instead of coffee today, I'm drinking coconut water. I had a little bit of aloe vera, just the inner filet. It's incredibly healing.

They called it the flower. I think the plant of life. The Egyptians used to call it that. Highly recommend. Get it on. Catch you later. Let's do this. Yes, let's do it. I'm loving how many ladies we have here tonight. You may notice I'm zoomed in a little bit more than usual. It's because Hannah Clare is lovely and tall just like me. I kept getting the top of her head in my shots. I did crop it out. I'm sorry,

Hannah Clare. Such a middle child. I need all the attention. No, it's fine. It's all good. I'm really excited for tonight. I love my ladies. Let's get going. All right, here's the first story from the Daily Mail. Armed man who attacked FBI's Ohio field office is dead. After five-hour standoff, suspect also attended deadly Capitol riot. Now, we don't know exactly to what extent he was at the Capitol riot. I think that maybe the Daily Mail is reporting something different. I've read a bunch of other sources. The New York Times says that he was there the night before, but he's not been charged with any crimes. But let's read and see what they say. Ricky Walter Schiffer was shot dead by police Thursday after

he raised a gun towards officers around 3 p.m. State Highway Patrol confirmed. Schiffer had attempted to break into the office, prompting a five-hour standoff with authorities. The body armor-wearing suspect fled the office and was chased onto the highway before abandoning his car by a cornfield on a country road just off of Interstate 71. The confrontation came as officials warned of an increase in threats against federal agents in the days following a search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Investigators say Schiffer was also at the U.S. Capitol during the January 6th insurrection, they report.

All right, well, they reported this stuff. I'm going to pull up some tweets that we have. Travis View says, the New York Times identified the Ohio shooting suspect as Ricky Schiffer. There is a truth social account using that name. On the same day, the FBI executed a warrant on Mar-a-Lago. The account made a call to be ready for combat. And I'm not going to read what he said next, but he called for extreme violence. In the end, one of the last things he said was that, yeah, I can't, I don't want to, I don't think we should read exactly what he said, but he explained that he thought he had a way to get through bulletproof glass.

He was wrong. He did not. But this could explain why it was reported that he fired a nail gun at the FBI. Now, I read on NBC he fired at the agents. But perhaps they said towards them instead of at was because there was bulletproof glass. He was not able to penetrate. But apparently this Ricky Schiffer guy on Truth Social was saying that he did it. And if you don't hear from him, it's because they got him or something to that effect.

So I guess my view on things, obviously, George Conway. All right. I'm going to make sure I cite George Conway on this one. He said they crossed the Rubicon. This is anti-Trumper George Conway. They crossed the Rubicon, which is an insinuation that a faction of people have crossed the point of no return towards what? A civil war? There's no thing. There's just some random dude that went crazy, in my opinion.

No, no, no. He's talking about the Democrats and the FBI. Right. Specifically. So, Ian, you've talked quite a bit about ancient Rome and stuff like that. The crossing of the Rubicon was the Civil War. Yeah, it was forbidden in Rome. There was a river right outside the city.

And if I get any of this wrong, just correct me in the chat, and I'd be happy to go over it again. But it was illegal to ever bring troops across the river into the city of Rome. That was something they'd all decided. It was too dangerous. So when Caesar was off on campaign, he had however many hundreds, thousands of troops that just basically worshipped him. And when he decided he came back to Rome, he's like

they were going to try and put him on trial to strip him of his power. And he was like, you know what? No, I want Rome. He crossed the Rubicon with his troops, took the city, and they called it forever known as the crossing of the Rubicon is when you've taken that step, the one step too far. And that was the, that was the start of the civil war.

That was basically the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the empire. So there was this, a leftist outlet that they were like, the far right is saying this, that or otherwise, or something like that. And, uh, they said, Tim pool said they crossed the Rubicon and I'm like, yeah. And so did George Conway. Like, this is not a call to anything. It's a statement of, it's an observation. I think they did.

And first and foremost, obviously, let me just say one thing. This dude who went to the FBI field office must have really wanted Democrats to win. Because, I mean, we're months out from the midterm election and surprisingly, he did exactly what the Democrats needed. Democrats to win because the, I mean, we're, we're months out from the midterm election and surprisingly he did exactly what the Democrats needed. He got violent, failed. And now the

Democrats have their example of what's wrong with the right. That's why the craziest thing to me is like now is the absolute worst time for anything like that. And this is why I say violence doesn't work. We are, we are months away from Republicans taking the House and the Senate in what the misery index predicts will be a crushing defeat. Except now in the past few months, Democrats have evened out in the polling, something like this happens. I think we're gonna see Democrats spiking in the polls because of this. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, this is this is the continuance of the January 6th hysteria. This is how they continue that line of conversation. But I think that we need to be a little bit careful in knowing that this was the guy.

I was trying to Google which mass shooting was it where it was the brother that was identified. And it went on for hours. And this guy, he was getting calls. Do you remember? Was it Newtown? I don't remember. I don't remember which shooting it was, but there was a mass shooting

where the brother was falsely identified. And so I would just caution the expertise of whoever this guy is with QAnon. Maybe it's not him, and maybe this guy... Well, the New York Times said this guy's name. Oh, well, that's the beacon of truth and reality. And maybe this guy. Well, the New York Times said. Oh, well, that's that's the right. Yeah, that's the beacon of truth and reality. I mean, sure.

But I guess the best thing we can do is. I mean, I always just wait 24 hours. Right. Fair point. Fair point. And even if even if it turns out that this is the guy, I don't think blaming a political party or a movement or any of that makes any sense because this guy just went up the rails. Yeah. I mean, it's the same as the baseball shooter what's that the the congressional baseball shooter that was

never blamed on democrats um yeah it's a guy who uh i think he was like even maybe a bernie sanders supporter he was he was a bernie sanders volunteer and like he opened fire at the the congressional baseball practice and almost killed Steve Scalise. I mean, very few people know about it because it was a story for like 0.3 days. Meanwhile, January 6th, we've been talking about forever. But I mean, that was never that violence. That was never crossing the Rubicon. That was never blamed on Democrats.

It was just like, oh, it's just some crazy guy. Like, this is just some crazy guy. This is just some crazy guy. This crazy guy right now, I don't think is a crossing of the Rubicon. I think the weaponization of the DOJ and Merrick Garland being like, yeah, I signed off on this, is a crossing of the Rubicon. Yes, and going into Melania's closet.

Yeah, I mean, look, we've talked about this when Trump was saying he would lock up Hillary. Everybody was like, that would be a dangerous time in this country. And then what did Trump do? He said, we're not going to go after Hillary. Everybody was like, that would be a dangerous time in this country. And then what did Trump do? He said, we're not going to go after Hillary. We're not going to do it. And everybody was disappointed.

But Trump was like, no, no, we're not going to do it. And they didn't. Trump was standing at that river line. He was like, no, no, that's too much. It's too much. It's been in the public. Yep. Meanwhile, Hillary has her hats and her emails hats.

She's campaigning already or at least fundraising. Go ahead. I think I watched Merrick Garland. He did a speech today, the official explanation. They said they're going to unseal the warrant to explain why they invaded. Is that the right word, Trump's house? I don't know what the word is here. Raided.

Raided. They said, but don't call it a raid. It was a raid. Yeah. I mean, they went in there unannounced or maybe they announced themselves right before they went in. Well, they did. They went to the lawyers and said, get out. We're going to go do our thing.

Apparently, they kept the cameras rolling. So Rubicon, I don't know. Jury's still out. I want to see what the warrant said. There is always the possibility that Trump was doing something extremely nefarious. And a warrant wouldn't prove that. Okay. But it would not.

A warrant is their accusation. Or maybe they wiretapped him and then they heard him say, you know, no one, we don't know. I mean, it's hard not to view this as a complete phishing expedition, right? I mean, why would you write? I'm sorry. It's hard not to view this as anything other than fake and weaponization. Why? Because of Russiagate.

Because of Ukrainegate. Because we know they had fabricated evidence and manipulated evidence already. So, you know, forgive me, Hillary Clinton's email server, we looked at, they said, oh, there's no criminal intent. Fine. Then they smear and lie about Trump. They should have stopped the investigation into Russia gate long time ago. What would happen to lawyer chain, like fabricated a letter or something? It's been a while since I covered this story. But anyway, sorry, I digress. Oh, all I was going to say is that to me, this warrant, you know, we've heard the story that there was a room that

had a padlock on it that had the documents that they're requesting. When you write a warrant, you have to be specific about what you're asking for. So theoretically, Garland signed off an warrant that said we want complete and unfettered access, and we want the right to not announce because we think that they'll hide stuff. that to me indicates that it's a it's a grab they want to see as get as much stuff as possible and then maybe justify it later when they're like oh but look what we found when we

showed up there yeah well in melania's closet there were all these secret things that we knew about so uh to understand what is it called the fruit of the poisoned tree is that what is it called? The fruit of the poisoned tree? Is that what it's called? There's the exclusionary rule. And this states that if your rights are violated and evidence is found, that evidence is inadmissible in court. So there was one story I remember reading about back in Illinois of a guy who had, they thought he was a murderer. And so a cop ran his plates, pulled him over. And then while he said, get out of the car, illegally searches the car, finds evidence, send in the evidence. Turns out the stop was illegal. The lawyers get it thrown out. Exclusionary rule. You cannot use evidence seized in violation of someone's rights.

With this, you get a warrant for something like classified documents. Then once you're inside, if you have a warrant and you enter a home looking for say classified documents and you find pills and a gun that's now admissible so anything they found in the house perhaps this was a fishing expedition and or trump's suggesting they're planting evidence that's a bold yeah that's the first thing that crossed my mind when i heard about this story what if they play like how can you yeah confirm or deny if they did that i mean i wouldn't put it past them i was gonna say i think of all there there's been over 100 subpoenas that have been issued through the January 6th subcommittee.

When you subpoena people's documents and records, you can ask broadly for tons and tons of stuff. They aren't being specific in what they want, and that to me shows that they are kind of grasping at straws. They are wanting you to turn over stuff so they can figure out later what you did wrong. That's creepy yeah is that the kind of thing where they can create like

fabricate a warrant after the fact and make it look like they had it back in the day no we we know this guy this this epstein linked judge signed off on it and so a lot of people are asking questions about this but a lot of people are bringing up now that they think this is a false flag right before the midterms for an oct October surprise or for this to be weaponized to help Democrats. Look, I got to say, show me the evidence. I mean, I certainly understand the possibilities, but show me the evidence. Considering what happened with Ray Epps, I'm more inclined to believe there's malfeasance going on at the highest level. This is a guy who went out on January 5th and 6th telling people to go

in. And they're just like, oh, this poor man is a victim. That's what the New York Times is writing about. That's what they're claiming. Adam Kinzinger is defending the guy. And I'm like, something doesn't make sense. We know this guy. He's on camera saying it and they let him go. So with this, look, the simple answer. People are shocked and angered by the FBI raiding the former president's house. And out of the 74 million trump voters one guy went nuts yeah or one guy was nuts and then went off right right that's it i don't know unless you guys think i'm wrong and the feds planned everything but i just don't i don't i don't know no i think it's legit i think this guy legitimately just like freaked out or was already freaked out i'm i'm thinking about like like

obviously you don't attack people that's not the way we live in a civilized society we have our second amendment because if we're attacked by our own government or by outside countries that we can defend ourselves and like i think about like nazi germany like i used to be like why didn't they fight back why didn't they like stop hitler didn't they stop Hitler and stop the Nazis? And you kind of can't because it's illegal to fight the law. Yeah, it's also people are cowards. I mean, the last two years have really shown me a lot of facets of human nature that I was just maybe in denial about. But people are sheep.

They just kneel at the face of power and all common sense goes out the window. And I mean, I can, there's a lot of things in history that make sense. We're only a couple months away from a very, very serious election. You've got people saying, you know, let Trump's second term begin January 3rd or whatever, 2023 or whatever they do the swearing in. these members of Congress and the Senate or members of Congress. And so now is the most crucial time. Just the other day, this is funny, we had Naomi Wolf and she said it's going to get crazy these next few months right before the midterms. And we're like, oh, yeah, baby, if you thought it was crazy crazy before wait till you see what's going to happen next sure if the next day some guy goes up to the fbi field office with a nail gun

and a rifle and he tries breaking in i mean this is crazy stuff yeah but but i i don't know man the false flag narrative stuff the reason i don't like it as much as we've talked about gulf of tonkin numerous times i understand the possibilities i know all about Operation Northwoods and this crazy stuff that they've done in the past. It's like you need evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love to believe we've exposed some nefarious plot. Great. Well, let's expose it.

But in order to do so, you can't start with the premise that's extraordinary. You have to start with what happened. A claim has been made. It's been reported in the press that a guy did these things. It's appeared on social media. This guy said these things. Now we need to start from there and then see where we go, not decide where we want to be, and then try and build our way up to it by pointing out other things throughout history. All right.

Yeah. I mean, I am curious to see sort of how it plays out, but I imagine that they're going to try to paint him. There was another sort of recent incident where, you know, it came out like, oh, this guy follows Ben Shapiro and he was radicalized by Ben Shapiro. Like, yeah, yeah, the nerdy orthodox Jew from L.A. That was definitely who radicalized that shooter. But, I mean, they're going to ride this into the sunset just like they have January 6th. But I think they blame radicalization on the introduction of any information that they don't agree with, right? So it's not that Ben Shapiro himself

is like waving some crazy symbols and acting erratic. It's that he opens the door to a line of thought and a line of questioning that ultimately, they would argue, is always corrupt and always violent, which I don't think is ultimately true. Something is happening in this country with the rise of parallel economy, alternate payment processor system,

censorship resistance, resistant, we use them, rumble, what you've got growing in Florida with not just the technology infrastructure, but with Ron DeSantis, his worldview, what Florida has been doing in general in terms of governing. Something is amassing in this country that's starting to stop the insanity,

stop the cult. Now, I'm not saying it's a guaranteed, you know, it's gonna, you know, wokeness is gonna be crushed or anything like that. But we're seeing a steady path, a light at the end of the tunnel where we are going to be reaching

a good place for something like this to happen completely undermines the opportunity for success. So it does make you wonder, why would anyone on the right staring down the barrel of a midterm election be like, I know here's what's going to help? No, absolutely not. This is the opposite of doing anything good for anyone. Yeah. I mean, he's probably just a nut job, honestly.

Yeah, and then what do you do? What do you do when you have all these nut jobs? What are you supposed to do? Should they have been tracking his social media or something? No. No. Well, and also, who's to say they weren't? And then let it happen?

We don't know anything about this guy yet. Every time there's a mass shooter, there's never the, like, oh, I had no idea he was sitting there. Everyone's like, yeah, no, he was a a nut job and we were kind of waiting on this it's never a secret it's never a surprise yeah a lot of times their high school classmates are like yeah that was the guy that beat puppies or like yeah and i think what happens now is that the the powers that be that want him to be representational of every maga supporter out there are going to work really hard to say like he is just like that guy down the street from you who has a trump 2024 sign you know they're going to work really hard to make this he is one of them

when in reality just like we know the left has had i mean wasn't the guy who opened fire at that country music concert in las vegas didn't they i don't know how we don't know anything about that well any about him because he disappeared but there was a point where people were saying like hey i think he is a registered democrat and then suddenly he disappeared i don't know if that's true there's nothing i can do to fact check it but my point is just that ultimately we know that there are people who whether it be for mental reasons or whatever else pick extremist behavior behavior. But that's not actually, number one, helpful to the political party that they're going to link him to. And it's not actually representational to most voters on either side. Yeah, guilt by association isn't real.

Think about Fast and Furious. No, I will not. Not the movies. The Operation by Obama where he gave guns to the cartels. I don't want to think about that either. What would they have been willing to do to cover up something like that? Yeah. Not the movies. The operation by Obama where he gave guns to the cartels. I don't think about that either. What would they have been willing to do to cover up something like that? Yeah.

The question is, don't look at Fast and the Furious and say, wow, look what they did. Look at what they did and think, what could they be doing now that we don't know about? Yeah. So I have to be like a little bit careful because this is like, but there's, I know someone who was involved in that as a gun runner. And yeah, I mean, that was, that was, there was a setup. There was some messed up stuff that happened on the part of the feds and they did try to cover it up. In Vegas or what?

He was in the southeast part of the the or southwest part of the country yeah fast and the furious yeah yeah right and he was arrested as a gunrunner in that and i know him very well and it was he was set up and then they tried to put him in prison for a very long time and he spent a lot of money for his freedom with for a very very very good lawyer who was like i'm gonna bring this to trial because he has nothing to lose and y'all might not want this all to be out there yeah and his lawyer got him an amazing deal and he got out like a year later because the lawyer basically put him put the feds on the spot and were like he was 17 and an orphan. Like, do you want to go into like how you entrapped him and then how you like the whole thing?

And that was, for me, someone who was like very back the blue. Like I didn't see, I never really knew that side of the FBI before to hear his story, someone who I trusted implicitly and see how it all went down up close was like oh they bad yeah those are not good people yep and here we are yeah well but i don't know i i'm only bringing this up because i'm not i'm not trying to insinuate anything about this particular instant uh instance but there there probably are tons of stories like i mentioned this because of the Vegas thing. People have questions. Nobody knows who this guy was or what happened.

It all just vanishes one day. Yeah. And a lot of people are like, shouldn't we have like learned way more information about this? Like with every other incident? Or maybe what was happening was there's something going on behind the scenes that went south. Yeah. And they're not going to tell you. You know, the funny thing is i really don't want to

get into the issue of 9-11 because it's just people can lose it but i always tell people like do you believe the official story you think the government just came out and told you exactly how our security was undermined i mean that's absurd there's confidential and top secret information so of course the official story is omitting information lacking information and probably obfuscating information so it's crazy to, for one, there's obviously a lot of the conspiracy theorists who believe, I think they take leaps of faith to believe things they want to believe. But then also the people who come out and say, like, I will blindly believe whatever the government says.

And then I'm like, dude, even that would require you to say the government was not honest about what happened. Because if you, like, let's say it again. The United States government did not come out on 9-11 and say, here's a roadmap to how our security was undermined. And please, you know, can you read that? No, they were like, okay, we better not let people know that happened right there because that's how they got us.

So they're not going to release all the information. But, you know, that being said, it's hard to know when secrets are kept from the American people and then we're supposed to make decisions on who we vote for without complete information. And then you have the media organizations that intentionally obfuscate and manipulate. Dark days indeed. I'll put it that way. It seems like there's a defense of the liberal economic order right now by American military and sub-military like FBI and CIA that they don't want it to get broken up. They want to make sure that we, the United States, we have like a police,

not a police state, but like control of the earth. Like we have military bases all over. So there's no world war three breaks out. I understand that they don't want world war three to break out, but like, I don't think that the, the that the real threat is internal. It doesn't seem like that. I think most people want stability in the United States. Like the CCP may be a bigger threat. Probably. I don't know, man. I don't know if it matters what we think or feel about who the bigger threat is. I think it's obvious China is a serious threat. I mean, honestly, Russia is a threat. They just I think they overhype Russia when China is a much bigger threat. But the fact is, we've got two distinct cultures in this country and they're headed for chaos. Yeah, I was going to say, maybe a lot of people want stability, but what they view as stable

is not the same thing. There's such a division in how people ascribe their values and what they would describe as their ideal stable life, right? There are people who are incompatible in a lot of ways in this country. Obviously, I don't think that's a call for, like, extremist violence or anything like that. But, like, you have to recognize that stability is almost impossible when you have people who need your life to be different,

and you see that as unstable. Yeah, just, like, real quick, because I do want to bring up this next story, just as an aside, which we'll get into later on, maybe for the members only. A video is going viral from the boston children's hospital talking about giving hysterectomies to children oh it's freakish to children so so we'll get into all that but i want you brought back the blue so i have this tweet here from brianna joy gray oh boy she said marjorie taylor green is right about the fbi Bad faith or not. In today's radar, I argue the left should take advantage of the right's new acknowledgement of systemic bias and push to abolish the FBI, an institution that is always protected, has always protected elite power, not the people.

My response to this was fire emojis. I completely agree. I was thinking I was like, was like, that appeals to me. But I mean, I think that sort of, I disagree a little bit about the fact that both sides want stability. I don't think that the other side wants stability. I think they want to remake the world. But this is not that. This is an appreciation and understanding that the fbi at least maybe maybe

we're on a joy gray in the left perspective on this is we need to tear down the system to rebuild a new one don't know don't care if we have if we if we look at the fbi and we're like hey there's corruption going on there we should defund that and and dismantle it and they say yeah we also want to i'd be like well if we agree on that, we're fine moving forward. We'll figure it out afterwards. Well, then what? Here's the problem. Then what comes next?

Yeah, right. Like a new organization that's even less accountable that we don't even know about? No. And that tracks our every movement. You can't say we should not do away with corrupt institutions because of fear of more corrupt institutions. Like, we're actually taking action to get rid of the corrupt can't like take a wheel off the car mid mid drive yeah you have to is that what the fbi is it's one of the are they that important for the united states

have they been investigating antifa have they been have they been holding people accountable have they been going after hunter biden and i mean no no well we may see something with hunter biden but it's been a really long time and only because of public scrutiny right so i'm not convinced that first i'll say i don't think the entirety of the fbi is corrupt i think there's different people in different field offices i've actually talked with people who uh you know there's like lower level people who there's headaches they have similar politics you. The culture war is in every facet of the government as well. But I just don't know if the FBI does enough to warrant any of this. I mean, it's a secretive operation.

That's part of the problem and the strength of it. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying no one knows. I'm saying we have repeatedly asked questions for years. Why have they not done this, that, or otherwise? Yet they have time to send a dozen agents to a garage over a pole rope. That is shockingly, shockingly insane. You're talking about the Jussie Smollett case? No, I'm talking about the...

Bubba... Bubba Watson? Was that his name? I don't know. The NASCAR driver said there was a noose in his garage, and so they sent a dozen agents, and what did they find? It was a garage pole rope. It was the door pole rope.

Bubba Wallace. Bubba rope. It was the door pull rope. Bubble Wallace. Bubble Wallace. It's insane. And then they go and Merrick Garland signs off on raiding the former president's home. And we're sitting here being like, let's contemplate whether they're an organization worth funding. No, no, no, no, no. There's no question. The left has long talked about all of the malfeasance.

They talk about Martin Luther King and Malcolm X as really big examples. And I'm like, sure, fine, whatever. Yeah. Defund them, dismantle them. Or maybe, maybe we can start by reducing through a moderate defunding and reduction of the FBI force. Yeah. I mean, I think the FBI, there's two problems. One of them is there. It's the problem of every government institution. It's just bureaucratic bloat and stupid people get promoted and your expertise and your, it's not a meritocracy is basically what I'm saying. I think that's a number one problem.

But I think that in the last five years, one of the things that has become extremely apparent is that the people who are in charge, like the grownups in charge, I always thought that there was grown-ups in charge. And then, like, Comey, he started talking, and you were like, oh, my God, you had a lot of power, and you are a total nut job. But it's all of these people who were in the top rungs of power who are nut jobs.

George Conway is another one. He's a total freaking nut job. I was concerned with Adam Kinzinger. I don't know him personally but i've been seeing his tweets and i think he's isolated there seems to be like um a bubble that some of these people are existing in right now that they think it's really what life is about is about red and blue democrat republican thing but that's like an infinitesimally small part of reality yeah this human thing is not that big a part of reality we need to really kind of get

outside of our own butthole if you know what I'm talking about and look up look outside that's what I said bubble that's what I said butthole yeah we need to de-investigate ourselves for a moment and look around at the universe because things are flying around at 100 million miles per hour and can slam into earth at any moment

and we got to be prepared for that kind of thing and that is an important mentality for people to realize like you can find purpose outside of all of this most of these democrats this is their life their religion their purpose they have nothing else maybe if they got interested in the stars they might be like yo i don't care about this i want to look in a telescope instead their whole world i'll put it this way politics has become pop culture. That's the danger. And public health has become part of their identity too. I mean, COVID gave them a religion like Mazel Tov.

I'm so happy for you. You finally have found fate. And it's in the form of virus mitigation. Yep. Although the CDC relaxed guidelines, I don't know if that's come up yet. We talked about it before the show. It hasn't. Officially, that was according to NPR. They reported on that today. Maybe we can go if that's come up yet. We talked about before the show. It hasn't. Officially it was according to NPR. They reported on that

today. Maybe we can go into that later a little bit. I just can't help thinking with the FBI. There's so much clear and evident malice. You can look at Peter Strzok. I just cherish the way he smirked. It was insane. He looked ideologically possessed. These people and Blasey Ford did the same thing. They do this

thing where they look in the camera and they look down and go What the? What is that? Are you imagining you in the camera and they look down and go what the what is that are you are you imagining you're the wicked witch of the west or something they're practicing for Halloween the problem is

the camera's above like what we got on the show so it's looking down at them so you see like their eyes looking up but bro we don't look to the camera turn our heads down

look up and then go meet for yourself Tim that's so crazy we don't do that. We're not hiding stuff. Why are they doing that? Not more than a normal person would hide some menial

personal or private things on TV. But I think these people have to have secrets. Their job is to secrecy half these people in the government, the CIA secrecy organization. Oh, it's all secrets. That's the remarkable thing. Anytime anyone from the government comes out and says words, why would you believe them? They have a whole system of keeping information. secrecy organization. Oh, it's all secrets. Yeah. So that's the remarkable thing is like anytime anyone from the government

comes out and says words, like, why would you believe them? They have a whole system of keeping information, a secret from you. They're not going to tell you. I mean, the people who go to the White House press conference,

I'm just, do you really think any White House press secretary at any point ever is going to tell you the truth? I'm sorry if you believe that. I got a bridge to sell you. You think the first one did? No. Who was the first you the truth. I'm sorry if you believe that. I got a bridge to sell you. You think the first one did?

No. Who was the first one? No. I'm going to look it up. I mean, the thing is, the government trades in strategically releasing information. So why would that be true in foreign policy and not true in our domestic media? Like, why would we be like, oh, yes, American people, I'm taking myself. I'm going to be on national TV and I'm going to tell you the truth.

But don't tell anyone else because that'll reveal our big plan. Like, we can't reasonably expect our government to be honest with us and also be openly telling everyone, all of our adversaries, like, what's truly going on with us. Like, that seems like a terrible plan. I mean, I judge all of the press secretaries what's truly going on with this? That seems like a terrible plan. I mean, I judge all of the press secretaries by their ability to lie. Yes. And that's their job. And suspend. And some of them are good and some of them are not

good. Have you had a favorite? Oh, gosh. So Sarah Huckabee Sanders was fantastic. The key is, and I think it's the bunch of kids, nothing would face her. Yeah, she was unflappable. She key is, and I think it's the bunch of kids, nothing would face her. Yeah, she was unflap. She was like, come at me.

Someone peed on my foot today. Kaylee McEnany was fantastic. She was so good. Being like, here's the story right here. Ah, yes, you're wrong. That was fantastic. But Jen Psaki wasn't bad. No, she wasn't.

You might not like her, but her ability to spin and spin quickly and create sound bites, she knew how to do it. This current lady? Terrible. Oh, man. She's bad. And you know why she's terrible? Because they did a checklist.

They were like, well, she checks the LBGTQ and she checks the woman and she checks. But they didn't actually like have a checkmark for. Charisma. Merit. Or temperament. Or talent. Or anything. Yeah. She's just completely inept i feel bad i know i mean she's over her head and she was she was chosen because if she hit all those little boxes and she has been from what i know about her career i mean

she's been fairly insulated she's been with the democratic movement for so long right i think people who are farther on the outside of the the shell have to learn how to spar a little bit more. And I think to her credit, that's where Jen Psaki's background came from. Whereas with Corinne Jean-Pierre, like, no, she has been with the movement. She knows the soundbites. And when challenged, she really struggles. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, I think that's actually a skill of like Pete Buttigieg because he like was in

middle America and had to actually talk to people with whom he disagreed, it makes me sharper. I mean, that's how I felt. I went to Rutgers University with every lib on planet Earth, except James O'Keefe. You know what really works, though, is believing what you're saying. Yes, that helps. And knowing what you're saying. Because then you don't need a book.

I mean, it's nice to have notes, but you don't need to look at them if you just glance down and then talk about what you know. I mean, Jean-Pierre, with the formula stuff, she genuinely had no answer. She didn't know that there was a formula crisis. She didn't know the plan. Like, she did not... There was no...

There was nothing not to believe. She just didn't know it. For the record, Andrew Johnson was the first president to grant a formal interview to a reporter. Wow. That was 1869-ish. Yeah, so before that, I guess they didn't even talk to the media for the first 60, 70 years.

It's kind of crazy if you think about it. Like you have no idea what they're doing. I mean, when was the last time Biden spoke to anyone? He rarely talks to anyone. He yells, come on, man, quite a bit, you know, with a helicopter. And I would argue, too, the first 50, 60 years, media was really different than what it is. Yeah, radio and TV have changed a lot. Yeah.

I mean, you have to get a journalist to a president to then put a paper out that would then, like, by the time it reached anyone, be like three weeks old. And I mean, radio and TV is the reason why Hitler was able to mass the population so fast. And it's super dangerous tech. I understand why there's censorship and why the CIA is involved with, you involved with the PRISM thing and they want to oversee and make sure. But we should talk more about the power of TV and video, I think. Maybe not today, but just in life. TV was more powerful than social media. With TV, you had five channels, starting with three channels and five.

So all of the messaging was distilled through the trusted names in news or whatever. Then the internet happened and you can reach people faster, but now you've got too many channels. And they're all just- All these poles busted on the dam and trying to plug them. Like, oh, we have conventional fingers.

We don't know how to plug all these at once. Let's make an algorithm. The TikTok algorithm, people can get, the more they use it, the more it knows them. And so it feeds them to like Edgar Allen Poe TikTok. Like that person is not getting the same content that like you would get or you would get. It's true for all the platforms.

True. Yeah. But TikTok is especially talented at it. There was the Wall Street Journal story about like young teenagers, 13, 14 years old, and they lingered on one pornographic video. And then they were just inundated with more and more pornographic content. That sounds like they're not better at it. No, they're very good at it because they got the kids hooked on the app. And it was because they just, if you lingered 0.3 seconds longer.

It's like every second on TikTok is more valuable to them, partially because the media is so short, which keeps you scrolling faster. Whereas like YouTube, you may have to watch... You watch one video, it might feed you another. You watch 10 videos, it'll feed you a lot more.

I mean, these videos are over an hour. You really have to invest some time. But you can have total ADD on TikTok. On YouTube, I've noticed if I go to a video and I watch it for half the length of the video or more, that it starts to hit me with more videos of that. So if I go to one, I'm like, no, no, no. I don't want... No, no, no. I don't want this in my life. You just X out really fast so that the algorithm knows you don't want it.

I try to trick the Instagram algorithm because it started – I had a family friend who – she had this tragic thing with a dying kid or whatever. And then the Instagram algorithm decided I only wanted to see stories about dying children. Yeah, it does that to me too. And I was like, I'm going to click on every single thing about Meghan Markle. Let's trick the algorithm. That's worse. No, I mean, it's better than dying children.

And I hate Meghan Markle, so I'm all in. I'm saturated with cats, and it creates a compounding effect where I watch more cat videos because they're giving me more to look at. And then I get even more. And now it's all cats when I go through my stories decided I was like a young Mormon bride because I was really interested in national parks so I click on a lot of like photography in Zion National Park and then it was like but you know who takes pictures in Zion National Park Mormons and then it fed me a lot of Mormon church stuff and I really was like I don't

I don't know what's happening so I gave gave my brother my phone and he looks for other things and he sends me the videos. Do you Mormonize it? Yeah. It still occasionally is like, but are you sure? I mean, and are you sure? Are you questioning?

I really want to see Zion National Park and I don't know if I'm willing to commit to the Mormon church. Did you linger on the Mormon videos and then they were like, she's definitely on Mormon. I think it was like, here are photographers active in this area

and then because Utah is an LDS stronghold, it's like, well, here are people who are hiring area and then because utah is an lds you know stronghold it's like we'll hear people who are hiring photographers and then it was like we'll hear the mommy bloggers and i was like oh look at those kids and then it kept going and eventually i was like this is creepy i don't like it at all i know i love it i that's that's my jam i mean it's better than the dead kids that's for sure the algorithm you love or well no the algorithm because i get that algorithm too i get that algorithm too. I get all the moms of – it's funny because I get all of the big family people on Instagram because I follow a couple of them and then it sort of compounds.

And then they start getting crazier. Crazier and crazier. And it is hard not to be like, what are you doing? It's like your own customized version of reality TV. Yeah, 100%. It's like I think I know what plot lines you're going to be into, and I will serve you some. It's kind of the danger of hate watching, too, because sometimes I'll watch stuff because

I find it so, like, revolting. I gotta know. I know. So this is the libs of TikTok. She says, like, I'm friendly with her. She said, like, I didn't even, like, I just started watching them, and then TikTok just feeds me more and more. I don't go looking for them.

And now people send them to her because she's had such a big account but she like she built this entire platform on just posting what the algorithm showed her which was craziness interesting i think i get a lot of marvel stuff nice yeah i get like like skateboarding rollerblading scooting biking all of that i guess that's like the only thing i really watch And then a whole bunch of Marvel stuff. You do need more cats. Like the new movies that are coming out. And then there's a lot of music stuff. But it's usually just like a guy... I don't scoot, but they sent me a video of a guy doing a triple flare on a scooter,

and I just couldn't stop watching it. It was like the craziest thing I've ever seen. I didn't even know that was a verb, scoot. Scoot, yeah, scooting. A triple flare. You know what that is? No. It's like...

So a flare is like a backflip 180. So a triple is like three backflips in a 180. It's just – I'm just sitting there on the toilet and I'm like, whoa. That is crazy. It's like you just keep watching again, watching again. And I follow like the barracks and stuff like that. When I started doing Pop Culture Crisis, I would occasionally look up like people who were involved in the stories on my phone. And so then for a while it was sending me lots of like e-news.

And then it would send you like people who like do their own content about following various celebrities and i have never been so informed in my life you know the worst thing about instagram now is they give you like when you're scrolling through your feed you get accounts you don't follow yes i am so annoyed i just like every time i say it i'm like get rid of it get rid of it it's like i'm watching videos of a dude doing a 360 flip crook down a rail and i'm like whoa i'm watching a video of a guy doing like a backside flip going 30 miles an hour and i'm like whoa and then it shows me a woman jump roping and i'm like what i i don't i don't care about this i don't remove why did you put that in my feed yeah but i will say this for instagram the personal

shopper is on oh crazy oh yeah good on point i actually i call it my personal shopper is on point. Oh, crazy. It's so good. On point. I actually, I call it my personal shopper. It's not even advertising. I buy everything. I do too. They once advertised to me. So my older son had food allergies when he was younger.

I once got a targeted ad for yarmulkes because we're orthodox jewish um kid yarmulkes for kids who are not really talking yet with allergy information listed on the yarmulke right i was like you so smart so many data points there that were orthodox jews with a young son with food allergies who is too young to verbalize them yet it lined it up and it was like we we know what you'll buy. And I bought it. I won't buy anything off the Instagram. Like, it serves me stuff I like,

but I just like, sometimes I feel like I can't help it. Like, I don't really want to give in. I want to feed it because it's my personal shopper. The singularity has occurred.

Like, the AI is in control. That excites me. I mean, the Instagram one. Only the Instagram. You're a puppet, Ian. Because I think my mind

is strong enough. I think that I'm able to tend information without believing it or disbelieving it enough that I could exist within the algorithm and function wrong peacefully. Excuse me. Wrong. Okay. Excuse me. Wrong.

See, here's what's happening. When you get fed information on social media, it is shaping your worldview and you don't have control over that. I have noticed. Man, a lot of people I follow on Twitter are people that have been on the show, and it's a lot of politics. I do not like it, man. And I like those people. I want to know what they're up to in life, but I can't stand reading about the left and the right and the color red.

Follow them on Insta instead. Yeah, I'm a completely different person on Insta. I am delightful on Instagram, and I'm awful on twitter interesting yeah but twitter twitter is um for most people it's not algorithmic it's reverse chronological you can choose to do the algorithmic or otherwise so for me i follow news i mean twitter is the news platform there's like not much else on their celebrities don't really get traction that like they're there they have big following but like... I never see those tweets. Yeah, they go

on Instagram for that stuff. But on Instagram, they're feeding you stuff in your feed and shaping your worldview. Just outright. Facebook as well. Facebook is where it's substantially worse. So I don't really use Facebook, so I don't know, but Instagram, nothing is shaping my worldview because it's

just pictures of like homeschool classrooms, which is and i love them and i've taken a lot of information but you're you know i think for younger people they're being inundated with very specific things but is it like do people get their news from instagram yeah i think they do and i think for especially some young people they'll follow like uh meme accounts on instagram that'll be not political memes like silly like uh what it's like when you're in your 20 right and like then those accounts start to promote you know maybe they really believe them but maybe you know just part of the culture they know certain things will get more likes and so they start incorporating certain content that's more pro certain issues especially i saw this a lot after um roby wade was um overturned and i had people jump on that bandwagon like there was no tomorrow people who are not particularly political

and maybe this is an important issue to them and they just don't vocalize it i grant that some people are like that um but a lot of accounts picked up on the fact that it was correct to you know lifestyle kind of content that that would have happened even without social media though i think that i think social media reinforces it because people who don't seek out political information are served it anyways through this backdoor channel of like look at these cute jeans i got also my ro pin also there was interesting sort of stuff that was leaked from marketing firms after ro i mean dobbs that a lot of brands were told like, don't touch it, that they went all in on Black Lives Matter. And so I know people who are like pretty big influencers on Instagram, and they got questions like, why didn't you post a black box? Where was your black box during

Black Lives Matter? And I feel like the corporate pressure was not the same with dobbs i think because dobbs is more complicated yeah they knew it from the beginning whereas with the black box thing it was like you must submit i mean i remember the culture that's running in some ways the leak of the row decision that came out like ahead of time i think was trying to build the same tension that we had during the summer of rioting after George Floyd's death. Yeah. It sets the circumstances very differently. Sorry.

I want to talk to this next story. We got this from Timcast.com. Twitter announces plan to tackle misleading narratives ahead of midterms, vows to throttle tweets deemed incorrect. Exciting. Like they did not do with all the Democrats who were screaming that the election was stolen in 2016. They're now basically telling us they are going to decide what is true. The last election they did this.

What did they do? They suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop information. They suppressed anything that was that was basically bad for Democrats. And now they intend to do it again. So I don't know if there's any point in reading and what they claim is going to be done. They're civic integrity project. This seems like a really good news site. I think you maybe should read it. No, no, no. But the point is, like, why? Who cares about what Twitter has to say about why they're going to be done their civic integrity project news site i think you maybe should read it no no but the point is like why who cares about what twitter has to

say about why they're going to be censoring and controlling the flow of information i'd like to hear a little bit about it what's the official statement here at least the civic intake integrity policy covers the most common types of harmful misleading information about elections and civic events so just claims about how to participate in civic process like how to vote misleading content intended to intimidate or dissuade people from participating in the election, and misleading claims intended to undermine public confidence in an election, including false information about the outcome of the election, Twitter said in the announcement. Harmful.

The thing about all that is you're allowed to do all that stuff. That's free speech. As long as you're not inciting violence. Sort of. Not entirely. You're allowed to tell people not to vote. Yes, but I don't think you're allowed to defraud people by telling them the wrong voting day. Right.

Things like that. Okay. So I follow a great account. His name is Political Math. It's Polymath on Twitter. Polymath, yeah. Yeah, I love him. him and so he tweeted he retweeted the cdc's guidance about um the kids vaccine between six months and five years old saying like absolutely get you know these young children vaccinated and

polymath retweeted it and said fire these people this is unspeakable stupidity on the part of the cdc that agency should be burned to the ground which is opinion yeah first of all it's opinion and second of all it's a call to violence. That's their interpretation. No, they call it misleading. Oh, okay. They don't call it a call to violence. But if you look at the numbers of people who have had their young children vaccinated

for COVID between six months and five years of age, I wrote about this for Deseret like two weeks ago, the numbers are like 3% right now. So when I see a misleading tag on Polymath's opinion about the CDC statement, it makes me be like, oh, there is something up there. Like it backfires on me. It backfires. Right.

Yeah. Because I see that and I think like, why are they gatekeeping like that? But I think a lot of this is just failed. It's what's the right word? What's the politically correct word of saying your brain doesn't work. The people at Twitter are really dumb. And there are people at Twitter that are really evil. And then you have the government trying to get Twitter to censor people, which we've heard over and over and over again now. So what happens is they're like, Hey, let's implement a policy. What happens? There was, there've been several instances

where people's tweets have been flagged and the fact check is totally unrelated. And it's like this really weird thing. Like, huh? There've been several instances where guidance has changed and they've been like, Hey, we're revived. The CDC is like, we're reviding our guidance. And then Twitter flags it as fake news. Here's what the CDC says. And then links to like an article from the year before there was a famous incident on Facebook where the C I think it was the CDC's own website was labeled fake news because these machines don't work. They don't know context. They don't have up to date information. And so if someone's like, I got breaking news, the CDC says X, they'll delete you and say that was fake news and you're banned because our official fact checkers have not yet published the information.

So when they talk about getting involved in the election, at what point – I don't know what to say. I was going to say at what point do we as a society do something about the interference and manipulation of our elections? The problem is there's no mechanism for solving this and there's no – that's it. There's no political process for solving it it's just there twitter is this corrupt broken evil machine and i don't care if the intention put into was good what came out was evil and there and what do you do antitrust the people who run this this platform are all out of their minds elon doesn't even want it anymore and he said he hopes that he doesn't have to buy it. There's no saving these broken social media platforms. It's like you build a machine that runs wild and starts destroying you, and you don't know what to do to stop it. Well, you've got to free the schematics so that someone will figure out how to stop it.

That's why I advocate for freeing the software code. You can at least make it better and more interoperable. I think that— People aren't going to be able to take Twitter's code and then change Twitter. They're going to be able to replicate it and make more problematic versions of the same garbage. Or better, and then the people at Twitter will be like, oh, we could do that. Let's change our code. Better does not mean better for society.

I know. Better could mean generates more revenue, which means worse because now it's more algorithmic manipulation, making people click and get brainwashed. It depends on who you ask. More algorithmic manipulation, making people click and get brainwashed. It depends on who you ask. Better could mean more manipulation of the masses to get them to vote for who I want them to vote for. But I think better – I kind of think – what do you think? Allotropically, I think that's not the right word. But I think like the betterment of the whole of the community, like no one i don't want to less constriction on who's controlling it but i guess i don't know i'm not in the military the military commander would tell

you that's the you want to do the opposite with it probably that you want to control it military that's the only reason you're not in the military yeah i don't want to control people but i mean that's the military's job uh but i think with the twit like i think it's nice to believe that people would want to rally around common good and the betterment of other people that's honorable and that's moral in a lot of ways but why would twitter and i don't know a ton about freeing the code for sure but like why would freeing the code motivate people who are already it wouldn't well we'll ask a question okay so twitter has a history of wanting to manipulate people and control the worldview.

Why would freeing the code suddenly change their mind? Why would they suddenly, if someone else made something that was similar but more moral, why would they be like, that's a good idea. We should do that too. They could have done that already. They chose not to. The issue is Twitter is not driven by morality. Moral platforms exist and they don't have traction.

What works is addiction machines. Instagram knows this. Facebook knows this. Twitter knows What works is addiction machines. Instagram knows this. Facebook knows this. Twitter knows this. YouTube knows this. TikTok knows this. They know that they can give you a dopamine hit by making you feel good and they have this built into their machines. So what would happen is –

There are tech companies that offer a service to generate addiction. They'll say, are you building an app? Come to us and we will build an addiction routine into your app for you to make your users. Yeah, like slot machines and stuff. They actually figure out when you pull it down how long do you want, how addictive, you know, how long do you want to wait until it refreshes. How many times

do you need to win? How many dings are you going to get? Right. But what would happen is if they freed the code, that guy number two would build, set up his own identical addiction machine, identical to Twitter, and equally as addictive. But on his thing,

he gets to make his own terms of service. He'll say, on mine, you can talk about the CDC, say whatever you want. All these people on Twitter will try this one, and then they'll still be- No, they won't.

Why would they move? Because they're allowed to talk about the CDC. But it's not happening. Okay? They haven't freed the code yet. That's what I'm saying. No, no, no. Let me at least state my claim here so you can argue it.

You say your claim all the time. And Hannah Clare asked me a question. I want to answer it. So then you make it so you can still see the people on Twitter from the new site. So you're not actually leaving. You're just expanding the process and you're creating a marketplace of the terms of service, essentially, instead of a marketplace of who owns the code. How does that not already exist?

With Truth Social, with Parler, with Getter, with Gab, with Mines? They're not interoperable. They don't interoperate with each other yet. And why would they? Well, bigger network. That has nothing to do with freeing the code. More diverse network. The issue is you cannot make a morally better system.

A system that improves like Twitter or Facebook is more addictive and manipulative and power-hungry. The issue is you cannot make a morally better system. A system that improves like Twitter or Facebook is more addictive and manipulative and power hungry. So there's no solution, maybe antitrust, but Twitter is not a monopoly technically. There are other platforms that exist. But it is de facto. It for sure is. And so there's literally – there is no mechanism we have today other than like all of the people of this country agree it's bad so we we pass a law saying ban twitter so here's my question for prohibition so opening the code freeing the code so would this basically provide a window because

here's what i'm curious about as a in as a twitter user what happened with alex berenson like can someone explain that yeah he wanted to be on Twitter. No, I mean, like, he was banned and now he's back. Yeah, he filed a lawsuit because he wanted to be back on Twitter. He didn't want to go on any other platform. He wanted to be on Twitter. So it was the lawsuit that got him back on. He had his lawyer on last week.

He settled with Twitter. Yeah, okay. They settled and he got his account back. Interesting. So would freeing the code basically do what Alex did and open the door? Oh, yeah. Well, you could. So Alex, if you got banned off Twitter, he could go on the new version and still see all the people on Twitter from his new version and he wouldn't be banned off the new version.

Why would their database be granted to you? Why would you get access to their database? Because you have the API. You'd have access. That would be I mean, that would be the law. That would be what you would have. I'll tell you this right now. It's the reason why I don't like talking about this is that it literally makes no sense. I don't think so. Because the other option is breaking up the company like an antitrust. And that doesn't work because they still have the code. They can start

a new one. What I want to know is like, who is the person who decided to ban Alex Berenson? What was the decision-making process there? It is likely the government intervened. We don't know for sure. So that's what I want to know, though. We don't know for sure, and I want to know. And we'd love it if Alex Berenson could tell everybody, and that's why people are really mad at him.

Because the story goes, and I don't want to put words in his mouth or the mouth of his followers, but what people are saying on Twitter in response to him is that he promised when he got to Discovery, he would expose what was going on. Instead, he settled with Twitter, got his account back, and then said, sorry. Oh, that's yucky. So people are like, he said, in the future, there will be more to talk about in terms of government involvement and censorship and things like that we heard from naomi wolf she said that the cdc was going after specifically she was kicked off right she's not yeah oh no and so something oh your bracelet daughter's bracelet so she was saying that it's we see this before uh judicial watch uncovered documents i believe it was judicial watch that democrats were going to these big tech

companies saying, ban these people. So it's very, at this point, I would say we're at probable cause or beyond. We have actual instances of evidence where the government is using third parties to violate people's First Amendment rights, but they're doing it circuitously. So this was the lawsuit that was just filed by a whole bunch of the health care people. I don't know a lot about it but it was the um i think it was jay out in san francisco stanford stanford dr jay and i can't say his last name b this all new i'm so glad when people don't know things that i don't know i'm so spaced out right now i'm sorry no so people don't know things that I don't know. I'm so spaced out right now. I'm sorry. No, so there's a lawsuit that was just filed.

And it's funny. I actually just did a radio hit about it. And the host did the worst thing in the world to me. He's like, tell me about this. I'm like, you have not to talk about it. No, thank you. You have to do the... And so I kind of like, I muddled through it as best I could.

But there was a lawsuit filed by a whole bunch of health care people about the fact that the CDC and the government worked in conjunction with the social media companies to silence them. Which is a violation of the First Amendment.

Yeah. The government does not have the right to go to companies and say, ban these people, don't let them speak. Yeah. Now the issue is, as always, it's cultural.

Cultural enforcement is more powerful than law enforcement, and cultural drives are more powerful than any platform could be. You can spin up as many platforms as you want, from Truth Social to Gab to Parler to Getter, et cetera, et cetera, and people don't use them. They don't unify on them. And why? Why didn't Alex Berenson just go on Truth Social and talk

to those people? Why didn't he just go on Gab and talk to those people? He wanted to be on Twitter, so he sued to be on Twitter. He accepted being on Twitter, and then he didn't give the people what they asked for because being on Twitter was more important to him because people are on Twitter. Yeah, it's the people. It's not the platform. Can I

correct myself now that I've Googled it? Because I'm a little bit of a jerk. The person who filed the lawsuit is one of my friends, and I didn't know that. Oh, cool. Oh, my. Surprise. I'm really sorry. Who dat?

Justin Hart. He's a data guy. He's a marketing digital strategist. He filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook and Twitter and Joe Biden and the Surgeon General for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech. He claims that the federal government colluded with social media companies to monitor, flag, suspend, and even delete social media posts that they claimed contained misinformation. He's being represented by Liberty Justice Center. I'm sorry, Justin. I didn't know that you were doing that. I will say there have been many circumstances where big tech has been sued, and I am flabbergasted by the weak arguments made in such strong cases.

So there's just been a handful that I don't want to call anybody out specifically to impugn their honor. But there have been very, very strong cases where you're like, wow, look at the details of this case. Clearly, the government said ban this person. And then when they file a lawsuit, they don't mention anything about like, they don't go, they don't go after the government. They don't include them as part of the lawsuit. They don't even bring up the strong elements of the case as arguments. They just say something like our contract was breached. And I'm like, what am I missing here? Because I've talked to dozens of lawyers about various issues and you know to put it simply I'm not a lawyer I can't speak for why these lawyers have made weak cases that ended up

losing or settling or just not accomplishing what they want to accomplish but then when you talk when you when you listen to the lawyers on their shows and you listen to high profile people coming out and explaining what went down they make it sound like they had a much better case than they presented I don't understand why they didn't go for it. I just don't know. I don't know. Or maybe they just didn't know. I don't know. Inner workings of legal that you'll never know.

I don't understand why more news outlets haven't filed lawsuits against NewsGuard, for instance. Breitbart has written articles being like, how dare you, NewsGuard? And it's like, why don't you sue them? Why don't you sue them? Yes. Exactly. You. I know. I'm asking you. And we said this last week. news guard and it's like why don't you sue them why don't you sue them yes exactly you i know

i'm asking you and we said this last week so like i don't watch every video no no i'm not saying i'm not saying you do i'm saying yes exactly because we probably are okay i've i've been in a dispute with them already they violated their own standards they violated their own correction policy they've accused us of being irresponsible while holding themselves to a lower standard, stating that we get an 82 out of 100. I say that's a statement of fact that they've rated us on the basis that they are giving a factual analysis, but they are not. They don't follow their own standards or policies. And the reason I take this so seriously, people need to understand this. NewsGuard is used by advertising agencies and big tech to reduce visibility of your content. So if you sit – so we're 82 out of 100.

I mean we're one of the best. But they arbitrarily gave our website a ding even though our standards are greater than theirs. USA Today fabricated 23 stories and they say that's fine. I want to be careful here because there's some behind-the-scenes stuff related to serious malfeasance, but I have already issued a demand to them, and it is very, very likely we will be filing a suit. And I will probably seek crowdfunding to help other organizations that have been defamed by them falsely and smeared in violation of their own standards. And there's a few things people need to know about the elements of defamation. Actual malice. Did they know what they published was false? When it comes to opinion statements, this is probably going to be their big defense, that when we call you irresponsible, it's an opinion. We'll get to that.

They've also issued several false statements and refused to correct them. For instance, on the label for our website, they have they claimed they mischaracterized a post that's false. They injected words into it. That's very different from mischaracterization. That's a false statement of their actions defaming us. They accused our content of being fiction. And they did not, as per their own policy, which is their standard, admitted that they said we were wrong to say Timcast content is fictional. They did that. Instead, just scrubbed it from the article in violation of their own policies. So I'm particularly pissed off about this.

But I'll put it this way. I've talked about Wikipedia standards, how they put their own byline in it. I have no standing to go after Wikipedia. You give me standing on any of these platforms, and the first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to go to the full extent possible legally. And so there's been a long ongoing conversation with NewsGuard. For instance, they first tried to claim we were fake news because we accurately reported the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop. They tried getting us to editorialize our content. And I said, here's two NewsGuard certified sources confirming the laptop emails are real and verified.

And their response was, you know what? This is a little bit murky. So we're going to ignore this issue for now. No, you don't get to send me an email demanding we editorialize our content. And then you omit from your own article that you had an error in your own assessments. So I wait. When they published it with six errors right off the bat, I emailed them immediately and demanded retractions, corrections, and they have refused every step of the way to correct.

NewsGuard fabricated a quote from me that pissed me off. You know, when it was accusing Tales from the Inverted World of being fiction, I said, that is a false statement. And they changed it, but never explained, as per their own policy, what they did wrong. They called it a mischaracterization. I challenge that. That is a false statement of fact on their own part. I don't know how that'll

work in court, but I'm really, really pissed off about this. Their rating system is arbitrary. They have dinged us simply because we are an independent media organization. USA Today fabricated 23 stories, and they give them a perfect score. Media Matters gets like an 80 out of 100, and they're a conspiracy crackpot website. So anyway, I'm frustrated because I'm pissed off at these institutions, but I believe we have serious standing and reason to prove that they have, there's actual malice in the, in the insertion of words into a quote,

knowing I did not say these things and knowing I never implied them. I'll give you the, I'll give you exactly what it is. Cause they're trying to argue when we put words in your quote, we're implying something. We know you didn't say it. I told them, if you require a website to fact check every single quote from every politician, that is near impossible. But if that's what you require from this, we will do fact checks on all quotes moving forward. They inserted the words that are false, changing what I was saying. What I was saying was you have demanded of us an impossible standard. Oh, my God.

By adding those words, they knew they were manipulating my quote. That is mouse. And I want to see what they wrote when they were talking to their editors and lawyers as to why they decided to change the context of what I said. They did not admit it as per their own correction policy. They did that. So I think they outright defamed, libeled me. And so you have actual malice

and then reckless disregard for the truth in that they don't abide by their own standards. So in their fact-checking process, they three times incorrectly labeled my job at three different organizations, called our content fake, fiction and fantasy. I'm pissed off about that. And

they labeled Cast Castle mundane, which is an opinion statement as per their own standard must be labeled. If they're not going to abide by their own standards, I am going to sue the ever living out of them. And you know what? If in the end the suit is dismissed, I long for the day NewsGuard files in their federal response why they are allowed to have zero standards for their own for their own journalists,

why they're allowed to fabricate quotes, why they're allowed to smear into fame a plethora of independent media organizations, and why they give perfect scores to outlets like CNN and The New York Times who publish fake crap all the time. Anyway, I'm pissed off about it. You can tell. A little bit.

I mean, I think a lot of it, your question, your initial question, how you got started in all of this was why isn't anyone suing? And I think it's two things. I think that people don't care enough. You're very obviously not one of those people but i think the other problem is that and i think we saw it a lot with covid people are much more content to go along because they don't want to start things and so even though they see things that are objectively ridiculous, like putting a cloth mask on a

two-year-old baby, people are afraid to speak up because everyone is a coward. And so I think that there's a lot of that. We had Tucker Max on, and he said power likes to be hidden. I was asking him, because we bring this up quite a bit, where are all the powerful people to just come out, make powerful statements, buy commercials, put up billboards, and challenge the things we know they're privately complaining about. Where are all the Hollywood celebrities that privately complain about this stuff but then don't stand up? There's a really great comic where it shows a guy burning a woman at the stake and he

says, I just want to let you know I completely agree with everything you said. That's modern mainstream society, unfortunately. So I don't know, man. I imagine sooner or later someone's going to get pissed off enough with me and they're going to try and do something. We've already been swatted nine times. I'm a little nervous about that, actually, speaking of which. Well, we have armed security and things like that. I would say one of the other things I think happens is that it's expensive to make your legal battles a priority. And I think there are other independent media companies who are probably being treated I mean this is particularly uh horrendous treatment of

our organization and of course I I hesitate to comment on it because I've been with Timcast since the newsroom began I've been here for like a year so this is a lot of my work that's being scrutinized and I am very glad that you're willing to do something about it because I think we do hold ourselves and all of our journalists to an extremely high standard. That being said, I do know there are small organizations that would love to go to court but have to make the decision. Can we afford to do this? Because it can be protracted, especially when you fight larger companies.

They can drag it out. I mean, anyone who sued Facebook for anything knows this. Yeah, I think, though, I imagine there's a community of people who are willing to stand up and be involved. James O'Keefe, Project Veritas, they've crowdfunded the finances required to file a lawsuit, and they're going up against the New York Times. And regardless, this is what people need to understand too. Winning doesn't mean having a judge bang a gavel and say for the plaintiff. Winning means getting these organizations to admit they're

liars and they publish fake garbage. So all, you know, look, all I want is, I told NewsGuard right off the bat, how could you deem us irresponsible but have a lower standard than us? And they just said, too bad, so sad, go cry about it. To some of that effect. We make our judgments based on the fact that we're looking for you to correct these articles without us coming to you for them. And I said, we've corrected substantial articles without you coming to us and telling us to

correct them. You found five articles that you had questions on, only one of which had a factual inaccuracy, which we corrected right away as per our corrections policy. It's arbitrary. There is no objective standard. And right now, NewsGuard is falsely claiming that we publish misleading information. Why? Because we quoted the president. We quoted Donald Trump in a news story and they said that that qualifies us for publishing misleading content. So when USA Today or the New York Times quotes Donald Trump, are they not publishing misleading content? The argument is Trump's quotes are misleading, right? Why is it only when we do it? Great. I want them to answer

to a judge why it is that the New York Times can publish the exact same thing as us in terms of the reporting and the quotes. And that's responsible, but for us, it's not. It's because I think there may be a motive that is more attuned to causing harm, intentional injury, and monetary damages to small businesses that might compete with the friends of these organizations and their investors. Anybody who tries to create a new media company, anybody who tries to report news that falls outside of the official cathedral narrative, for some reason, has a really rough go of it. So I'll tell you this. In the newsroom, as Hannah Clare can attest to, I've been extremely adamant about abiding by every one of NewsGuard's policies, because I wanted to see that if we went above and beyond and did everything they deemed to be correct, would they honor that?

And they did not, because they are fake. And now I want them to answer in court if they refuse. So I told them that I've already forwarded my demands to their general counsel, and you better believe we're going to file a suit. And if in the end they respond and they say it's protected opinion, fine. So be it. They get to explain why their standards are lower than ours and they get to rate us. Dude, I'm looking at some of NewsGuard's investors right now. One of them is Blue Haven Initiative, which is, according to pitchbook.com, is an impact investor. And if you don't know what those are, you should look into it. Impact investing is specifically social engineering.

It's from investopedia.com. Investors who use impact investing as a strategy consider a company's commitment to corporate social responsibility or the sense of duty to positively serve society. So they have an agenda. This is one of their, I don't know if it's a top investor, but maybe it's alphabetical. But they certainly, if they're impact investing, that is specifically with an agenda to get the company to do something. The funny thing is, two of the articles were us just quoting Trump. We were like, Donald Trump says, you know, it's like, that was it.

Like, Donald Trump came out, he issued a response. And like, in response to Joe Biden, Trump says, quote. And they said, you should have included context saying that Trump was wrong. And I said, well, that would be a fact check article. We're just reporting Trump issued a statement. Right. And he was like, well, that's irresponsible because Trump's comments are wrong. And so, you know, this is this is what I was getting to with we would have to fact check every single quote, but they didn't tell us to fact check anything Biden said when Biden was wrong. Only Trump.

Clearly, what they're actually trying to do is manipulate our editorial guidelines and standards. And so I said, like, are you telling us that in order to be responsible, we have to adhere to your editorial policy? And then they're like, no, no, no, no. We're not saying anything like that. But yes. But you only have to fact check Donald Trump. Only Donald Trump. And you better do it.

They took no issue with any other quotes. What Blue Haven Initiative wants, otherwise they'll pull their impact investment out of NewsGuard, which is to, you know, what Blue Haven Initiative wants is to generate a measurable beneficial social

or environmental impact alongside financial return. Oh, I wonder what their social impact they're trying to acquire. Yep. Let's find out. The institutions are as corrupt as corrupt can be. So people, people, again, you need to understand what their goal here is, is to go to advertising agencies and say, anybody we deem unworthy, do not sell with. They're unsafe. And it's happened to a lot of

people. So when you get, when, when NewsGuard goes after you, like, unless you're operating in the parallel economy, which is what a lot of people are trying to do, then you're going to be cut off from financial resources. And that's their goal. It is cancel culture on crack, on steroids. So this is one of the most important fronts. Now, I will say this, and I'm very proud to say this. MSNBC is officially fake news, according to NewsGuard.

So look, I think NewsGuard does some good. I just think they're biased and the machine is broken. We are actually looking at how we can do a different kind of rating on journalistic ethics. So I think there does need to be some kind of system that says, like, here are things this company has done. The problem is NewsGuard violates their own standards and publishes false information and then accuses other people of doing the same thing. That being said, when an organization is broken and biased as this calls MSNBC violating severe journalistic standards, that's still good news.

Because when the machine itself is rejecting its own garbage, you can take this from NewsGuard and you can show all your friends and family when they claim MSNBC is real. There you go. At least something, right? Yeah, good for something. This might be an interesting segue

to the Barry Weiss thing with Chuck Schumer. Oh, let's pull up the Barry Weiss thing. Yeah, let's talk all about how the corrupt media operates. Daily Mail reports, Barry Weiss reveals New York Times editors wanted to check with Chuck Schumer before running an op-ed by

Republican Tim Scott about his police reform bill after George Floyd's murder. What? It's amazing. Tim Scott had a police reform bill and the Democrats said no to it. And the New York Times wanted to check with Chuck Schumer. That's what Barry Weiss says. Former NYT opinion editor Barry Weiss told Senator Tim Scott on Wednesday about an internal discussion around his op-ed. Scott's article was the subject of an internal debate, excuse me,

Weiss said, and one of the senior editors questioned whether Republicans cared about minority rights. The New York Times denied her account, saying the New York Times opinion never seeks outside approval or consultation whether to publish guest opinion essays. I'm going to call BS in the New York Times. Having worked for many of these organizations, this is the exact kind of stuff you see. Absolute corruption. And also, Barry is actually trustworthy. Yeah, she's been doing pretty well with her sub stack. I trust her way more. I think she gets some things wrong, you know, but that's fine.

I think she's more trustworthy in her assessments than the New York Times. And she's also just telling a rendition of something she witnessed. She's credible. She's a credible witness. She has no reason to make this up. She's, you know, she's moved on from the New York Times. reason to make this up she's you know she's moved on from the new york times she's very successful she's making more money than she did well reason she could make it up is to get back at them for something but why not say it sooner

i mean i don't know i'm not very wise but i think more people should speak out about this stuff sooner rather than later. And she mentioned it was in 2020, but she's been independent for a long time. So why not say something sooner? It's quite the hat trick. Going to have to have her on the show and ask her about it. It's topical. And I'm not saying that she's lying. I'm just saying that, you know.

I wonder, too, if there's. Sorry. Oh, no. Go for it. There's a lot of stuff she could probably say. You can't, you know, if you publish your memoir the day you leave or, you know, in 2020, stuff is going to get missed. Like in some ways, I didn't read this article, so I can't say what the context, like where she brought it up. But I.

You had a conversation with Tim Scott. Right. And I feel like there is a lot of stuff she could tell us about what happened there. If she doled it all at once, I think it would get kind of lost. The impact would get lost. Yeah. I mean, from from the reporting, she was having a conversation with Tim Scott and she said, I don't know if you know this, but this is what happened.

And so I think it was sort of a natural thing. I mean, it makes me wonder what other stories she has under her hat. And I think that there was a lot of, I mean, she was, I think she should have sued the New York Times personally because it was, you know, workplace bullying and intimidation and everything. And I think that there was some stuff that happened that in the moment she felt like she was crazy because every everyone was like well yes of course we talked to chuck schumer about it we just wanted to clear it and she's kind of like but why do we clear things with chuck schumer what and i think it's you know you're as you exit the cult she's kind of like that was really messed up wasn't it and she's kind of having that realization and and sort of unpacking her own experience because i think she was so abused in the moment you ever see uh bulworth

that movie no you ever see it no kevin codd no no that's uh what's his name warren baity i think it's the one where uh the politician the senator is like super depressed and wants to kill himself so then he just starts telling the truth and like he doesn't care anymore but then he like decides he wants to live or whatever he like goes up on stage at a black church and they're like why didn't you deliver this bill and he's like because we got your vote we don't care the moment you went and voted for us we stopped caring about what you thought and then they're like what and then people ended up really liking it i think that with you know people like barry weiss she's probably sitting on a whole bunch of other stuff. And I'd say, like, come on.

Like, of course she is. That she's not going to talk about because she's probably scared about what will happen if she challenges the machine. And, I mean, if you were in a cult, you participated in the cult, right? So there's probably stuff that she's, I can imagine, not proud of or not ready to talk about her involvement in, right? And I don't necessarily hold that against her it's a complicated thing to come out of something or to disassociate or something from an ideology you've been wrapped up in for a long time but some of her stories you know she's in the rooms for a reason she's involved with the organization so i would just i mean she was a

junior staffer i mean i think i think that um i i think it's think it's hard to be in that moment. I mean, she was in that newsroom and everyone around her was just, I mean, they wanted to throttle her. And I can't imagine what that feels like to go day after day somewhere where everyone hates you. And one misstep, like you didn't wash your hands after you left the bathroom, can become like a viral Twitter thread of your colleague who's sitting like our distance apart from each other. But I don't know if she's scared of them anymore. I think that she's burned that bridge and she's not looking back. Didn't someone who works with her write that terrible article about Jordan Peterson and enforced monogamy. So you wondered like to what degree they were participating and decided like,

I don't want to do this. I don't necessarily trust a lot of people, especially if it takes them two years to come out and be like, oh, by the way, this like crazy, this really crazy thing happened. It's like that's the kind of thing where I'd be like, I want to quit. And in fact, when I worked for Fusion and they started doing this stuff, I tried quitting, but I was under contract. So instead I just stopped participating in their BS system and then immediately started telling everybody about it, just like screaming it. And they really don't like it. The fact that they would stealth edit articles and told me not to report on the New York

Times doing stealth editing because they would get exposed for doing it as well. And I was like, I'm going to tell everybody. Are you nuts? You mean you're violating journalistic standards? You think I'm going to keep that a secret? Bro, I'm a journalist. Like my goal is to inform people, not be like a tribalist for some corporation. You think I care about Fusion's bottom line?

Like I'm here to tell people what's going on in the world. So when the president of that company said, we're here to side with the audience in reference to how we handle bias and perspective, basically said, you know, millennial, or he said, young people are progressive. So that's who we're going to side with. We're going to side with them. And when I said, if that, does that mean that, does that mean if there's a fact-based news story that would offend our audience, we don't report it? And he says, yeah, I think that's fair. And I immediately told everybody and then he denied it. And I'm like, whatever, man, of course they're going to deny it. Like these people aren't journalists. They're businessmen who are like, how do we make money? Say what the people want to hear. There are a lot of people

working for these organizations who know it. James O'Keefe, the man is doing the Lord's work when he exposed CNN. And you can see these people saying, like, we used to do the news. Now we don't. Those people aren't speaking out. Those people aren't coming out and explaining to everybody they're lying to their faces. But behind the scenes, they're saying in private, it takes a special kind of person to know you are engaged in operating an evil machine that destroys this country. But be like, I need the paycheck. I don't know if that's it.

I mean, I think for, like, speaking up for Barry, like, I'm not going to speak up for the rest of them, but I mean, she and I had this experience as someone who wrote for Barry for the New York Times. She fought really hard to get sanity on the pages and to get different perspectives published in the Times that wouldn't have otherwise been there. And I think that she swallowed a lot of stuff for a long time that made her deeply uncomfortable because she felt like it was for the greater good. And I think she got to a point where she realized that is a calculus that no longer, it's not equaling out

anymore. I'm not doing more good inside the machine than outside the machine i think that that's when she left but she fought very hard for a while to to operate under you know behind enemy lines and i think it just got to the point where she realized like it just wasn't tangible anymore and she wasn't having enough of an impact to justify not just you know being part of the machine, but also just the mental health strain that she was under and the assault that she was under by all of her colleagues. But I respect her for saying as long as she did.

But I mean, there's people at CNN that James O'Keefe exposed. They're like talking to this hidden camera saying, look at all the really awful things this company does. And they're still there. And they know. That's the craziest thing to me. These people are caught on camera talking about how they know they're involved in malfeasance. But I think they think it's for the greater good, too.

No, no, no, no, no. They're telling hidden camera, like, CNN is destroying everything. Right, I know. And we are helping them. And then they're like, but we're going to stay. But I think they think, ultimately ultimately it is for the greater good because they are setting a narrative that they think is important to be changed. Now, I'm saying undercover camera exposes. They're admitting they're doing wrong.

Are you saying it's sort of like they're accelerationists? They're like, look, we got to burn it down and we are willing to burn it down in this way. No, like there's one famous guy who's sitting in a chair, or one of the famous exposés. There's a guy who's like, we used to go out and report the news, man. Now all we do is just complain about Trump and just try and drive this stuff. I think they think that's a good thing. But he's complaining about it, and he says he hates being there. I think it's a good thing. But he's complaining about it. And he says he hates being there. I don't understand. But ultimately, I think that given the choice between straight news reporting and trashing Trump, they don't.

But this is a guy who's saying he wished they did real news reporting. I think he says he I think he wants to say that. And I think he but obviously he doesn't actually believe it or he would have left. Right. Well, that's Einstein said that's the definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result. And these people that are staying there expecting it, if they really are, they believe it's going to get better by staying there. They're insane, according to Einstein. It's a very general term, but it could be a form of insanity.

I don't think that's a pass to do it. There could be an explanation of why. I agree with you in that regard that a lot of people say they want things but they really don't like they they either don't want it or they actually just don't care enough to pursue going after something so maybe for a lot of these people they just think you know this cnn's culture behind the scenes is to rag on the company for being garbage but no one really cares mean, but also where do they go? Like in their industry, I mean, it's kind of like, you know, great sort of all the complaints that you hear about parents of kids in private schools and they complain and they complain and

complain. I'm thinking of the sort of the folks that are talking about like the wokeness and in all these private schools and they stay because it's the pinnacle of achievement and i think that these people at cnn this is the pinnacle of professional achievement in their industry and so where do they go what do they do there's no next step and so they're just sort of stuck in a holding pattern because they care more about their job sort of that's my point though they care more about their job. That's my point, though. They care more about their personal lives than they do about the system they're participating in. Yeah. I mean, not just, but I don't think it's just the paycheck. I think it's also their pride.

I think it's a lot of their sort of self-identity and they would rather do that than, you know. It's probably why they demoted Taylor Lorenz. The behind the scenes scuttlebutt was that long-time staffers were losing their minds complaining that she was like besmirching the organization and she really was oh absolutely pr for that company yeah and they thought the controversy was going to generate traffic or so this is what i heard this from someone who you know had like behind the scenes access or something like that this is at washington post yeah okay that the the long-standing employees of the washington post like the older people were

like you are destroying the legacy of this company and that apparently there are people there who thought that taylor lorenz was going to generate traffic through like controversy or stuff like that i don't want to say that that's confirmed it's just rumor mill stuff i've heard the same rumors right so they're they. So they're journalists. And so I wonder if The Washington Post was like, these people are going to quit on us and then we have nothing.

So we got to do something. And so they demoted Taylor Lorenz. I mean, I think it, I don't think that's why they demoted. I think that they just decided that she was a liability. I think she became a liability. She was a liability.

People were like, there was a risk to the company. But I don't think it was that it was a risk to the company. I just think that they realized that she's... That's what a liability is. No, no, no. I think that they realized that she has no loyalty and that any controversy that she conjures, it's often going to be at their expense because she doesn't care about the brand. She just cares about herself. And so I don't think that they were worried that people were going to quit. I think they were worried that she was a beast that was about to turn on them. Someone told me that when we put up the billboard in Times Square saying she docs the libs of TikTok,

that she immediately went and demanded they file a suit or something and file a legal thing to get taken down. And they were like, it's an opinion statement. You can't do anything about it. And she like lost it. And then she went on Twitter and said it was so stupid and laughable. And then I responded with like, I responded to her and I was like, I'm glad you, like, I'm glad you think it's funny. Great.

You got to say your thing. I got to say my thing. And then she lost it. She blocked me and started screaming like it's violence or whatever. And I'm like, okay, dude, whatever, man. Someone pointed out to me that TimCast.com has a higher credibility rating than CNN.com. Yeah, that's amazing.

That's true. That is in fact true. Look at that. That's kind of funny. CNN's garbage, so. Imagine what we'd have if other stuff wasn't going on. I get the vibe that media companies are like PR companies, like that news organizations have tended towards public relations,

like that the news they produce is a form of PR. The news, the medium is the message. And so they're just trying to keep the way they look about presenting the news palatable for the masses, as opposed to just directly reporting the information.

And so that's why they have spin doctors and things like that. It's a little concerning. Well, our standards at Timcast.com are extremely rigorous, and we have conversations over how we frame things even. We don't just fact check, we frame check. So we've had a conversation about, do we say pro-life or pro-choice? We say neither, only in the context of when it is truly explaining the circumstance. But if someone comes out and says, we demand access to abortion, that is pro-abortion. We don't need to say anything else. It's not about choices.

It's just about whether you're for. Nobody goes to a rally and says, we think people should be able to choose their own meals, choose their own birthdays. I'm like, OK, choice is a political term. Life is a political term. Are you against abortion or for abortion? Of course, the pro-life people agree. And they're like, that's fine. a political term. Are you against abortion or for abortion? Of course, the pro-life people agree, and they're like, that's fine.

I get it. We're against abortion. The pro-choice people lose their minds. We are not pro-abortion. Stop saying that. And I'm like, dude, we are not going to editorialize this. Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel,

share the show with your friends, and head over to timcast.com because we got some stories for you coming up on the After Hours show, man. I'll just tell you, like Boston Children's Hospital, hysterectomies on children. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, we'll talk about that because this is – The way she delivered it too. I'm looking forward to that. It's crazy. She's like laughing and smiling.

It's Joker-level stuff, man. Anyway, let's read some super chats from all of y'all. Oh, here's one.ames eaton says static i really like static shock he's a great superhero you ever watch that show or read that comic no static shock they should do a warner brothers movie for static that'd be that'd be legit i'd totally watch it anyway i had no idea what he was trying to say was he talking to like talking about the the audio maybe maybe i like it better that he's just trying to get your opinion on a superhero comic really quick. All right. Cantankero says, Tim, you keep mentioning picnicking at the Battle of Fort Sumter,

and you are confusing it with the first Battle of Bull Run, July 21st, 1861, which was the first land battle of the Civil War. Perhaps you are correct. I was reading an article online when they mentioned the picnicking picnicking and they may have um i may have misinterpreted what they were saying it was i was reading a historical article and it was like we know battle of fort sumter which started out the civil war or whatever people were so in disbelief they were picnicking on the hillside and i may have assumed it was the same same thing but uh you want to yeah the first thing i typed picnic battle of and the thing that first thing that came up was was the same thing. But you want to... Yeah, the first thing I typed, picnic battle of,

and the first thing that came up was, was the first battle of Bull Run really the picnic battle? Ah, okay, well, there you go. Thank you, Contemporos, for the correction. I will make sure to apply it to all of my analogies moving forward. All right. Let's see. David C. says, from last night, does Ian understand that our politicians are like this because they aren't investigated?

All of them should fear investigation and prosecution. Geez. I mean, there's so many reasons why people in control of the military and the power are doing what they're doing. I think maybe part of it is that they feel like as long as they're in that position that they won't be investigated for doing what we've basically asked them to do behind our backs, which is control the military. I mean,

the amount of bombings and stuff that's going on in the world right now with our eyes blind to it is, is it's an, it's, it's nuts. It's nuts. You know, um,

I, we could talk more about that too. I was talking about forgiveness. I feel like a lot of this is like the air like you were saying about Barry Weiss that maybe she feels guilty about what she had done while she was part of the cult. And like maybe she said the N word and it's going to come out in 2017 at a meeting. And like just let it go, man. Let all this past crap go so we can focus on right now and the future. All right.

Jay says, well, I can't help being nervous. I'm still hopeful. I had to remind myself to breathe, slow down and reset your thoughts. We will defeat the authoritarians. Right, Ian? That is one way to look at it. Yes, you slow down to speed up. It's like getting traction with a wheel on a road.

If it spins too fast, it's not going to go anywhere. All right. A bunch of super chats saying that Ian and my mics aren't working. They were working, so the issue was that we turned up Bethany because she was really quiet at first, and then she was picking up Echo from the room, so I muted

the purple mic and turned yours down. Well, there you go. Yeah, solved it. Beavis McLean says, check out Executive Order 13292, Section 13. Classification authority clearly states authority to classify information

may be exercised by the president in performance of executive duties. This includes declassification as well. Love you, Ian Crosland. Oh, love you too.

What was that Executive Order number? Do you have that again? 13292, Section 1.3. Brandy Green says, Ian, thank you for the tip on differentiating the good Weinstein brothers.

Is it Weinstein? Weinsteins, like Einstein. Those are the good guys. Weinstein brothers by rhyming with Einstein. Oh, it's right there. I should have read it. Rhyming with Einstein.

P.S. I'm a S-A-H-M. What is that? Stay-at-home mom. Stay-at-home mom. And watch Tim Kess and Pop Culture Crisis with my 22-month-old daily. Here's to a based homeschool education.

That's awesome. Love it. Here, here. We are their babies after school pop culture show. That's amazing. They're going to learn all about Johnny Depp. Oh, gosh. No, no, no.

We can go past that. Not that, yeah. I had the honor of meeting a local politician in West Virginia recently, and we're in discussions about I'm going to be helping fund a micro school, which believes in the traditional American values. And they do have a Bible study, but I'm told it's optional for parents who just want to get away from the woke stuff. But I dig it. Micro school. So it's going to be really small classrooms. It's basically like the next level up after homeschooling, like private tutors, but in a bigger setting.

So I am absolutely trying to make sure we are putting our money where our mouths are. Through micro schooling. That's it. It was legit. Like when I heard what they were talking about, the way they want to handle stuff, it's brilliant. Instead of having like grades, you have grade subjects. So like your third grade math and seventh grade reading. And then they just work with you where you –

That's what we do. I homeschool my kids and that's exactly – it's so great. It was one of the worst things about the Hope Scholarship issues that West Virginia is having is that it took away a lot of choice that parents had to opt into other education um the hope scholarship is like a program in west virginia that would give money if you decide to pull your kid out of uh public school and choose an alternative route so you could put it towards all kinds of things and uh it got rejected by a judge in the state and that is a real blow to uh school choice in my opinion west virginia e rodriguez says i'm catching up on one and a half playback speed, and Tim is bordering on a rap god levels of words per minute. Godspeed, butcher warriors.

That's it. I mentioned it before when I'm doing segments on my other channels. I'll be like, I'll have so much going on with work that I'm like, I've got to get this done fast. But the segments are timed, not word count. So I'll start talking really fast and end up turning a 20 minute segment into a double timed 40 minute segment because i will say dude i put on one of our shows about last week at two two times speed and was listening to you and i could it was so fast but i could understand every word you were saying because of your enunciation yeah you have incredible

enunciation i don't think you get enough credit for that i don't do i it was fun it's extremely clear the way you speak about the headlines. Yes, you're right. That was a good impersonation. Deli says, has the FBI done anything good recently?

It's tough to tell because they do a lot of stuff in secret. They did deal with the mob pretty handedly. I don't know what they're doing with the cartels. I feel like we could say they did this thing right. And then I'd be like, Ruby Ridge. And you'd be like, but they did this thing right. I'd be like, there we go.

And then we go do this for a little while. Do you remember Ed and Elaine Brown? I think Luke knew these people. They were, it was 2007, I think. They weren't paying their income tax. And so they had like a 100-acre property in New Hampshire and said, nope. And then the feds had to come in, but they were really scared that they were going to get another Waco or Ruby Ridge with like these people. And then they realized, they said that these tax abolitionist people

were letting supporters in. So they just put on plain clothes, came up and knocked on the door and said they were supporters, got let in, and then arrested them. And that was like the end of it. Yeah. I looked at the IRS job hiring thing for these new 80,000 people.

Did you see some of the requirements? They're like, just so you know, you got to be ready to work 50 hours a week, use weapons against people if it comes up. We should pull that up.

Did you see that? That was specifically the criminal investigation division of the IRS, which has been around since 1919. So like if you didn't pay some tax, really it looks like a tax model that they're trying to put together. So this is crazy because I'm seeing so many people mischaracterize what's going on. Like I don't like the IRS, dude.

Like come on. Who does? And I don't think there should be 87,000 new IRS agents. But I'm seeing people be like Democrats want to hire 87,000 new IRS agents who are authorized to use deadly force. They're building an army. And I'm like, no, they are hiring criminal investigation division because the IRS has a law enforcement section. But they're not hiring 87,000 dudes with guns. Right.

They like there's images of the IRS police. They have badges. It says police. They wear armor. It says police. So it's been normalized just so everyone knows well yeah for a hundred years and what they what they claim to particularly go after is like if there's uh like al capone style stuff yeah mobsters who are doing money laundering

schemes and things like that the irs sends in the criminal enforcement division to go after them i think people just didn't know that existed. And so now they're freaking out. Totally. Rightly so. All right. What is this? Waffle Sensei says, Tim,

are you going to repeat your deleted tweet from today on the after show? Repeated deleted tweet. Did you delete a tweet? Repeat, delete, repeat. Which one? Oh,

the one that I had to, I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to. The one that they made me get rid of? Today? No, when they locked my account. Do you ever tweet stuff out and then remove it? Only if it's a typo.

Yeah. I do that too. Oh, actually, yeah. There's probably been a couple instances where I make a mistake or something. I was going to post one last night. I just left it on the screen unpublished, and then I went to the sauna. I don't know. It was two nights ago.

I'm like, if I still want to put it up out of the sauna, then I'll put it up because I couldn't decide. Some things don't work in text. You got to say them. I feel like I don't have the personality for Twitter. I don't know what you need to be good at it. And I appreciate people who are good, but I just feel like I'm not cut out for that world.

I'm just... You have to be really, really just brutal and very pithy. And I feel like I am good at those things. Jeb Reed says, fact, the U.S. has already fallen. Republic is no longer. The cornerstones of this country are shattered. The next phase is mass attacks on, say, regular people. Assinuating the government will be doing it.

There was an article today that referred to the Gadsden flag as far right extremism. I saw when your own country's history is labeled by the corporate press, by the institutions as extremism. It kind of feels like your country is being worn like a skin suit. You know, well, there was that Neworker cover of the republican house and the democratic house and the republican house had an american flag yeah i remember that yeah it was a it was a really um that surprisingly insightful and striking cover actually it was and that cover did not get enough attention no it didn't because the left wing house was warm and open well manicured green lawn pride flag black lives

matter no american flag yeah it really told on it it told on itself i mean we we get so at heroes of liberty we publish books about you know alexander hamilton ronald reagan and we tried to run ads on twitter about our books in the wake of roe v wade and we were sort of advertising like faith and freedom whatever we never said anything about dobbs nothing and twitter throttled us and that i mean like facebook throttled us also right in the very beginning like this idea that patriotism is somehow political is I mean, we've been told that directly by these social media companies. Yeah, it's a global technocracy. Jeff, Jeff was who made that last comment, right? I want to make sure.

I don't know. Don't be too black pilled, man. You know, you got neighbors. Ryan Hunter says, I think my biggest fear about the future we're staring down is the idea that a U.S. civil conflict gets to a point where foreign entities like China and or Russia can recognize our breakaways. Yeah, last night I was like, we do not want to fight each other. If people start fighting each other, not only if you advocate for that, you've lost the plot. You do not want that. That outside governments will fund people to fight. You don't want that

crap that's that's how it was in the revolution that's how it was in the civil war i think that's what's happening now i mean i think tiktok is that yeah i think that tiktok is fomenting and throwing accelerant on the fires that we already have going but what will end up happening in a civil war is china's going to go to west coast states and say, what do you need to win? Yes. Yes. That's what we got to avoid is that kind of thing. Could you imagine like the year is 2137?

Oh, that's too far in advance. The United States of the Chinese Communist Party are like going over history. And they were like, when the revolution started, it was thanks to Chinese intervention. And they make movies called like, there's like a new movie called The Patriot. And like a Chinese general lands in California and is like, I will help you win. In San Francisco. Yeah, in San Francisco.

We used to not have Trans-Pacific Magnetic Trains before we were one country. Trans-Pacific Magnetic. United States of China, yeah. All right, all right. Let's get some more super chats. Akapot says, reappropriate a portion of the fbi's budget to be grants to the state's bureaus of investigation instead then we'll see if they can still afford to fund partisanship in their budget i think the fbi is important i do interstate crime is an issue and dealing with it is something we

need to do the problem is i don't feel like anyone has confidence in the institution at this point so something's got to change otherwise people are just going to get angrier and angrier and then you'll get crazy stuff like what we saw today

which we definitely do not want. We could have an FBI agent on the show someday. I think probably. Well, didn't we have like former? Yeah, we've had some people who are formerly working

in that field. Yeah, it's interesting. There's a lot in this area. Mike Rollman says, make Dan Bongino head of the FBI. Okay, can we? That would be fun. Dan, technically. Let's do it.

Is it possible? He has experience in that field. Jim Comey can do it. Who? Yeah. Sky's the limit. Let's go. John Kirsten says, there's no need for the FBI when they serve practically the same function as the U.S. Marshals.

That's interesting. Yeah. I hear that. But do the Marshals do the investigatory work and things like that? Yeah, that's my question. Yeah. They do? I don't think they do.

Yeah. I think they just do arrests. Yeah. I like watching those old Westerns where the Marshal would go out to collect a bounty or something like that. Those are fun. Just watching a little Young Guns last night. There you go matthew jamieson says the cia was doing mk ultra by fines paid to citizens of canada klaus schwab assistant says humans are hackable would the gov would the gov to do this

yes okay yes i don't know waffle sensei says hey bro can i an update on the album? I need some sick beats to kick at work. You know, I don't think we're doing an album. I think we're doing an album, but we're just releasing the singles. Because we talked about it, and, like, it's not really the way they... No one really does it anymore where they just put out an album.

And so we've got a song planned for release in 10 days. 10 days, bro. That's crazy. I'm so excited. I heard you playing a couple songs earlier. I was singing along with them. Dude, I'm really stoked on... People are going to be confused by whatever this band is.

No one's going to be able to define it. Yeah, it was like... There's this one song that I really like, A Million to One. It's like Don't Stop Believin' by Journey, but it's kind of like the Foo Fighters. I think it's way too simple to be described like that. Yeah, it's got that uplifting, kind of vague, inspirational feel. Like, don't stop believing, that's what I got. Poppy.

It's real pop. We've got one song that's like discordant electro with guitar and electric drums that has weird voice modulation. It's a really trippy song. And then the first song we're putting out is very just like pop with rock like rock in the end i don't know it's all over the place because i don't like bands where it's like they write one song and then copy it seven times and release an album yeah well i like it when you're like that's the same band that's what i'm looking for oh yeah people are going to be like they're the first they're going to say there's no way that's tim singing then they're going to say is this this is way that's Tim singing. Then they're going to say, is this still Tim?

Because it's like it's all very different. Is that Tim? And it'll be me. That's the funny thing. Like we have a song out already called Will of the People. And like half the comments are like, is this really Tim singing? It's like we used to play it. You can Google it.

You can just like watch me sing on the show. Yeah, Friday nights. Not that I was singing very well back then because it's like you can't record 16 hours a day, you know, work 16 hours a day and then try and sing at the end of it. But Eric Miller says, I watched your bit about Monsters, Inc. Is it just me or is it a mockery of mainstream media, i.e. scared children as frightened viewers? That's actually a fair point. We were talking. Mary said that isn't Monsters't monsters inc like adrenochrome

like scaring the kids and then using that to fuel their machines or whatever actually it's a really good point about the media freaking out and screaming in people's faces to get them all scared so they can power their machines there you go man what a creepy world that we live in but adrenochrome for the record is uh oxidized adrenaline, if anyone's wondering. Yeah. And people believe really weird things about it for some reason. Matt Burkhart says, please keep Hannah Clare as a full-time member of the show. She is definitely my favorite. She rocks. After Tim, of course.

Well, you know. Hey, they didn't say that, did they? Yes, it does. It does say that. You heard it from them first. You're great on this show. I love your information. Oh, gosh.

Thanks for having me on. It was always weird because I would watch the show downstairs and be like, I don't even think I could talk this much. I couldn't talk for this long. No, she was down there like, I could talk better than all of them. Well, I practice my enunciations. Unique New York. I'm so grateful to be here.

It's been fun. How now, brown cow? Cubicle Investor says, Ian, last night you said government level crimes should be pardoned what message does that send minorities doing time for far less egregious crimes i'm open to oh that would just further solidify class issues yeah i'm open to a mass pardon and i don't know i don't think it should have to stop at any one spot i think just what's that you would you would pardon everybody well i don't know if everybody's the right word but i'm talking like 150 years of

nonsense we've been at it we've been at each other's throats for anarchy yes everyone's but What's that? You would pardon everybody? Well, I don't know if everybody's the right word, but I'm talking like 150 years of nonsense. We've been at each other's throats for a while. Anarchy. Yes. Everyone's pardoned. But I don't advocate for turning the other way for ongoing crime or for future crime. I'm not talking about that. And what about violent crime?

Yeah. Violent crime is kind of off the table. I'm not really into pardoning violence. Okay. I just feel like that's a good... When you give that spiel, you should include that. You're going to be like, let everyone out. Let's let the murderers go.

But when someone orders a drone strike, is that a nonviolent crime? So here's another question. What about a dealer who knowingly was distributing fentanyl-laced drugs? And getting kids hooked on them that died? Yeah, exactly. Is that violence? Would you pardon them? Because drug,

I mean, I... Well, let's think about it. I can't do this alone. It's got a long conversation we should have. All right. Powder PZ says, my dog killed

one of my chickens today. Rest in peace, Drumstick. You will be missed, little chicky-choo. If you watch Chicken City, we're talking about who we're going to eat first. Oh, no.

I think we should start naming them things like that. Like, you're chicken tenders. Yeah, people do that. Drumstick and tenderloin. Why don't you put it to a vote? I feel like it would be Hunger Games, but chicken style. We're not going to eat any that have names. But 70% have no names.

What if you just take mug shots of them and then just put it up for a vote? I think we should actually criminally charge them. No names. What if you just like take mug shots of them and then just put it up for a vote? I think we should actually criminally charge them. So Roberto, for instance, he was sent to we call it Cocktown. There's 18 roosters there. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Now, what most people out here do is they say you let nature have them like you just let them do their thing, go off and then maybe a fox will eat them or something.

Right. But some of the people here did not find that appealing and i'm like well if we don't let them go we're gonna eat them but you know roosters are tough they're like rubbery you gotta you gotta slow cook them and get it going if you want to you know get it right but um roberto he abused one of the uh did one of the hens he's's terrible. Dorothy. Terrible. Dorothy. And so initially we had to lock Dorothy away because she was getting hurt. And then people complained and said, why are you punishing the victim? And I said, good point. Roberto has been sentenced for his crimes and he has been sent to a penal colony.

Banished. You banished him. Yes. Banished. So it's funny because we have three really big Black Star roosters, which are bullies. And so we have a coop, and then in it are all the smaller roosters, and then Roberto's in charge because he was the biggest and oldest. But the three Black Star boys were just – they would gang up and spin around them. So we have them with an electrified fence outside the coop, and it looks like they're prison guards.

It's actually kind of funny. That's really funny. And they jump on top of it and they they crap all over the place one of them apparently jumped out and tried getting away but we were like you just let him go go ahead we're not gonna look you want to go to nature i mean how could you stop them right but we can have mock trials for the ones we're gonna eat oh my gosh maybe we can walk in and be like come come here, everybody, come here. And the one that doesn't come is the one that gets eaten. So we get to keep the personable ones. That's harsh.

Oh, JMK says, Joe Rogan said on his podcast today that he thought Tim Pool was crazy for thinking a civil war was coming and now he believes Tim may be right. I listened to that. Did he really? Don't know.

Because I, yeah, I should, someone, can someone tweet that to you? Would you be able to see it? Sure, yeah. Tag me really? I don't know. Cause I, cause I, yeah, I should, someone, uh, can someone tweet that to you? Would you, would you be able to see it? Sure. Yeah.

Tag me in it or something. Yeah. Tag Ian at Ian Crossland, right on Twitter. Tag Ian. If you saw that clip, cause, um,

I gotta tell you, it was 2019. I think when I went on Rogan with, with Twitter and I said at the end of it, that if Twitter kept doing what they were going, what they were doing with censorship, it was going to lead to like civil chaos or conflict or something. And I like that's why i'm building a van i could build in a van with all this equipment in it and like solar power because yo i'm i'm looking at what's going on

and you know honestly i knew people would think that was crazy that i would say something like that i'm gonna build a van and go live down by the river they're gonna be like this dude's office rocker and i wasn't i look i just say i don't know exactly what's going to happen, but you look at where we are now. And if you don't think we are in the midst of historical tumult, then you are a frog boiling in a pot. Can you, when did you say that? 2019?

In 2018, I said a simple what was coming. On 2019, I was on Rogan when I said, if Twitter keeps doing this. It doesn't seem so crazy after 2020 when there was armed guards outside costco and i had to buy freaking diapers like and then we had a formula shortage the next year i think that our trust in the stability of our civilization is sufficiently rocked by everything we saw in 2020 that i don't think people would think you were crazy saying that now i think the writing's been on the walls for some people who pay a lot of attention to news and cultural shifts for a long time but people don't want to hear it because they can't conceptualize what a civil war

would look like that's like even now with everything that's going on with you know a recent attack on an fbi building there's this question of like is it is starting is this it is is this is this what we've been talking about? Yeah. I said before the show, oh, what were you going to say? Oh, I was just going to joke that my contractor thinks I'm crazy because I have a nice stockpile of food and diapers. Good. Before the show, I was like, no, Tim, I don't think it's civil war. And he was like, civil. And I was like, you know what? This is semantic. It doesn't matter what we call it. We're all aware of what's this chaos, whether or not – I think it's global.

I think for sure. That's undisputable at this point that there's global corporate. But it really doesn't matter how you term the thing. The chaos is real. The chaos is apparent, I believe. Man. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Roberto Jr. is the second best junior. So we got Roberto Jr. on this billboard in Times Square advertising

Chicken City and my favorite comment was Roberto Junior is sitting atop a throne he did not create because Roberto was the boss for a while. But the thing is, Roberto's mean. Roberto's a pretty mean guy and Roberto Junior's really nice.

When you walk in, Roberto would come at you but Roberto Junior would just look at you and he does thing and then he flaps his wings and walks around. But it's probably because we raised Roberto Jr. from when he hatched. Right. And then Roberto we bought. Roberto's like a great warrior with low intelligence as a leader. Like you don't really want that guy as your leader. But he was the first one.

It was like Alexander the Great's father. What was his name? The first Macedonian? Something of Macedon. I love how he looks around. We're like, yeah. Someone knows. You'll get this from one of us.

Philip of Macedon. I mean, he was also extremely intelligent and charismatic, but not like Alex. I think part of it is like Roberto had a different set of circumstances. He had to kind of make his way through life. It was a much harder time. And now he has given his son this kingdom to rule. And it's, you know, it requires a different set of skills. He's doing a good job, actually.

Roberto Jr. is a good dude. Yeah, he makes good music. Matt Giese says, you guys remember when Alec Baldwin shot someone? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Yo, if someone's going to play James Comey in a movie, it's Alec Baldwin. Because last time I watched a video. No, but why do we let him play people in movies at all, you know? Oh, that's true. I feel like you shoot someone on set yeah i don't know that we like

bring you back on right maybe yeah that's a good point he's 10 years off i mean the insurance premiums alone i feel like oh my gosh mike the dad crosby says oh on twitter it appears trump stole the nuclear codes i hope they can change them. And since it's too easy to guess, 4321. Is that what you're saying on Twitter? I think he stole some aliens information. I think, I mean, they're out there.

I think he stole the information. Wow. You think he's talking, he's told information about talking plasma? Where they triangulate lasers and hit a point in the sky or it shows up on radar

and they think it's a craft, but they just move around a dot. I feel like I just set off the Ian Bat signal. Let's talk about aliens. You showed me a true color. I said the other night Zeta Reticuli wasn't real. I kind of misinterpreted what I was thinking. Aliens didn't really come from Zeta Reticuli.

That's just what they told God was on. Literally 959. Oh, okay. It is real. You did this. All right. Sparky says, Tim, don't you realize the feds are swatting you why would i realize that why would the feds be swatting me you know i just i don't understand this kind of like conspiracy logic i guess what would be gained by swatting me when it has zero impact on us we had a credible threat which uh did cause

an evacuation but that was the night after i was here last yeah 40 000 people watched and then jeremy hambley gave us a bunch of money and so i was like it kind of sucks but you make the best of it we learned that churkas was a viable option for the business and also i need to stress that um the properties that are being targeted are known specifically to a group of people that we're aware of. And so evidence does not indicate there is the feds coming after us, to put it simply. I can't give out too much information, but let me just say there's something called coloring the water, where you have three cups on a table and there's a pool of water under all of them. How do you figure out which cup is leaking? You put red in one, green in one, and blue in the other.

And whatever color the water on the table turns, you know where the leak is in the cup. To put it simply, the people who are coming to the swattings have made a series of errors in thinking that traps were not set. So we'll see what happens. But at this point, considering what I know of the investigation, I can say that much because the deeds have already been done and that we've already ensnared enough information, we think. So we'll see how it goes.

We'll see what happens. Let's grab a couple more. What do we got here? We'll grab one more. Tyler W. says, to the gulag with you, Roberto, I banish you. You know, I'm worried about old Roberto. You know, I don't want any harm to befall him. He's one of the original cast members of Chicken City.

But we just can't have a dad banging his daughters. Yeah, that was the problem. He went too far. Well, that's what they do. Chickens, you know. So now we have, it's funny, we have his son Isaac, who is a Brahma Red Island Red mix. And he's massive. He's huge. He's going to be so big. Brahma-Red Island Red mix, and he's massive. He's huge.

He's going to be so big. Brahmas are so big. And so he's already, you know, he jumped on a hen today, and the other hens ran up and started pecking him to stop him. They were like, get out of here. Oh. Yeah. Good. Second wave feminism.

Second wave feminism. I mean, the chickens. Yeah. It's a great experiment. All right, everybody. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button? yeah good second wave feminism second wave feminism chickens yeah all right everybody if you haven't already would you kindly smash that like button subscribe to this channel share the show with your friends and become a member at timcast.com we're gonna have that uncensored episode coming up in about an hour or so you can follow the show at timcast irl you can follow me at timcast bethany do you want to shout anything out yeah bet, Bethany Shondark on Twitter and Instagram and heroesofliberty.com for your children's book needs

and deseret.com for my other thoughts. We should get some of those books for the school I was talking about. I was actually going to try to plug that, but I thought that would... Yeah, I would love that. No, yeah. Right on. Cool. I'm Hannah Clare.

I'm a writer for timcast.com. It's a very cool news site. I recommend you check it daily. You can follow me on Instagram at hannahclare.com. It's a very cool news site. I recommend you check it daily. You can follow me on Instagram at hannahclaire.b. I was on today's episode of Pop Culture Crisis. So if you go to YouTube,

you can check that out. And you might see me a lot there next week. Hi, guys. Ian Crossland. You know, it's easy to get things wrong when you talk a lot as your job in public.

So if I ever say anything that's factually inaccurate, please tweet it at me and hit my app, Ian Crossland, on Twitter or on Mines so that I can attempt to correct the error on air live like what I did about Zeta Reticuli earlier. Happy to be here. Always happy for the opportunity. Bethany, great to see you again. Bye, everyone.

Thank you guys for tuning in tonight with Bethany. We always have a great time. I'm loving the presence of more ladies. I feel like this is definitely a trend I can get behind. You guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at SarpatchLids as well as SarpatchLids.me. We will see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out.

Bye, guys.