Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #747 Donald Trump INDICTED, NYPD Orders FULL Mobilization Fearing Unrest w/Destiny

Episode Date: March 31, 2023

Tim, Ian, & Serge join Destiny to discuss Donald Trump being officially indicted & Donald Trump's response to the indictment, Ron DeSantis announcing Florida will not assist in extradition of Trump, NYPD announcing the mobilization of all officers, and a debate between Tim & Destiny over the explicit books found in public schools. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win.

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. A Manhattan grand jury has voted to indict Donald Trump. We don't have the full details yet, but there it is, ladies and gentlemen. All of these conservative but anti-Trump people who kept saying Trump was grifting and lying. He was never going to be indicted. Oh, they have egg on their face because Donald Trump's been indicted. And you had many on

the left liberals who were saying he was going to be indicted. They were excited for it. And your Trump supporters saying this is an egregious violation of social or political norms. But here we go. The NYPD has ordered a full mobilization. All officers are ordered to wear their uniforms and get ready for potential unrest. And there's a lot to break down in that story alone. So, purchase the song Bright Eyes for whatever you want. This is the last day. So if everybody buys the song, hopefully we can smash onto Billboard for the fourth time, getting four of four songs on Billboard. So again, Trash House Records. We also have launched Cast Brew Coffee.

Yeah, we're sponsoring ourselves. We launched our own coffee brand. Roberto Jr. is the mascot. Go to CastBrew.com. Pre-order yours today. They just entered production and they will ship by May 5th. We have two signature blends, Rise with Roberto Jr. Y'all know Roberto Jr. He's our rooster. And Appalachian Nights. Roberto Jr.'s blend is a light roast. Appalachian Nights, of course, a dark roast. And then we have a Colombian and a French roast. They come in ground or whole bean.

We are our own sponsors now, so we can't get canceled. If you want to support our endeavors, go to castbrew.com. And of course, go to timcast.com, become a member, because tonight we're going to have a members-only uncensored show after the main show, which I'm sure is going to be fun either way. So we will also have call-ins. If you become a member, you can join our Discord server where you can submit questions and actually call into the Uncensored After Show and have your questions answered. We do that Monday through Thursday. So it will be a lot of fun. And it's going to be especially a lot of fun because today we are joined by the Omni-Liberal himself, Destiny. Hey, what's up?

Trying really hard to follow the rules right now, okay? Yeah, all right. Do you want to just tell people who you are, what you do? You've been on the show before. Yeah, my name is Destiny. In real life, I go by Stephen Bonnell. You can find me at youtube.com slash destiny. And I debate people from a center-left slash progressive position.

And that's what I've been doing for about the past six or seven years. And then before that, I was a StarCraft II semi-professional gamer. Wow. Who are you? Zerg Protoss Terran? Zerg, obviously. I will say this. There's very few people

we associate with the left who are willing to come on the show. Most people we encounter, we politely offer. We'll say like, hey, we'll fly you out. We really want to have a conversation. I think they're all liars. What happened to Lance? He's coming. Is he? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely. The Serfs. Oh my goodness. We absolutely scheduled him to come on

and he said, hell yeah! And I was like, cool. I'm totally down to have anybody who's in the political conversation come on and talk about these ideas. But I gotta be honest. I think a lot of them are just lying and I do not count you as one of them. I think you actually are intelligent. You have a lot of good points and I think you just have different opinions.

So I think we'll have a good conversation. So thanks for coming, man. Yeah, thanks for having me. We also have Sean from Uncensored America. Hi, how you doing?. We also have Sean from Uncensored America. Hi, how you doing? Who are you and what do you do? Oh, I give this guy a lot of trouble. That's what I do. My name is Sean Semenko.

I found the free speech organization Uncensored America. And we basically host speaking events on college campuses with anybody that's censored, canceled, or anything in between, honestly. And we're going to have a debate with Stephen and Milo coming up on Christian nationalism at the University of Tennessee. It's going to be in a couple weeks. Wow, that's cool. If you want tickets, go to uncensoredamerica.us,

and we'll have something for that. And also, Laura Loomer is going to be speaking at University of South Carolina. Right on, right on. Awesome, man. I'm Ian Crossland. You hit me up at iancrossland anywhere on the internet. Good to see you guys. Let's move.

We also have Serge over here. Yo, I am Serge.com. Pleasure, Destiny. It's nice to see you in real guys. Let's move. We also have Serge over here. Yo, I am Serge.com. Pleasure, Destiny. It's nice to see you in real life. Let's do this. All right. Before we go much further, because Sean will come in

and I'll bring this up. Festival.minds.com. I believe you and I are both doing an event there in a few weeks. Yeah, April 15th. Yeah, in Austin. If you guys want tickets for that,

they're still selling tickets. Yes, we're doing a live TimCast IRL that Friday and that's sold out but the minds event is the second day at the same location the vulcan and you guys are going to be there i'll be there too i'll be speaking that day yeah right on all right let's jump into this big breaking news story ladies and gentlemen breaking manhattan grand jury votes to indict donald trump trump will be the first former president to be indicted.

The grand jury's vote regards an alleged settlement made with adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the former president's 2016 campaign. According to five people with knowledge of the matter per the New York Times, Trump and Daniels allegedly had a sexual encounter in 2006, according to the claim. Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges after office. While the specific charges are currently unknown, an indictment is expected to be announced as Trump will be asked to surrender and face arraignment. A lawyer for the former president confirmed his indictment shortly after the initial announcement. The AP reported in a March 18th Truth Social Post, Trump said he would be arrested on the 21st and called for people to protest and take our nation back. OK, so basically after that, they postpone the indictment. Things get delayed. Then a bunch of

people who are conservative but not pro-Trump started saying Trump's grifting. He's lying. It's not going to happen. Then today they announced I think it was today they announced the grand jury was going to be suspended for a month. And then all of a sudden, just like a couple hours ago, they announced they voted to indict Donald Trump. So obviously, my opinion on this, as we've talked about it before, is this is silly and stupid. But while we have you, man, what do you think? I mean, if he committed a crime, I think he should have the book thrown at him. I think generally this is a misdemeanor crime. Usually there's a statute of limitations.

But if records were falsified in an attempt to cover up another crime, then the statute of limitations is extended. But I don't think any of us have seen the indictment yet. So I wait until they unseal the indictment to see how silly or stupid I think it is. But, hey, if you broke the law, I think you should have the book thrown at them. Even ex-presidents, I don't believe, are above the law. I absolutely agree. I'd like to see more presidents get arrested and charged. Oh, man, it'd make me nervous, you guys.

That's the first time in history a president's ever been indicted. No, I agree. I don't care. If they break the law, then they should be charged. My issue, I suppose, is it seems overtly political. I mean. How can we say that without seeing the indictment? That's a fair point.

But you just said that. It seems overtly political. It's fair to say we don't know for sure, but it seems that way, especially considering the dude campaigned on investigating Trump. They spent years and this was the best they could come up with that Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to not write a book or give an interview or whatever about banging Trump. And that Trump tried claiming it was legal fees, despite the fact that a letter was put out 2018 where Cohen, Cohen's lawyer said Cohen paid for it out of pocket was never reimbursed. So I mean, like that feels kind of like exculpatory evidence outright, which makes this seem political.

So do you think that the payments to him that were recorded in a book, do you think that's all fake or? So I don't know. Well, definitely I'm interested in seeing what, you know, what the reason is. I just don't understand why, because like the thing that drives me to crazy is it happens with the Andrew Tate stuff too, where things will come out and people immediately say, this is political, it's partisan. It's like, why don't i just wait till the indictments come out and then we can actually see when the indictments come out it might be that there's a lot of stuff in there it's like oh okay that's fair and it might be wow this

is bs like it's obviously because brag campaigned on doing this sure but i mean like people can campaign on all sorts of things right juliana campaigned on cleaning new york the guy that well that literally makes it if you if you campaign on like enforcing laws like is that a political no he campaigned on investigating trump maybe he thought trump broke some laws and but it's like yeah i mean it seems like a fair thing to campaign on show me the man i'll show you the the law that he broke right well we're about to see that shown once the indictments are unsealed so so here's here's what i think with the the potential of this case uh-huh you have you have a lawyer i imagine you've gone through legal stuff right um not like a dedicated one but i've yeah i have a couple depending on

what i'm going through yeah do you go through their itemized invoices you might i mean i'm i don't know if you do or not um i've never made a single payment of over ten thousand dollars to a lawyer so usually they send me the itemized thing and i just they built by every 15 minutes or 10 minutes or whatever these bills that trump's paying are over hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think for Cohen, wasn't it like $330,000 or something at the end of the day? Something like that. And so I really doubt Trump was handed this invoice, looked at it and said, no, no, we can't say we paid Stormy.

That's illegal. Let's falsify this record. He probably got a legal bill and was like, just pay him. I don't know, whatever. Didn't Cohen claim that he and Trump had personal conversations about this particular issue yes after the fact but in 2018 cohen's lawyer claimed cohen paid for it personally without instruction from trump and was never reimbursed for it sure do you think has cohen claimed otherwise though after the fact yes cohen has claimed otherwise so and those claims were under uh oath correct uh then he should be

charged with perjury if that's the case. But was the statements by his boss, were those statements under oath? His boss? Yeah, or the other lawyer. Yeah, the other lawyer. Were those under oath? I don't know who the letter was filed with. Something that Rosenstein said that I think was really important when he was asked for questioning, this was like three or four years ago, I think, is he would get very irritated

when he was brought before Congress and claims of the media, I think Jim Jordan did this to him, the claims to the media be brought before him and they'd say, well, what do you think about this? What do you think about that? And he's like, I don't think that's true. He's like, do you think they're lying? And something Rosenstein said was, well, if you think they're lying, bring them and have them testify under oath. So I think it's important when we look at people's statements, people say a lot of things. We saw this with Giuliani and his claims about Trump. People say a lot of things. And then when they're under oath, their change significantly so i'd always be cautious to compare statements made under oath to something that some guy might have just said in a letter

or said to the press or said to a friend who's rosenstein i think this was sent to the federal uh election commission uh maybe yeah that's what it's it says uh via email federal election commission office of complaints examination and legal administration attention crystal dennis It says, via email, Federal Election Commission Office of Complaints Examination and Legal Administration. Attention, Crystal Dennis. And the letter says that Cohen did it of his own volition. He paid for it out of pocket. He was never reimbursed. So I would put it this way. It seems political when you have a letter like this from years ago, from five years ago.

But again, fair point. We'll see what happens. My issue with it for the most part is, really? Falsified record misdemeanor charge? You want to get into the debate about Barack Obama blowing up a kid? Because I would absolutely love to talk about that. Look, if they want to give Trump a misdemeanor charge and lock him up for however many months a misdemeanor gets him, I would absolutely be willing to agree.

You're right. He's got to be charged. Next up, Obama. He blew up a kid. He blew up a bunch of kids. I don't know if Obama broke a law. I don't think Americans of any capacity are allowed to kill other Americans. Of any capacity?

Don't cops do it all the time? Not like. I mean, it seems like they, in the service of doing. That's a little bit of a semantic trick you played there, right? Okay. Obviously, you can kill people in self-defense. But Obama bombed a civilian restaurant in Yemen, a country we're not at war with, killing civilians, including a 16-year-old American citizen. Like, you can't, if you're in the military, you can't just, or a cop, you can't just go

and kill somebody. Murder, you can't murder. Yeah, but I imagine the justification Obama would use was that this was in defense of U.S. interests or defense of the United States. And in his role as commander-in-chief, the president of the United States has offered wide deference from the Supreme Court for taking actions in the commission of protecting the United States, even if we disagree with them. Yeah, I think that's criminal. I mean, that's fine.

But there's a question of like, is it illegal versus do you think it's criminal like bad? Right. It's probably bad, I guess. But like so. So the Obama administration's argument was that they were trying to target a terrorist leader. But I'm not. I mean, you make a fair point. But I'd be willing to argue that the president

does not have the authority to bomb countries we are not at war with. Well, what about when Trump assassinated Soleimani? That was an assassination. Where was that taking place in? In Iraq. In Iraq, a country we have an AUMF over, an authorization for use of military force.

I don't think the authorization for use of military force, I'm pretty sure we were on good terms with Iraq at that point. I don't know if we had the ability to do whatever we wanted in that country. That was a political assassination, though. But there are executive orders that are againstaq at that point i don't know if we had the ability to do whatever we wanted in that country that was a political assassination though but there are executive orders that are against the united states i don't disagree sure i'm just saying i'm just saying that in general there's multiple questions going on here we can say do we um do we think it's wrong or bad probably i think generally the united states uh president

killing american citizens generally a bad thing unless there's really good justification for it there's a difference between that versus is it illegal and i think that the law tends to we argued about this a little bit before the show um when trump was doing things at the border that we thought when i say we progressives and the left got really mad at the supreme court tended to side with him because the president's given wide deference over matters of what was he doing on the border um i think it was when he was using um he couldn't get the funding for the border wall um oh no no it was over banning certain people coming into the country um when he he named the there were seven muslim majority countries and when he was running for president even giuliani

said he's trying to find ways to do a muslim majority ban technically he's not allowed to venezuela north korea on that list though yeah well he changed it up i think after the first one got or didn't go through for whatever reason but once he did that ban when people tried to challenge it the supreme court basically said president border he could do almost anything he wants because it's the president of the border. Yeah, but that's not blowing up a kid. I didn't say it was blowing up a kid. But I'm just saying that in general,

you would think that like, well, we're talking like border, if we're talking about like passing policy at the border, that seems like a congressional thing. Like we should be passing laws about immigration policy, but the president can do that

basically all on his own because the Supreme Court's like, hey, he's a president, national security, he can do almost whatever he wants. I think I see the disconnect. I'm less concerned with legality. Okay.

I'm only talking legality. Right. So I think that a president who bombs a country we're not at war with should be stripped of his power and criminally charged for killing an American citizen. And it should be literally under the U.S. murder statutes that are covered by multiple state and federal laws. I don't look at it like, well, you know. Is a murder statute, could I in Tennessee get arrested if I bomb somebody in Yemen? Is that a, I don't know what the. I mean, that's a good point.

You might, yeah, absolutely. I mean, that might be like way worse than murder. It might be terroristic, international. Like, I'm pretty sure if you as an american citizen set up a bomb in a foreign country you'd be criminally charged in the u.s yeah but i don't know if it'd be under state statutes right that sounds like federal international federal yeah maybe julian assange is being criminally charged in the u.s even though he's not a u.s citizen who didn't do anything in the united states kim.com for that matter too i mean the dude's never even been

that was never this country and they went after him so i just think that when we i think it's really important that we separate conversations of what should somebody be charged with versus like what do we think is wrong and i think both conversations are important we could talk about like is this wrong or is it not wrong and there's probably a good conversation we had there but there's a difference between that versus like somebody needs to be charged here because like well charged with what is there actually a crime broken or is it just like we're really upset about this particular thing which is fair yeah the patrick the patriot act's insane and the national defense authorization act. It gives them,

I mean, it really gives the president the authority to bomb an American citizen anywhere in the United States. It doesn't. It gives them the right to rendition anyone, anywhere in the world and then hold secret tribunals. And I think that's wrong.

And I think if we're going to just play like the question of, is it legal? Well, then there's a whole lot of really awful stuff the government's going to end up doing if we just say, well, they made it legal so they can do it but they yeah but this is what i always fight against like when it comes to like blm and everything too um it's important

to change the laws if we want people to be held accountable we have to change the laws to reflect what we think our moral will is so that we can actually get people to be held accountable because otherwise you just get a bunch of people that are like this is wrong do something it's like okay well i don't know what you want us to do like it's not illegal like we can't do anything about it you know if we changed the law and it made it illegal to bomb kids in yemen then we wouldn't be able to charge people that were doing it while it was legal because it was legal when they did it yeah probably but i mean do we want to make it so that when we change laws we can retroactively right i don't anyway like i don't we're probably i don't

think we're ever officially at war with syria right no but trump bombed the airport is that like but again he's the president it's our military like i guess the other question is you know in talking about abdulrahman al-alaki he wasn't the intended target the intended target was somebody else and he and he had just a few weeks prior killed anwar al-alaki abdulrahman's dad so he kills this guy who's an american citizen then argues well look you know he was a jihadi he was preaching against the united states he had to be stopped but then a few weeks later he targets a civilian restaurant in Yemen, blows up this restaurant with a drone strike, killing Anwar al-Awlaki's son, Abdul Rahman. And the response was, well, we were targeting a terror leader, so it's okay. So I guess the question is,

I'm curious as to the legalities and the moral standing of, one, does the president have the legal authority to kill anyone in any country at any time in the eyes of the United States? If he does and hits the wrong target and kills an innocent American citizen, is there a manslaughter similar charge for this kind of conflict? I think internationally, unfortunately, I think we just don't tend to hold countries responsible. This has happened multiple times. I'll avoid the USS Liberty example because that's a whole loaded thing. But there was, let's see,

I think Iran, after we killed Soleimani in the night or the night after that followed, Iran accidentally shot down, I think, one of their own civilian airliners. And there were no charges. Nothing was held for that um i believe in iran in iran yeah and they're like authoritarian though you know true no i'm just saying but internationally um i believe

it happened over ukraine as well i think that there was a missile launched from crimea i believe it was probably um with the assistance of russian troops there there was a civilian airliner shot down there um but nothing happened the united states i believe um i think we shot down a civilian plane um that killed like over 150 or over 200 people that might have been um south of iran i think um flying towards saudi arabia maybe and and we didn't do anything about that we said sorry but i think that was like 200 or so somebody said i mean it happens it sucks but i mean precedent internationally is that like sometimes mistakes happen countries do mistakes they're bad and you pay money sometimes but there's usually not like criminal courts for those types of mistakes but it was proven then

yeah of course we say um yeah but the best i could do on short notice the acl your acl you wrote an article saying that it was unlawful well if the acl you said no i mean yeah it's it's when they said which was unlawful the the not just the killing Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, but the other civilians that were killed in these countries were not at war with was. It says the killing program isn't only unlawful, it's unwise. And that's about, you know, on the short term, there have been legal arguments made that Obama does have the right to kill Americans abroad. But I kind of feel like, you know, we've got multiple amendments that afford american citizens a plethora of rights before they can just kill you so that's where that's where i'm at on the issue i suppose do you still have american rights when you're in another country you still pay taxes so yes you do and the state department

will send guys to rescue you if you're kidnapped maybe um this is the first i've heard the uss liberty that you mentioned earlier oh god no don't even do it. 1967, during the Israeli Six-Day War, they accidentally torpedoed or they shot down a... Yeah, but depending on who you ask, it's not an accident. That's like a whole can of worms of weird Jewish stuff. Let's jump to this next story from TimCast.com. Quote, political persecution, election interference at the highest level in history. Trump responds to indictment, will reportedly surrender early next week. Never before in our nation's history has this been done. The statement from Trump, let's pull it up. Let's read it. Here we go. If I can

text kind of small. He writes, this is political persecution and election interference, the highest level in history. From the time I came down the golden escalator Trump Tower, and even before I was sworn in as your president of the United States, the radical left Democrats, the enemy of hardworking men and women of this country, have been engaged in a witch hunt to destroy the Make America Great Again movement. You remember it just like I do. Russia, Russia, Russia, the Mueller hoax, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, impeachment hoax one, impeachment hoax two, the illegal and unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid, and now this. The Democrats have lied, cheated, and stolen in their obsession with trying to get Trump, but now they've done the unthinkable, indicting a

completely innocent person in an act of blatant election interference never before in our nation's history. Has this been done? The Democrats have cheated countless times over the decades, including spying on my campaign, but weaponizing our justice system to punish a political opponent who just so happens to be a president of the United States. And by far, the leading Republican candidate for president has never happened before ever. Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, who was hand picked and funded by George Soros, is a disgrace. Rather than stopping the unprecedented crime wave taking over New York City, he's doing Joe Biden's dirty work, ignoring the murders and burglaries and assaults he should be focused on. This is how Bragg spends his time. I believe the switch hunt

will backfire massively on Joe Biden. The American people realize exactly what the radical left Democrats are doing here. Everyone can see it. So our movement and our party, united and strong, will first defeat Alvin Bragg, and then we will defeat Joe Biden. And we are going to throw every last one of these crooked Democrats out of office so we can make America great again. Well, very interesting. What do you think? They better be doing a really good job at that office. I think there's a lot of political consideration that has to go into these charges, because it's a really scary world when your criminal justice system is potentially interfering with an election, which is something that, despite what some Americans think, that's all of our intelligence agencies try really hard to avoid this exact scenario where you might be indicting or arresting or charging with crimes like somebody that could be running for president. So I hope that whatever they have, I hope when these indictments are unsealed, some really solid stuff, and it's not just a whole bunch of like you know lucy whatever that ends up falling apart what do you think about

uh he mentions ukraine what do you remember the whole ukraine gate fiasco impeachment um donald trump quid pro quo yep i do remember that yeah what about it what are your thoughts uh am i allowed to say the f word uh after 15 seconds yeah i mean we try to keep it in the first 15 seconds they demonetize yeah i think that's fine i'm i'm okay with that impeachment if that's what you're asking you you think trump committed a crime with absolutely what you want to elaborate i know it might be a bit it's been a long time it's been a while but my understanding was that trump contacted ukraine zelensky and he was asking if there was wrongdoing done by um i think it was by biden and finding that prosecutor and if they had any information about potential wrongdoings that hunter Biden or Joe Biden had been involved in in Ukraine.

And in exchange for that, he wanted to withhold aid that was already congressionally approved to Ukraine for that. So what's wrong with that? Like, why is that? Was that a problem? Legally or morally, or? Both, either, whatever you think. Legally, I believe it's because I don't think the president has the authority to withhold

that aid. I don't remember what the legal arguments for on that um for the the moral part is our president probably shouldn't be asking other countries to investigate like wrongdoings to political opponents that's a really joe biden wasn't running for office at the time um i mean why was he hold on i'm trying to think of the timeline for this yeah joe biden it was a year before he announced that was that was part of the timeline for this. Yeah, Joe Biden, it was a year before he announced. That was part of the controversy that Joe Biden had not announced he was running for office at all. No, but hold on.

He might not have announced it, but I'm pretty sure most people knew he was running. In the early polls, if you looked at real clear progress, if you looked at a lot of the polling aggregate sites, they were already polling Biden. He'd already been factored in quite a while. It might have announced that he was going to run for office, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people were expecting it. I mean, that's just speculative media stuff so trump isn't actively investigating a political opponent unless the argument is we all secretly knew that was going to be the case they were like bernie sanders was still in the race there were a bunch of other people at the time the controversy was like why joe biden there were there were other democrats that were actually talking about running and it

wasn't joe biden he announced late he did announce late but he was still factored into the polls really early because like a lot of people thought he was going to run the question is though is that do we want the president contacting other even if he's not running he is still the vice president did the same thing is that if the vice president was I think that anytime you're reaching out like let's ask if we pull back on a macro level why is Trump asking this information does he genuinely think that there's been some grave wrongdoing done by the bidens that needs to be corrected for yeah and if so why isn't he asking our intelligence agencies for information about this why is he going to another country and asking i mean i don't we it's we have the five eye spy club we do that all the

time it is when we go to we don't do that all the time going to another leader and saying hey i need you to get dirt on a potential political opponent because i think there's something well he wasn't a political opponent and he is a political even if he was the vice president of the former uh opposite party guy that he just um as he came into office what do you mean he's some kind of political opponent right even if he's even if he wasn't directly running yet like i would argue any if he was asking the super like aoc for instance i would say that it's similar trump didn't go to the president of ukraine and say i got this political opponent i need dirt on he said what's up's up with this video of Joe Biden threatening to withhold congressionally approved aid unless you take action on his behalf? And the president of Ukraine was like, I'm not sure. He goes, well, can you look into that? I need, I might withhold aid that's already been

congressionally approved for you. That was the issue. If he was just asking questions, we wouldn't be having the conversation. He wouldn't have been impeached, right? So this is the point that I'm getting at. When this started and Donald Trump asked about this, specifically because there was a viral video of Joe Biden outright admitting to threatening to withhold congressionally approved aid unless a prosecutor got fired, you had Joe Biden breaking the law sure so there was a video of joe biden on stage making the claim slash joke on stage where he's saying i told him you don't do it you're not gonna blah blah blah blah but in terms of him like

well but in terms of there actually being a serious offer on the table where he was like threatening to withhold aid i'm not even sure if that was ever the case we have that one statement that he was made number one signed a sworn aff not even sure if that was ever the case. We have that one statement that he was made public. Number one. Signed a sworn affidavit that it's what happened. That's what happened. Number one. Number two, the impetus for Shogun being removed from Ukraine was not to get some kind of political dirt on an opponent.

It was a completely different scenario. This is a prosecutor that all of Europe and over half of Ukraine wanted fired, that the United States was acting on behalf of the Western world and trying to pressure this prosecutor out because of his lack of prosecuting corruption in the country. That's a totally different thing than I threatened to withhold aid from this guy because he's not giving me dirt on potential political opponents. So why is it that the guy who was being investigated, Mykola Zlochevsky, returned to the country? He had fled when Shokin was investigating him. And then after Joe Biden got Shokin removed, Zolotchevsky returned to the country

to begin working on Burisma again. Why did he return to the country? I could have been for any number of reasons. I'm not sure. Right, so the argument from the Democrats, the specific corruption that wasn't being prosecuted, you're referring to,

is the prosecution of Mykola Zolotchevsky, the founder of Burisma. Okay. And the argument they made was, he wasn't investigating him. That was the problem. And then Joe Biden says, and we got we got him out. And then they put in someone solid.

The only issue is when Shokin had about a dozen active investigations into Burisma and Zlotchevsky, Zlotchevsky fled the country. They tried. They froze his account. When Biden came in and got the prosecutor fired, Zlotchevsky safely returned to Ukraine without fear of criminal prosecution. When Donald Trump made that phone call, Zlachevsky fled again. So it sounds more like, so you've got Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, you got a former CIA director on the board of Burisma, and Zlachevsky,

the founder, and Shokin had 12 different active, around 12 to 14. All of the investigations into Burisma were dead. No, they weren't. That's not true. It was absolutely true. Completely false. They were only revived one month before Shokin was forced out. Every single one of those probes was completely dead. That's wrong. I mean, you can Google it and look for it if you want. Yeah, so I'm citing Matt Taibbi. Oh, God.

Right. And if you don't want to trust a journalist or whatever. Or like any actual article, not a tweet. I'm talking about an article that he wrote breaking down what happened with Ukraine and his investigation into Tlachevsky. And this is from like 2017 or whatever. Okay, so your claim is that the probes into Burisma never went cold and never died, that they were active the entire time? They were active the entire time, right. Okay.

My understanding is that those probes were all cold and all dead. And it was part of the reason why Zhugovsky— Well, hold on. He said dead before nice and cold. It's the same thing. They weren't being actively worked on. So there were probes, but nobody was doing anything with them until it was one month before Shoken was actually ousted that there was some progress started to be made on those.

So that's a very difficult question to get into. The fact is there were active investigations. Well, but that's kind of the meat of what we're talking about, right? Well, so... It's kind of important to settle the fact of the matter on that, yeah. Were there 12 investigations, yes or no? I know that there were investigations open for a couple of years, but my understanding is that's all open. It's not all that matters.

They were dead investigations. What was being made of it? That's what I read. It was reported. All right. My point is this, but that's pretty important because they were being actively investigated and that obviously changes a little bit the story that we're telling. So did Shokin have investigations into into Burisma and Slachewski?

Yes, he had about a dozen. But whether or not it's live or dead, isn't that important? You don't think so? Did Slachewski flee the country while these were on the books? Yes, he did. When Shokin was removed and the investigations were officially stricken, Slachewski returns. So do you think that there are criminal wrongdoings that he's done that he's not being prosecuted for? What I think is that the United States is in an energy crisis and in a war with Eastern powers. The United States has been trying to get a pipeline for natural gas called

the Qatar-Turkey pipeline into Europe, but Syria said no. Syria destabilizes for whatever reason. We want to run that pipeline through Syria, through Turkey, into Europe to offset the Gazprom gas monopoly. Russia runs natural gas into Europe through Ukraine through Gazprom. It's about 20%. It's massively powerful for them and allows them to control prices. The United States has interests in setting up an energy company to offset that monopoly, hence Burisma. Hunter Biden's on the board, probably for these reasons. A former CIA director, probably for these reasons. Was Burisma one of the smaller gas companies in that country? Absolutely. And it seems like the US was trying to compete with Russia to get cheaper gas to Europe.

And the argument made was that Europe was constrained by high gas prices from Russia and that we wanted the European economy to be bolstered and grow faster to compete with China. But Russia was basically keeping us pinned down. Sure. This is nice conjecture, but is there anything backing up any of this aside from like... This is all the official reporting. What do you mean by official reporting?

So the only... There was official reporting that we got rid of Shokin because we wanted to bolster U.S. interest in them. That's the only speculation I have. I'm saying based on the facts, it seems to me the issue was Shokin did have investigations into Burisma, which was a problem for U.S. interests, not because of corruption, but because it's more of a war front. It's more of a— Do you think that Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor?

No. Okay. Why did all of Europe and a lot of Ukraine hate him? Because Europe wants cheap gas. Shokin was impeding that. It's not an issue of corruption. It's an issue of conflicting interests. He was impeding it how? So active investigations into Burisma are impeding U.S. interests in competing with gas. Burisma isn't even the largest gas player in that country, though. That's not the point.

We don't have the cutter-tricky pipeline into Ukraine because Syria blocked it. So you have a multi-front effort going back to, I think, like the 2000s to get cheaper natural gas into Europe. So of course they're not going to like anybody who's got Eastern allegiances. It's possible that with Ukraine, you had in the eastern part of the country more pro-russia sentiment with yanukovych you had more pro-russia sentiment and you had government officials that were like look we are not just pro-west of course then he gets ousted there's a there's a there's unrest uh i can't what do you mean for yanukovych though

yanukovych was standing alone with that pro-russian status though that wasn't all the government officials that was part of the reasons why people were so upset with yanukovych was because right he was standing alone with that pro-Russian status, though. That wasn't all the government officials. That was part of the reasons why people were so upset with Yanukovych was because he was trying to push for Russia in opposition to what their parliament was even pushing for. That's what I'm saying. And so there's probably, he wasn't the only person. The sentiment was fairly split, but was leaning towards the EU. Had been voted on by their parliament, like to favor the EU. That was what the vote was for. And so the way I see it is there are probably elements of that government that were more favorable to Russia,

which is why Europe doesn't like them. The people, Ukrainians who want to be a part of the EU and members of the EU who want Ukraine to join because they want more control over natural gas, of course, naturally would oppose

anybody who was siding with Russia. Do you think that Ukraine was a corrupt country prior to 2014? Yes. Okay. I mean, it's... Do you think... So for all of europe and for

everybody complaining about the corruption um and stuff relating to shokan you think that all of that was bs and they just didn't like him because he was preventing their cheap oil or cheap gas say that one more time you think that all of the upsetness that people across europe and ukraine had with shokan had nothing to do with any of the corruption of the country or his lack of pressuring because like that's the official story that's this government it seems to be like pretty consistent throughout like i can only i can only speak on a surface level about this one particular issue because i don't know the inner workings of all of ukrainian politics okay but what i do know is there has been a tremendous effort by western forces leading to outright physical military conflict to get natural gas

into europe to offset russia's control of gas prices. Naturally, it seems like these things are related. Speculative. The facts are the U.S. went to Syria and said, can we build the Qatar-Turkey pipeline? Syria literally said to the United States, that would be bad for our ally, Russia, so we will not allow it. Fortunately for us, for whatever reason, Syria falls into civil war and we just happen to oppose the guy who denied that. I don't think the whole reason for opposing it has to do with gas, but it's convenient for us nonetheless. We weren't able to do it. And to make it worse, Iran wanted to tap the same natural gas field and send the gas through Iraq and Turkey into Europe to strengthen Russia's control of energy. So the argument was the EU is trying to grow and become a unified block to

compete with the growth of China. And Russia was basically impeding us because Russia wants to be their own big dog, right? Sure. So, man, if you ever wanted to revisit a detailed breakdown of this, it'd be interesting to do a little bit of reading prior to this. But let's say hypothetically I grant you all of that. Why didn't Trump say any of that? Trump doesn't know what the hell's going on. Okay. So then Trump's investigation into into so the impetus for this whole conversation bro okay so yeah so the impetus for this whole conversation of like trump pressuring them to find out of any wrongdoings happened had nothing to do with anything you just laid out it was just having to do with hunter biden and joe biden it had to do with him seeing a video and then seeing people

and post memes probably to be completely honest it was tucker carlson Who said something. But it was a little bit more than just asking questions. Because if he was just curious, I don't think that the question of aid being withheld would have ever been brought up in that conversation. So clearly there was a little bit. You're saying that Biden wasn't seen as a political opponent at all. But if that was the case, I don't know why Trump would go so far to try to solicit information from the Ukrainian government such that he would withhold aid or threaten to withhold aid in exchange for some information about him you know whether it seems like a random politician to target like why would he be so dead set on getting information about biden democrats they were calling him a russian spy i think there's a little bit i think it has to be a little bit more than that revenge to throw away sure i mean you can think that but i'm not even i'm not i don't even care all that much about

the speculation as to why he did it right sure if you want to argue well i think that's probably one of the most important parts that is the most important part is why he did it but you have to make assumptions to get to that point do i if he's asking for dirt specifically with respect to a political opponent i'm making assumptions i feel like there's a lot more assumptions being made on your end that he was just genuinely interested in what joe biden had said and was threatening to withhold aid because he wanted a legitimate investigation of the firing of a prosecutor i mean i feel like it's what we know is that he said what's going on with this video i want to see some action on this or else right i feel like there was a little bit more said than that but i don't remember it's in a long time well

i'm just i'm just trying to paraphrase paraphrase for the sake sure but i feel like the the specific request he was making for information are probably pretty important i can look up exactly what the charges are alleged but it's been a while. So I guess the reason I bring it up is not to just debate Trump or whatever, but to ask the question of, should we indict Joe Biden for doing the same thing? I don't believe Joe Biden did the same thing, though. The request and who it was on behalf of was far different than the request of Trump. But Joe Biden does not have the authority to threaten to withhold congressional proof. I don't know if Joe Biden actually threatened to withhold aid.

He admitted on camera that he did. He said something on camera that I don't know if joe biden actually threatened to withhold aid but he admitted on camera that he did he said he said something on camera that i don't know he literally said on camera i told him that if you don't fire the prosecutor knocking the billion dollars and he said you don't have the authority to do that i said call the president ask him see what he says well son of a bitch six hours later he's fired trump also said on camera that he could shoot somebody on sixth street and not get arrested for it but that's different from admitting to do committed crimes i don't know know if Biden admitted to a crime there or if he was just talking shit. Biden also was in front of an audience saying that he had, what, like 170 IQ and graduated from Harvard Law or something, right?

He obviously didn't do that, right? So I don't know when Biden is on stage, like, oh, I told him I was going to withhold his I don't know if he's just like, you know, he got his big boy pants on, he's talking shit. If he actually did do that, and he didn't have the authority to do it, and it was on behalf of some selfish motive or whatever, then yeah, I think there should obviously be an investigation. it's not the fact that there's never been an official statement confirming that there's never been any um aside

from the ukrainian officials confirming that and that there should be everything relating to that yeah but every time republicans say there should be and they go and look they find nothing okay but uh whether it's benghazi whether it's hillary's emails whether it's uh the we know the hillary's email stuff is was there like that's that's not even we don't know if hillary clinton gave a command to delete stuff that shouldn't have been deleted to impede an investigation. We don't know that. We never found information about that, which is what the charge would have been for.

Sure, sure. We know that she had a server with 35,000 emails on it. We know that her staff smashed hammers. We know that one of her staffers, I guess, he went on Reddit and he said, how can I purge emails with someone's name on it or something like that? Sure. And like, I think, didn't he get charged or something i don't know i think it was granted immunity in exchange for information yeah that's crazy right i remember when that happened like

some dude on reddit found the account and they were like i think this guy worked sure but the crime that we were looking for was whether or not hillary clinton ordered classified emails to be deleted it doesn't seem like that was we spent a whole lot of time talking about that and for all the complaining that we do about a judge indicting Trump or intelligence agencies interfering in elections, Comey coming out and making the statements that he did about Hillary Clinton were not only unprecedented, but also potentially election-altering, too. Do you think Barack Obama ordering a drone strike that killed an American citizen warrants an investigation of that? There might have already been an investigation. I don't know what the vetting process inside of orders from the government like whether whether there was or wasn't do you think there should have been um yeah there probably always should be when when there's collateral

damage didn't it happen um was it in afghanistan or pakistan wasn't there a hospital that we accidentally bombed like a year and a half ago i think probably i think like 20 or 30 people died and it was all civilians like yeah anytime something that, there should obviously be some type of oversight. And that's different between like there needs to be a criminal charge for an intentionally destructive act done. Right. Do you agree that there's a world of difference between Biden ordered an American citizen killed overseas versus American citizen dies as a result of collateral damage from a drone strike? Those two things are worlds apart, right? Well, the added context is we're not at war with this country.

It doesn't matter. There's still even if we are at war with the country, there's still worlds apart right well the added context is we're not at war with this country and it doesn't matter there's still even if we aren't at war with the country there's still worlds apart right so we'll slow down for a second sure my question is very simply if we're not to the president does not extend to bombing any random country well it seems like that's not where we're at legally right now right i think it's not it's where we're it's not where we're at because the american people don't do anything about it did Did we vote in Congress to bomb the Syrian airport when Trump returned fire for whatever gas attacks?

No, but I think there's something different to an active war zone we do have troops on the ground in, and I don't agree with Trump firing. We're not at war with Syria. We have ground troops. We haven't declared a war since World War II. But we didn't even have a UA Senate use of, yeah, for military force, right? I don't agree. But we didn't even have a U.A. Senate use of,

yeah, for military force. I don't agree with Trump's firing of the missile. Sure, I'm just saying that, like, if an American citizen even would have died on the base, yeah, I'm just saying that we're not voting for war

in these areas, right? We're still bombing them. So it seems like, if you're asking me a moral question versus a legal question, those are two different things. If you're asking me legally,

it seems like that seems to be that the president can indeed order drone strikes in a place that we're not at war with. That seems to be what we're at legally right now. Morally, should he be able to? I don't know.

I don't know what the justification is for that. But let's jump to this next story from the Tampa Bay Times. DeSantis says Florida will not assist in possible Trump extradition after indictment. The Florida governor weighed in on Twitter. He said the weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American. The Soros-backed Manhattan DA has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal

misconduct. Yet now he is, and there's a second tweet here. Where is it at? Wait. Oh, okay. Yet now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent. Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with the Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda. What are your thoughts? Is he actually Soros-backed? I think so. Or was it that like, because I thought that the actual thing was like George Soros contributed to a PAC that has also contributed to him. I think it's a little different, but regardless. Even outside of that, I mean, Ron DeSantis saying we're not going to allow what is he saying they're not going to extradite right that's what it's well what you know did he even really say that he said will not assist in the extra extradition it's like a pretty tepid statement to be completely honest so i don't

even know if there's an actual question to be asked should florida assist in the extradition like it doesn't matter well it kind of matters i think it would i think it matters based on the precedent of the crime if this is a crime that they wouldn't normally extradite for then they probably don't have an obligation to right like i don't think california would extradite me if i had like an outstanding speeding ticket in iowa right yeah this is this might be a similar thing where they don't extra but if there was like uh if somebody like did a double homicide and florida's like we're not going to extradite them that'd probably be a pretty big deal but yeah i don't know for a crime like this if it's an extradition is ordinary or not donald

trump it what's the what's the what's the charge that he falsified um a legal bill to well it's that he falsified a legal bill but it has to be something more than that right because that charge in and of itself is a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations would have expired on so it's that he falsified that legal bill in the commission or the obscurement of another crime right i think i think it's related to election stuff the argument was that it pertained to campaign finance or they use campaign funds to do it or something like that because cohen billed trump campaign or whatever but uh i guess we'll see when the indictment comes out if they're stretching us up to a felony my my view is uh it's it's all overtly political and this country is being ripped and

ripped to shreds so i don't know if it really matters whether desantis is going to do anything or not it's the whether whether we can have a debate about it or not no one's going to agree the end result is just going to be people on the right saying that trump is being politically persecuted people left saying it's justice well it only matters for the primary because desantis this whole time has been trying to position himself as Trump without the bad stuff. That's sort of his whole brand. But as you go into this more and more, you're going to see that DeSantis really isn't a Trump guy. He's going to try and make his own brand of sort of Trumpism but with some other stuff.

And I think a lot of the hardcore Trump people like myself, I mean, I was a day one 2016 supporter, right? When he came down to Golden Escalier, I was already sold. But a lot of people that I know in D.C. or in sort of these other circles, they think, oh, well, we should move on from Trump. It's time for DeSantis to take over. But I mean, the reality is this whole thing is only going to help Trump. I think the mugshot, it's going to be on T-shirts. It's going to be art.

Like, people are going to love it. On the left, they're loving it because they think, oh, we finally got him. We got the handcuffs on Donald Trump. on the right we're they're just gonna think he's a martyr can i can i play this video from dash dobrovsky yeah i i think i gotta turn it down big news donald trump has been indicted in manhattan the grand jury just voted to indict donald trump for his hush money payments to stormy daniels this is i don't know if he realizes like if he's in control of his moods when he goes uh what has he uh been indicted he tilts his head forward and he gets shadow under his eyes

and looks real villainous for a second called the kubrick stare comes back up yeah it's awesome i'm sorry i think highly entertaining it's unwell soy jacking it's an act i mean obviously yeah i've been doing this for money when it comes to stuff like this i think it's really important that you mentally swap the people out in your head to figure out how you feel about it because we have a huge problem right now this country with actually having principal positions on any fucking issue whatsoever so i think that when people are trying to think like should trump get arrested for this like think like if it was hillary clinton would you feel the same if it was aoc would you feel the same if it was de santis would you feel the same i think it's

really important to do these mental swaps to check for honesty to make sure that it's not just like you said like all partisan politics at the end of the day i agree especially when legal systems are involved i agree but i don't think it's principles i don't think anyone's principled at all yeah i but i'm not saying that i am too i'm not saying that from like a dejected, you know, sense or like a not like, you know, I'm jaded and blackmailed. I'm saying it that people genuinely don't understand the moral philosophies around principles and their positions. So the example I often give is when it came to Florida on the parental rights and education

bill, you had conservatives being like parents have the final say in whether or not their kids are being exposed to this stuff and whether or not their kids are going to get these treatments. The teachers have no right to withhold that information from the parents. And then my response is in Washington, they completely agree that the parents have final say. So when the parent says the child should get sex change surgery, the government should not be allowed to intervene to stop it. You see the point? The principle is the same. Should parents have final say? But both conservatives and left liberals or whatever position have a differing view of when it should be allowed. When it comes to a child deciding they are trans, the left passes laws saying they can withhold that from parents when it comes to parents wanting to give their children sex change surgery conservatives argue the state should intervene to stop that

so which is it right people don't have principles they have moral foundations and they have lines that they're willing to cross or not cross and so both sides will argue my principle is x but it does not apply that's's my point. Sure. So I do better. I don't I mean, I don't I don't I don't think there's a do better or there's a bad. It's quite literally if two factions of people have different moral standards, that's that's it. Yeah. But I think the problem is not being honest about those moral standards.

Like, I think that's the issue, because when we're when we argue for certain principles, I think everybody ends up at the end of the day, we're all attacking like the shadows and the ghosts of the people that we're arguing against because nobody actually believes in a lot of things they're saying and that hurts our ability to actually move the conversation forward like there's a lot of people for instance i think i even saw this on your twitter i don't remember the tweets there's a lot of conservatives that fucking hated red flag laws and now after this trans shooting a whole bunch of conservatives like well should mentally ill people have guns i'm not actually sure and it's like what changed and that's exactly my point yeah is that the principle the principles don't apply to most people left or right sure

but then the quote but then there are principles there you just have to dig a little bit deeper so like for some conservatives people just like fuck trans people i don't want to have any rights um rather than like i don't i i don't agree with like red flag laws. And we just have to get to like the deeper positions for the XCR so we can fight against those positions. See, my thing with red flag laws is I'm completely in favor of them so long as they have an adversarial due process. The problem with red flag laws literally is that they're not adversarial. It's like someone can go to a judge, the judge can issue a writ and just come and take your guns. Whereas due process requires your rights to confront an accuser, to file a rebuttal, to say no, and then actually

have a chance to have proper adjudication. So I used to not be in favor of it until it was actually conservatives who argued that through due process, your rights can be curtailed. Hence, like being put in prison. If you break the law and then a court gives you due process and says you broke the law, we can literally lock you in a box and take everything away from you. And I'm like, OK, fair point. In that case, if you're mentally ill and then someone files a claim saying you're a risk to yourself and a harm to yourself or others, then you should have the right to receive a notice in the mail, answer that claim, reject it, and then have a judge actually

issue a standard due process. If you're in prison, you can't have guns. You know what I mean? Like we so if there is is some standard by which we believe you are a threat and you are going to cause harm then you have a right to challenge that in court same as any other criminal charge you have and then if you lose come take your gun and i think that that is a defensible that argument is defensible but it's not defensible if it only comes up when a trans person goes on a shooting spree that's i completely only way to agree. Right.

So it seems like there's, cause there's a lot of arguments against, um, red flag laws that are still standing that, that like those arguments didn't go away. Like I'm, I lean, I'm probably against red flag laws.

I lean slightly against them just because I feel like it makes it so hard. Um, if you're a guy that likes guns and you've got like mental issues, man, going to a therapist becomes really fucking scary because what if you get a diagnosis that is now precluding you from owning firearms um and now you've got to show up in court and you've got to fight a judge for your second amendment right which is a very important one in the united states um that gets hairy and depending on how people you know represent

red flag laws or what type they're pushing for um yeah it is a really scary thing but yeah i'm just saying that that's a good point that's a challenge. That's a challenge. It reminds me of the, it reminds me of the, do you guys know BoJack Horseman? Yeah. It's like that scene with the, you know, saying the women carry guns and she's in front of Congress

and she's like, well, you know, if you don't want women to carry guns because you're worried about what's going to happen, then you either have to ban all guns or you've got to let women do it and they like ban all guns. It's like, okay, well, that's kind of what it feels like

happened with the transgender thing after the shooting where conservatives are like all of a sudden because they're like, well, maybe it is really important that we look at the mental health of people that have guns and like everyone on the left is like happened with the transgender thing um with with the after the shooting where consumers are like all of a sudden because they're like well maybe it is really important that we look at the mental health of people that have guns and like everyone in the left is like what the fuck what like yeah of course but well i agree i think if someone goes on prozac you could argue that they're not mentally well for a gun if someone's an alcoholic that's like 25 of fucking americans at this point though yeah pharmaceuticals that's scary and

there's another interesting thing i when i talk about when I was in L.A., in Venice, and you got those guys selling weed cards. And they're like, I'm walking down the street going to the skate park, and this guy goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, you got your weed card yet? You got your weed card? And I'm like, no, no, no, I don't have my weed card. He's like, why not? Why don't you have your weed card? And I'm like, I don't need one.

He's like, I'm not sick. And he goes, oh, you skateboard, right? And I'm like, yeah. He's like, don't you hurt your legs or whatever? And I was like, yeah, sometimes my knees. And he goes, oh, bro, you got knee problems? problems oh you need some meat you need some weed you gotta get a weed card doctor will get you signed up not interested you get that weed card you smoke weed you you are an eligible you can't own a gun maybe for physical pain you could buy you could get away

with it but for if you say it's stress you're no no no wait wait wait is that true are you saying it could theoretically be true with red flag laws on on the form, it asks you if you are a user of narcotics. And so the risk is if you have a weed prescription card, yes, you are. And that means you will be ineligible for owning a gun. That's insane. Huh. Yeah. So you ever see the, what are they called?

The forms you fill out when you have to buy a gun? It asks you if you're a user of narcotics. And they have it classified federally as a Schedule 1 narcotic. Right. It's like the worst possible one. If you have a weed card, I don't think you'll be able to argue you weren't lying. They're going to say you have a weed card prescription to do this drug. There's no shot.

I can't believe that. We've heard it. That's actually real, that anyone's ever had their guns taken away because they had a weed card. I've never heard that. I can see that argument, though. You know what? I know that's not the case, had a weed card. I've never heard that. I can see that argument, though. You know what? I know that's not the case, because if that was,

I would have heard conservatives complaining. I would complain about it. They wanted Hunter Biden arrested over it, because he filled out a form and said he wasn't a drug user when he's a crackhead. No, no, no. But that's... That's literally why they want him arrested. For Hunter Biden?

Hunter Biden filled out a form. The form was released publicly, and on it, he said he was not a drug user, despite... For the 4473 for a gun gun the background check form for a gun it asks you if you're a user of narcotics i feel like they wanted him arrested because they said that he's doing illegal dealings overseas where he's roping his father into the specifically for the gun issue it was like his girlfriend or whatever his wife threw the gun in a dumpster behind his school did they accurately date the crack use though for when he filled out the form that was the question that's really

important is the argument he quit doing crack a long time ago thus he was saying no and the argument was he's like still a crackhead they found a crack pipe in his car around some time or whatever and so i am not saying overtly and outright every single person whoever has a weed card will never be able to buy a gun again i'm saying if they want grounds to take your weapons and you have had a weed card, they will come. They will have a notice and they will say, look, you have a weed card. You're a user. Tell it to a judge.

We're taking your guns. They'll use it as a pretext. We do. Wait, hold on. Okay. I looked up the 4470 thing. I'm curious now. So it says, oh, well, so it says, are you an unlawful user of marijuana?

So I would say if you've got the card, you're probably not unlawful. But federally, this is a federal form, maybe you would be. You would absolutely be. They actually say on the form, I'm pretty sure it says, note, regardless of local laws. See what it says? It says that, right? Yeah, it says possession of marijuana remains unlawful under federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized. Oh, shit.

Well, government's coming for my gun soon. Completely insane. You're like, oh, crap. This country is built on the back of hemp, man. Look at washington's eyes on the one dollar billy stone although i will say i don't i've never heard of like the atf crushed referencing databases to like axe guns from people that have like legal marijuana cards or whatever but they can if they want to theoretically maybe we got news ladies and gentlemen we have information on the trump indictment breaking trump indicted reportedly on 34 counts related to falsifying business records the indictment stems from trump allegedly falsifying records concerning 130 000 payment to daniels stormy

daniels in 2016 cnn reports they were informed of the number of indictments by an unnamed source so we we take that um with a grain of salt Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty. Yada, yada, yada. Let's play the clip from CNN. Do we have audio here? My source is that this is 34 counts of falsification of business records, which is probably a lot of charges involving each document, each thing that was submitted as a separate count in a couple of matters.

Okay, well, that's it. Is that like if he's like, yeah, and then he responds? It has to be more than that. More than what? It has to be more than just counts of falsifying business records, I think. It has to be something election related to keep it to go past the misdemeanor thing, I think.

I'm going to agree. I think it's definitely going to be more than just the Stormy Daniels thing. Falsifying business records, is that like if they're in an email chain and he's like, are you sure? And then he sends email, he's like, response, yes. And then he's like, okay, then is that three counts?

My guess is going to be that I think he was paid back. Wasn't it over a multi, like a year period or a two year period? The falsifying business record, let's say that I paid you biweekly over an entire year, right? It would be 26 different payments that I'm lying about. So it'd probably be 26 separate counts of falsifying records. That'd be my guess. But again, it has to be more than just falsifying records because that's only a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations expired. And it's a fucking misdemeanor, right? We charge a president over an ex-president over

a misdemeanor. That's the most insane thing. It has to be something different. It has to be something more than that. It has to be something more than that. But I agree. I think they're going to, it's going to be worse than people think i agree i think they're gonna it's gonna be worse than people think right now everyone's saying it's a stormy daniels thing i bet it's gonna be something else something completely different i don't know about completely different but it's gonna be it's got to be related like campaign fund misappropriation or the question is will it be dubious or will it be questionable or will it be airtight you know what i mean i kind of feel like it's probably going to be dubious. I mean,

Ukrainegate as it was and Mueller and Russia and all that stuff did not pan out. I have very little... Well, it panned out. What do you... In terms of indictments, there were a lot of good indictments

that came from the Mueller investigation. No, I mean like, Trump isn't a Russian spy. He wasn't working with the Soviets. Oh, probably. Like, nothing was born of those things. You know what I mean?

I feel like this is just like, they're going to spin their wheels. Trump's going to fundraise off it. He's going to raise record amounts of money. There's going to be a mugshot that will turn into t-shirts. People will get rich off of it. Donald Trump will win the election in 2024. And then we'll not even talk about this moment later on. Does this kind of thing give people the right to go deeper into his life and look for things

and serve subpoenas and warrants and things to like look at emails from 20 years ago does it open up old i would hope that prosecutors are being intelligent when it comes to charging somebody that's going to run for president it's not even the fact he's a former president he's going to run for president the absolute worst case scenario for the health of this country is that donald trump gets indicted charged and convicted of something that's not really that big of a deal that somehow inhibits his ability to run for office. Because now you've justified

every single conservative that thinks that the system is trying to keep him out using judicial means. The left doesn't even get to feel good. Because like, let's be honest, let's say he goes to jail for something really stupid, like lying about, you know,

paying off a porn star. Like, you don't even feel good. Like, I wanted him to go down for like the pee tapes for the Putin stuff, right? Not for this star. Like, you don't even feel that. Like, I wanted him to go down for like the pee tapes for the Putin stuff, right? Not for this bullshit. So,

or BS. So, yeah, no, I hope they're sitting on something good. Otherwise, they have to realize

they're making the entire United States look like a joke. I don't think there's going to be anything there. I mean, it's been years.

They've known about this for years and they've not done anything. So, it really just feels politically expedient. And they just disbanded the grand jury two days ago or something for a month. Today they announced it was going on break for a month and then also they're like, oh, by the way.

That's so weird. I have a question for you, Steven. It's kind of off topic, but it's somewhat on topic. I'm talking about the war in Ukraine and the Russian war. What do you think is the solution to ending this or to the future? Well, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. First question is, how do you feel about the war in Ukraine? I'm happy Ukraine is winning. I hope they get back Crimea. Fuck Russia. So what do you think would be a solution to make that happen?

Ukraine winning the war and getting back Crimea and saying, fuck Russia. What's defined winning the war? Getting back Crimea. Having their borders restored to what they were in 1991 when they broke off from the Soviet Union and when the entire world recognized the country as having the borders that it did

that included the Donbass and included Crimea. Oh, man. Well, there's a lot of people. Some of my friends think that same thing. What's the, I suppose, justification for U.S. involvement?, justification for U.S. involvement? Justification for U.S. involvement is probably that the stability of Europe is potentially at risk, that we are seeing an actor engaged in actions that haven't happened in decades,

where one sovereign state invades another sovereign state to steal territory from them. It's just something that we don't really see around the world anymore, especially in Europe. And I think that the opposition to that should be led by the United States. I think it's important for us to be seen as a leader of the world to do that. Would you be in favor of a similar military response if it came to Taiwan? Oh, Taiwan and Hong Kong are so much more complicated. And I'm not well versed enough in the history to know if I would feel the same for that. The stability of Southeast Asia and the region, you know what I mean?

True, but I think that our responsibility is the presence we have and the relationships we have with Southeast Asia. I mean, we do have good relations with South Korea and Japan, but it's different than Europe. But I would have to read up way more on Taiwanese history and the deals that China has carved out with respect to the autonomy of Taiwan to know if I would feel the same way about defending them militarily versus Ukraine. But I feel very strongly about Ukraine, understanding the Ukrainian history and everything, that their borders should be respected. Do you think the $100 billion price tag is justified? I think a really big price tag is justified. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and argue

to know the difference between like $100 billion versus $1 trillion versus $500 billion. But I think that it is worth it for the United States to be making heavy investments into the security of Europe. I think that that position that we have is like the leader of the Western world and leading those efforts to predict Ukraine is really Important would you go to Ukraine and fight the Russians fuck? No, would you send? There to fight Russians

US troops in Ukraine fighting Russians is Probably something I would not support. What about what about special forces doing operations to assist ukrainians um i don't think so well what about i'd have to think a lot well like what a special forces mean like if we're talking about like people going over to like train troops maybe like for instance if we're sending weapon systems over there and we're sending troops over there to train them use those weapon systems that might be important so that those weapon systems don't misfire or they're crashing planes up and they did some shit they did do it one time yes they did what about the u.s using reconnaissance measures and surveillance to provide intelligence to the ukrainians

to then have the ukrainians use the weapons we provided to say sink the russian flagship in the black sea i think so far i think that's been fair game i think that a lot of people around the world share intelligence and that's probably just a given at this point, are sharing intelligence with Ukraine. There's probably no difference than China or Russia sharing intel with each other as well. What about former U.S. military, now veterans, fighting on the ground in Ukraine using U.S. intelligence, U.S. weapons, and U.S. funding to assist Ukrainians in, say, like, sinking ships and stuff like that think it's it sounds silly, but I think there is a distinction that they are former US military. The scary part about US troops

and Russian troops shooting at each other is the potential for escalation into all of us getting blown up. But if a former US military person gets killed by a Russian troop, that's a Ukrainian soldier that former US it is what it is. Do you really think Russia is going like, well, they're not really a US military, so we were not gonna do anything about it absolutely i i disagree there's a massive there's a huge difference between that guy used to be um part of the u.s military fighting ukraine versus there are armed u.s troops on the ground there's a whole escalatory pathway for u.s soldiers in ukraine putin cares absolutely yeah i mean they just took down one of our drones whether it was an accident or not they did a fuel spray on it sure and then we do dumb shit like that to each other

sometimes it happens but um they're having uniformed u.s troops on the ground in ukraine would be a massive escalation do you think russia is going to allow ukraine to win is russia going to allow ukraine to win um well i mean they've allowed them to get as far as they have so far but now they're positioning nukes north of Ukraine and Belarus. I heard the strategic nuclear weapons being moved into Belarus. I don't know why. I don't know if that's posturing. The UK is deploying depleted uranium tank busters, which are radioactive. Russia responded by saying, we warned you that if you use depleted uranium, that's nuclear escalation. And now they're moving nukes.

Sure, but they've been talking about nuclear escalation for like two years. But then they did it, and now Russia is sending nukes into the region. Sure, into Belarus, yeah. But are they actually going to start using? I don't think Russia is going to. I don't think so.

I don't know if Russia is going to use. The mistake people make is they assume nuke means 100 megaton ICBMs. It doesn't happen. Even strategic nuclear weapons, I think, would be- Nuclear artillery. Unbelievable. Depleted uranium is different than firing nukes no i'm talking about explosives i'm

talking about nuclear shells i'm talking about i don't think they're going to be firing nuclear shells i don't think they'd be firing small yield no davy crockett's no exotic miniature nuclear arms i don't think that'll happen that would be an i don't even think china i don't think anybody would support russia and those types of actions i disagree i think that china would support russia you think that yes hands down Russia. You think that? Yes, hands down. Wow. I think the U.S. has already lost its position.

Brazil, was it Brazil and China just announced that they're going to be trading outside of U.S. dollars? China's brokered a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Like the U.S. is in such a fractured position right now that I'm pretty sure China is going to be like, sucks to be a United States. I don't think it's about being in a fractured position. I think it's about, I don't think anybody wants to be in a country where people are shooting nuclear weapons, including China and everybody else in the world.

But that's, it's going to be in Ukraine. This is what I'm saying. The U.S. will not, this was brought up by, I think it was an EU politician. He said, if Russia uses lower yield nukes in ukraine the west will not respond with with with with similar nuclear weapons or greater because who cares what a eu politician says though he said uh no who was this it was it was it was it was like a un guy or something i don't care who it is if it wasn't the u.s president un has no fucking yeah no one is going to risk what did he say says no one's going to risk um like warsaw for kiev no one no

one if if if vladimir putin escalates the conflict in ukraine western forces will not escalate to the point where they would put their home countries at risk they will keep the conflict in ukraine well of course but that's ukraine's not a nato country so all we'll do is send stuff to help but we're not going to be putting troops there we're not going to be flying planes over there what they were saying is that if put uses nukes in Ukraine, the West will not fire nukes on Russia in return. Fire nukes in Russia in return. I don't believe so. But wasn't Biden's initial claim that we'd be destroying their fleet in the Black Sea or something if they were doing something? We did. Well, we took out their flagship.

Yeah. But again, I wouldn't look to a UN or an EU politician to speak on behalf of the US military or what the US is willing to do. Because at the end of the day, that's really all that matters, right? I agree with your principle that countries shouldn't be invading and colonizing territory. But then I look at what the US did the last 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't done anything even remotely similar. We didn't take any territory from Iraq. They're not on our border.

We have a puppet state in Iraq. We have corporations set up in Libya like Osprey. Hold on. Iraq holds their own elections. Iraq is its own country. We didn't take any territory from them. We didn't declare any of this. This is now part of the United States. It's a totally different scenario from what's happening in Ukraine

and Russia. We removed the Ba'ath Party from power, which caused ISIS to appear. But I mean, you could say it's legit, but it's a puppet state. I'm not saying it's legit, but I don't think we can call it a puppet state. I don't think it's fair. They hold their own elections. They are their own country. We might not like it. We did remove Saddam Hussein.

We did ban the Ba'ath Party from reforming. That is true. But we didn't take terror. We didn't come in and say, like, we're going to carve off this part as, like, New Connecticut. It's part of the United States now. That's an insane thing to do. That's an insane thing to do. We haven't done that. Russia went into Ukraine

and they took territory this is russia now that hasn't happened in so long it's that's a it's an unprecedented action in in this age post 91 post-soviet union that's insane yeah i think of it as like after the soviet union broke up the oligarchs split it all up and they took away the warm water port from russia because they didn't want to be a global hegemon they were like no we're going to give sevastopol to ukraine now russia's landed, and they can have their other. And it'd be like in the U.S. if they took the West Coast and took a long strip down the West Coast of the U.S.

and gave it to Canada, and we had no Pacific access. That at some point, the U.S. would be like, this is insane, and we're going to invade and take Pacific access. And that's where I see the Russians coming from. But how? They recognize the border. That's the country. You might not like it, but...

It's just de facto. It's not de facto. They'd be like, what if Canada was like, we really want Alaska. This is bullshit. It's not even connected to the US. We're going to take this.

You can't do that. Well, they can try. They could try. De facto, if we didn't have West Coast access... I wish they'd fucking try. The Canadians? Well, yeah.

I would just love because win a war against canada and it would give us pretext to seize canada we would end up taking canada and annexing it into the united no more land acknowledgement the way we did with libya the way we invaded over through qaddafi took we did that but we did that with authorization through fucking um through through nato and even through the un i'm pretty sure qaddafi was so bad i think even china would like abstain from voting no on that one. But again, I'm just saying that here's what I'm trying to say. There's something very unique in particular. I'm not saying that,

because I know a bunch of people are sowing out, probably saying, oh, he wants Iraq and Afghanistan, blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying those invasions were good. I'm not saying our occupation was good. But I'm saying there's something fundamentally different from invading a country and taking territory and saying, this land is mine now. Even in Afghanistan, where we were for 7,000 years, we didn't actually say, this is U..s territory now right there are people there they ran they did

their elections they do other things eventually we left but like it's not u.s territory whereas that has happened with crimea you know we almost took mexico i was watching this documentary on what was it the mexican-american war and then we like americans were actually in favor of just taking it and we won but then the president at the time i can't remember who it was polk or something he was like nah nah mexico can stay mexico the tactic the liberal economic order of just taking it and we won. But then the president at the time, I can't remember who it was, Polk or something. He was like, nah, nah, Mexico can stay in Mexico. The tactic,

the liberal economic order has been using is corporate. But we took Texas and stuff. It's corporate colonization. They took out Gaddafi, set up the US dollar and all these American corporations like Sidney Blumenthal's Osprey Global Solutions.

Hillary made sure that he got his defense contract in Libya. So they say, oh no, we're not taking that land, but it is profiting us massively because we have it set up as a corporate sure i mean everything profits us but i mean that's a fundamentally different thing again from like taking the land and being like

we're gonna i would argue that colonizing corporately overseas is much worse than taking argue it's much worse but it's still way different it's different yeah it's different than like this is u.s land that we are now administering legally and you this is our land now it's but if you legally say it's okay to invade and take something over, it doesn't make it okay to invade and take it over just because you said it was legal. You guys are going in circles. Let's jump to domestic story.

We're going in spirals, Tim. Here we go. NYPD orders full mobilization plan. All uniformed officers are on standby as extra manpower is deployed to ring to ring of steel around manhattan's da's office amid fears of violence after trump's indictment i really don't think there's that that new york city is maga country enough to the point that they have to

worry about a bunch of trump supporters showing up to the manhattan da's office i'm just worried they're gonna march them all down into the tunnels for drills next and then we know what happens you've seen the dark knight rises oh that's right and then they're gonna march them all down into the tunnels for drills next and then we know what happens you've seen the dark knight rises oh that's right and then they're gonna release all the inmates from their jails oh man i've seen the warriors yeah geez well i wonder i wonder what new york would be like if i don't know 8 000 people committed felons were just released all those covet patients gonna come crawling out of the old person's homes those power electric chairs they live underground yeah so anyway i i find this funny because um let me see if i have this uh this tweet somewhere somewhere where is this i think people are just like so paranoid they just don't want to risk it

right like january 6th was such a disaster and and it was a disaster at like multiple levels of failing to be ready for what was going to happen i think for new york they're probably saying like better safe than sorry because oh my god if something got repeated where they weren't ready it's just going to look so bad on everybody involved. Sure. We have this video coming out of Tennessee where a bunch of leftists stormed the Capitol and fought with police. They actually made their way into the chamber in what conservatives are calling an insurrection. So, I mean, that's basically it. Look, they're calling the cops and people are getting arrested.

And it happened in Kentucky, too. But, like, this that's basically it. Look, they're calling the cops and people are getting arrested. And it happened in Kentucky, too. But, like, this happens all the time. I mean, it's funny. There were numerous protests by the left where they actually were banging on the doors of the Supreme Court or actually went inside to the congressional buildings and shut down legislative sessions. And they were never considered that big of a deal. And even right now, it's like the media is not covering this like it's that big of a deal to shut down your capital state capitals i guess don't matter i don't know what well it matters but just how much does it matter i mean the media is covering it right that was a video by the media right yeah someone posted

it was kelsey gibbs yeah kelsey gibbs posted it and then deleted it greg price got a copy of it and reposted it and then maybe she reposted it again uh it looked like it really wasn't super violent i mean i don't think anyone got hurt i can't typically what we mean when we say like the news doesn't cover it is that like sure local outlets may run the story but is it getting headline attention is it getting prime time attention is it it didn't shut down the the authorization of the new president of the united states which was what january 6th was they were trying to like slow or down the authorization of the new president of the United States, which was what January 6th was. They were trying to slow or stop the counting of the votes to get Biden elected or something

like that. So it was like a federal election. That was what made that one such a big deal. Plus, it was high profile. Yeah, it was kind of voted on by our president. I think it was a big deal, too. He did say Donald Trump was involved in setting it up directly. You know, not the violence, but just getting the to listen to politicians. Just getting the people in the vicinity. He was part

of that. I think it was one that he said for months that they were going to steal our election from us and we need to fight like hell to keep it. I think it was more of that than the march peacefully thing, but. But he said march peacefully and there was a, there was a, there was a permitted rally at the Capitol. Okay. How can you go? Okay. We're backing up a little bit. How can you take the one thing that Biden said on stage one time as definitive proof that he was that he was actually trying to withhold aid but the new literally said he did and trump literally said that we need to fight like hell he didn't say storm the capital in those exact words and biden said we need to fight like hell he said we need to fight like what does fight mean if joe biden said be obese and stand at the capital

yeah it's not an argument if joe biden said on stage could you imagine if i told this guy i did this and everyone went, oh, no, he literally said he did a thing. And we're like, hey, if he said he did that, we should investigate. Trump said fight. And then later now go march peacefully. It's like, well, those are metaph to steal the election from you. You have to fight to save your country. Like, you don't think that that type of rhetoric can directly lead to people saying, like, so our election is being stolen, like Trump said it was being stolen, and we need to fight, like, go to the Capitol and fight to save our country? In that line, do you blame trans activists for calling for fighting when this person went and shot up a church, a grade school? For the trans shooter? Yeah.

I mean, they've been saying it's genocide nonstop over and over again, and they've been saying get up weapons and you have to fight it's yeah but i don't know why i don't know why that shooter did the shooting do you so though so the police said there's a manifesto and that they did say the working theory is it's related to the identity of the shooter okay you said wait wait you said two totally are the police saying that it was okay so i read i want to be very specific yeah yeah let's i'd be curious because i read four different articles i was trying to find out was anything from this manifesto released? I know the media is saying they should release it.

They will release it. My understanding is the police has not commented on the material in the manifesto yet. What did they say about it specifically? It was the police chief, I guess. He was asked specifically, did the gender identity of the shooter play a role? And he says, the theory is that is the case. We're investigating, et cetera, et cetera. I heard that.

That's actually what he said. Okay, I don't know what that means. Like, because it could mean what you're saying. So let's say that in the manifesto, they're right. They're saying things like, I've been watching

a whole bunch of YouTube commentators like Vosh saying that there is a transgenocide and I need to go and take action to prevent that. Then I would say, that's horrible. And people that are saying it,

actually, fuck, even if they didn't say that, the people that are saying there's a transgenocide and we need to fight should be held accountable. I think that's a bad thing. If you believe in stochastic terrorism, I think that that's definitely that. But if it's something like where the person is like, oh, like, I'm trans and people in my life don't accept me,

I'm gonna go shit over school. I think that's meaningfully different than inspired by rhetoric from people calling for violence, right? So when we see these protests from far leftists, like at the Capitol, like in Kentuckyentucky and tennessee do you think the storming of those capitals is the fault of people like vosh saying you gotta take i don't know if i should ever well those my understanding is the storming of those capitals was for gun reform kentucky was trans rights they were they were holding up trans right signs was it trans right i thought they were i thought they were doing it in response to the shooting sure sure but no no kentucky was that they're banning uh i think it

was kentucky right they're banning it might have been in kentucky for nat for tennessee i think it was for firearms right tennessee was firearms but it overlapped with that that issue was it was primarily a firearms protest so let's just say kentucky the storming of the capitol there where they're in the gallery and they're being arrested and they're holding up trans signs. Do you think the suspense of that, the inhibition of that legislative session and the storming of that Capitol is the result, is the fault of a lot of these activists saying take up arms and go fight? Sure. If somebody is storming buildings, I think they should be held legally accountable. They're trespassing. They absolutely should be.

And I think that people that are using alarmist rhetoric to get people to go and fight, whether's Donald Trump or whether that's far-left people on YouTube should also be um yeah he does it all the time it's one of the you gotta be careful because Hassan does it but he says only in video games well you unless it's an imminent call like vague calls like hey go do this thing that's not illegal that's protected first amendment but if you say on this day at this time do this thing then that's an imminent threat I understand that's illegal under the first amendment the issue that I have is a general alarmist rhetoric. There's a lot of people saying that there's a transgenocide incoming, so buy firearms. That feels a little bit like great replacement rhetoric, except on the left instead of the right

to me, where people on the right sometimes will say things like, immigrants are invading, they're taking everything, you need to buy firearms to protect yourself from spooky immigrants that are replacing white people. That feels similar to people saying there's a trans trans genocide, buy firearms because Republicans are going to take your rights away. That type of like, any type of rhetoric that is basically stating that like, your life is on the line, buy a gun, in my opinion, is like very, very, very unhealthy for the state of the country. I agree. I don't like the metaphor fight for your rights. It's been around my entire life. You got to fight for your rights. And in the United States, they literally did 250 years ago. And throughout the ages, they literally did 250 years ago sure um and

throughout the ages they have had to do that there's different they have done it literally with weapons and so the idea that we need to we're we got into a fight yesterday oh you mean you're arguing that's not a real like what does fight even mean you're elizabeth no no no come on come on well i mean that's what we're talking about the word fighting like if you say go fight for your right are you really encouraging violence okay fine but like typically every political organization says fight for your rights and they're not implying physical violence they're implying a struggle against a political machine to encourage people to vote and to to get in politicians and get policy in place so if someone's on a heavy dose of psychoactives and they hear that and they go fight physically

you gotta put it on the person. You got to blame the person that fought, not the person that said go fight. I think we have to have like a more holistic, intelligent view of this. What I would say is you have to look at the totality of rhetoric and you've got to ask, where does it lead? If somebody is saying like, listen, lawmakers are coming for your rights. You guys need to fight for your rights. Okay, like we got to do that.

That's fine, whatever. But if somebody's saying like, you are being eliminated from this country. People are trying to genocide you. They're going to use whatever means possible to take you out. You need to get armed. You need to train. You need to be ready for when these people come to town. Like, that's like, okay, what the fuck?

Right, exactly. Yes. You have to look at the totality of the rhetoric. It's not just like a one statement. It's like, how is it being presented at all? What we are seeing with these posters like Trans Day of Vengeance, they had pictures of guns on it. It's being accompanied by posters that say, take up your arms, no one is coming to save you.

And videos of these activists saying quite literally to beat people. Did you see that one? They got like a club made of a curtain rod and they're like, beat them, beat them, hurt them. Although I'd say we have to be really careful about because on how big some of these are. For some of these trans organizations that people are obsessing over, the Trans Day of Vengeance, and then there was another one, like the Trans Resistance something network or whatever. Trans Radical Activist Network. Yeah, I don't even know if these things exist.

I see a lot of, I know Fox News. I think it had a few thousand followers. Yeah, it had like, well, on Twitter. But they're the ones organizing the event in DC tomorrow. Yeah, but I'm curious how many people are gonna even show up to that. Because I looked at that page and it's like a WordPress page with like two links. But that's what it always is.

And the Twitter page has like 300 followers with no names attached. You'll get a few hundred people to show up. I bet it's a Russian up. Oh, yeah, Russia. I mean, honestly, I would not be surprised if it was Russia or China or both. Oh, wait, did they cancel it? Oh, apparently they canceled the April 1st thing. Oh, really? April Fool's. oh wait did they cancel it oh apparently they canceled the april 1st thing oh really

breaking news brought to you on the tim cast podcast what was the april 1st thing uh trans day of vengeance oh they canceled what a horrible name i know where did you get that from where was that news hell well that's good they did the right thing i think that was definitely this is from them as a violent call so they i think that was the right thing. I think that was definitely being construed as a violent call. So I think that was the right move. The organization says this action is not happening due to credible threat to life and safety. Oh, wow.

I think fight for your rights. Okay, vengeance starts to get a little bit weird, though. Revenge? Also the word revenge. I don't like the word revenge. Because can you have peaceful revenge?

I guess you can. Watching someone fail is like a form of revenge. If you're like me not doing anything. I would say that's an unconventional use like a form of revenge. If you're like me not doing anything. I would say that's an unconventional use of the word, though. Probably not good. Vengeance.

That implies past wrongdoing. I do think it's absolutely insane that after what happened on Monday, the media's response to this was very, very much like, oh, the poor trans community. Whereas they typically don't do that for any other mass shooting they don't that's because one of the other mass shootings usually like white dudes like yeah but when you they're really poor white people but no i mean like even the other trans shooters right with like aberdeen colorado springs denver they didn't come out and say the same thing it's like this one they did which is weird i think for the i think for this one there's a pretty big deal about it being a trans person which i don't think it was necessarily made as big a deal for the for

the past one. So and then I think that the temperature is up really high right now because apparently Republicans have nothing else to talk about but trans people. So we're like all focused and fixated on trans people right now. So when a shooting happens with the I don't think it's Republicans. I think it's both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are obsessed with trans people right now. But Democrats are putting books like genderqueer in schools or I should say schools are putting those in place. Loudoun County, we saw a Republican get elected in Virginia, primarily because of what happened in Loudoun County, which is literally two seconds. You get

in the car, you drive 20 seconds, you're in Loudoun. And it's because these schools, they had sexual assaults. They had these books depicting graphic things for kids. And then when parents wanted something done about it, Democrats called them bigots and ignored the problem. So they turned to Republicans. Republicans embraced it. Yeah, but isn't this like what our school words are for? Like, don't you go to your school meetings?

You say, we don't want this here. And then you talk to the superintendent. Have you watched those meetings? Some of them, but not all of them. When the parents go and present the books, they get kicked out or silenced and told they can't speak about it. For really? For all of them?

All? I didn't say all of them. Well, because I can imagine it happening at like one or two when matt walsh wanted to speak in loudoun county they changed the rules so that he wasn't allowed to so he had to rent a basement apartment to be able to speak was matt walsh a resident of that county no and you didn't need to be anyone was allowed to speak at these meetings about issues so when they found out a prominent conservative was coming they changed the rule to bar him from coming. So he had to become a resident. That was not a rule normally.

Do you think that might be fair? It is absolutely fair that someone in California can pay AOC $3,000 to help her win her campaign. It's absolutely fair that in a Virginia gubernatorial election, someone from, where does he live, Tennessee, comes over and says, like, here are my thoughts on this matter and why it's important to change the rules to bar it. And I think that's but those are federal level things that we're talking about generally, not the governor one, but like the AOC one. But don't you think it might be a little bit different? Like, let's say that you've got like a full stop outside the federal thing that Democrat local Democrats raise money out of state all the time. Sure. I'm saying that

if you have like local superintendent meetings if i go to my child's school to have a conversation about the curriculum with the teachers and there are other parents there if i started to see people show up from like california or wyoming we were from nebraska like i'd be like what like i don't know why you guys are here right now that would make me really uncomfortable completely agree yeah so if it was the case that like it might have been the case and i don't know for the matt walsh i don't know in particular but it might have been the case that there wasn't a law in the books for that because it's just something that's never come up before. But if it is going to be a thing, then I can understand like, yeah, you don't need to be at these meetings.

This isn't like your political process. This is a very local level thing. Well, so to go back to the main point, to put it simply, I suppose, Loudoun County was a flashpoint where parents were not being listened to. They were protesting. I remember we went down to Catoctin Skate Park. We saw parents outside tabling being like, when we go to these meetings, they won't listen to us. We need change. And that was a huge rallying cry that gets a Republican elected. So Republicans are looking at this and they're hearing parents say, when the COVID lockdown stuff happened and we heard what these teachers were telling our kids, we were shocked. And when we tried to get these things changed they resisted there's one one one parent's getting sued by the teachers what were they getting it's like the teacher junior whatever filed a lawsuit against them because they asked for records on what's being what's being taught

to their kids i feel like if we look i'd be curious to look at that lawsuit because i feel like sometimes yeah okay look that one up i'm curious what they're actually being sued for um but the my question would be like can't you just vote out the superintendent like this is part of our local election process like if you don't like the school superintendent don't we vote on that i like i'm just trying i'm trying to imagine what the resistance is and now what i'm wondering is is there resistance for a majority of parents saying something or is it a few conservatives that are fighting against this and they're upset that their voice is being drawn up by the other parents that don't agree with them that'd be my question on this i i think there's like

a big difference between sexual degeneracy and trans sexuality. Well, not for conservatives. That's the unfortunate thing is that people are talking about trans sexuality as if it's degenerate and it's not. Waving your unit in front of a child in a bar is degenerate, in my opinion, whether it's at a public park or in a bar where they say it's okay to do it. Sure. I kind of wonder this.

Maybe I'm being a little bit unfair here, but I kind of wonder for a lot of parents if the COVID lockdowns were the first time that they ever actually looked at what their kids were reading in school. Yep. And then a lot of them were like, wait, what's going on here?

And so like the impression is that like, oh my God, all of this crazy stuff has made its way into the school. It's like, well, no, that's been part of a curriculum for probably quite a while. You just never noticed because it was a school,

you don't actually give a shit what your kid is reading. But that's just a guess. I agree. I think that's been part of a curriculum for probably quite a while you just never noticed because it was a school you don't actually give a shit what your kid is reading but that that's just a guy's action though but i think that's true there were a lot of videos where the kids were on zoom classrooms and the parents recorded it being like what are they telling my kids and then what happened was when these parents came out and started complaining about it because no one knew what was going on and paid attention they said you're lying it's not true it's not happening but But it is happening. And it is shocking.

And because parents didn't pay attention, this is why I think it's become a major political issue right now. Sure. All right. What's this lawsuit? I'm curious. I couldn't find it. Oh, fuck.

Wow. Yeah, there was, I would need a few minutes. This is something that happens. Because I always tell people, if you hear something, always look it up. I'll hear something like a person was removed from a meeting just because they were asking questions and then when i later go read the story it's actually like they were making a ton of noise they were asked to leave once it was private property and then they were escorted off and then they like they weren't even

sure like things always get like twisted like really hardcore so i'm always curious when i hear like there's a lawsuit against somebody like what is it actually for um well there's a bunch of these meetings and the reason is their um parents is this one from fox news they'll try to read like they'll be like hey we came here to complain about this book and you refuse to listen so i'm going to read from this book and then once they do they go whoa whoa whoa you can't read that stuff in here that's graphic and they're like yes but these are in our schools that's the problem okay yeah i mean here you go here's one of the stories from uh a year ago georgia parent reading sexual content from library at school board meeting is cut off as inappropriate.

Don't you find the irony? The concerned parent shot back at the school board member. So this is why people are concerned. I mean, have you seen Gender Queer? Have you seen that book? This is just one book. We had Asra Nomani came in and she brought like 50 different books with various critical race theory, racist ideology, as well as gender ideology stuff that was like really crazy.

Like this book is really crazy. And on Amazon, it's listed as 18 and up only. It's got like not all, it's just got, aside from the overt sex acts that are in the book that should not be accessible to children,

there's a bunch of stuff in there that kids should not be reading about just in general. So like what school is including this are they what like giving it assigning it libraries grade i think a few of them had as a curriculum a lot of them had it as uh um in the libraries well okay so library and school are like two those are two very different things like if my second grader can buy this at a Scholastic book fair, that's one thing. But if this is in, like, the library of, like, a high school, I think it's a bit different. Like, there are adult sections in libraries at high schools.

Like, I don't know. High school librarian gaining attention online for promoting the genderqueer book to students. Blah, blah, blah. I don't know. I'll just Google it. Ron DeSantis actually put together a presentation where he actually listed out all the schools that had these books. And the craziest thing was that Nikki Freed, who was like the Democrat trying to run against him, took a screenshot of what he posted and then wrote posting butt plug porn to own the libs. And it's like, yo, that is a book showing a butt plug next to an anus that they're

showing children in grade schools. And that's what the complaint is about if a even a democrat gubernatorial candidate is calling it butt plug porn i think we got a problem sure i just have to see i just have to see what we're talking about like what you just brought up was that a librarian in a school or was it just a high school high school librarian oh high school librarian and what is the book that's being complained about well i googled genderqueer is it that they're like telling kids at the library to rent the book or is it a librarian on twitter promoting the book she went on tiktok and was telling like all of her students or whatever like you guys should get this book or something but let me was the book in the library or was it just a library making a book because i feel like these details are really

important right like it matters you know like if a librarian is recommending a book she's like this is a good book to read yes they can be found at her school's library okay gotcha okay she's making sure at least geez yeah so let me let me pull up the ronda sandis one because they keep saying he's banning books and it's like dude telling kids you can't have hustler in the library is not banning books you know what i mean let me see if uh i can't play this online so don't pull this up i can't i can't show you that's for the after hour stream yeah we can do it there but I don't even know if people are gonna want to see it so I want to see it did he I need to see it you got to give people a reason to come to the after-hour streams okay yeah butt plugs

and books might be it yes let me find the video if I search for it on Twitter oh here we go is this it Ron DeSantis addresses book controversy i have to pull up on twitter because on twitter you have the full thing while he's looking about hillary's emails you said something was illegal about those what was all right here let's uh all right we'll go back to it later so we won't show this on the stream because youtube will give us a strike if i show this stuff don't do it but uh you know let's jeez yeah twitter video player sucks i'm gonna have to reload it well you already saw that much i don't have my glasses on so i can't see well but i'm assuming it was a butt plug it was it was a butt it was a butthole uh

roberto clemente baseball what is can you read the tweet for me what does the tweet say it says yesterday we exposed the book ban hoax if news stations could not show this explicit material on air why should it be shown in schools oh is that what okay so they show genderqueer there's some overt sex acts there's uh two little boys engaging in what some they should not be showing children then where's the uh let me see it's not playing audio there's no sound coming out of this. Third grade and discrimination in a way that an individual by virtue of his or her race, color, sex or national origin is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. Here are the books parents found in Florida schools and reported for removal. What was found is shocking. Let's, uh, we'll make it bigger and then try and jump in.

This is an on-stream, right? It's not, the audio is. Okay. A Mountain Dew bottle bottle of all bottles oh disgusting are these ideologically driven books oh here we go this is a really bad one and matthew nolan was found in a broward county school and contains graphic depictions of how to masturbate for males and females while also including an entire section yeah so that that's that's what nikki free was complaining about that this is not appropriate for children circling the butthole and explaining how to use butt plugs

and all that stuff so you know i kind of think i would need to i would need to i'm curious so is this on a high school library are these like in restricted sections or what is the access to these books like because now i thought i thought before it was like a porn book this seems like whether we agree or disagree it seems like it it's a guide for sexual exploitation for teenagers, essentially, is what it looks like. Butt plugs go a bit beyond that, you know. They do, but kids stick a lot of weird things in their bodies. A lot of girls that do a lot of fucking dumb things and end up hurting themselves. Yeah, we shouldn't be giving children books explaining how to use butt plugs.

Probably not. I generally probably agree. Right. But, again, like, I'm curious, like, what is the access? That's just it. That's just it. It's like, hey, let's not have that book. What is the access though right because like again if you tell me this is

available to second grader that's a lot more than like i'm just saying that's a lot of like this is a high school book that like you have to be 18 and older to rent they actually they actually did say this for anal sex with an encouragement to use a butt plug even more startling is the guide on how to sext for children, encouraging them to send photos that don't include your face, hide your birthmarks and scars, and edit out your piercings and tattoos. Books by Rupee Corr, such as Homebody, Milk and Honey,

and The Sun and Her Flowers. Let me jump back. There's another book that contains a lot of your... Hillsboro. Okay, here we go. They explain where they were found and how their kids were accessing them.

Sure. What was found was shocking graphic. Okay, so they basically just outlined that it's in schools in Florida. Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, like, you agree there's a difference between, like, this is, like, in a high school that you've you've got to be like a junior or older to check out versus this is in like the grade school library these are two like pretty different things some of them are in grade schools yes like uh genderqueer the reason it got so much attention is because it was in grade school specifically i think it was in like a sixth grade classroom or

something the teacher brought it in i don't know we we cover all this stuff when it happens we have to pull it up right now but like look yeah simply put this is what conservatives have been complaining about they're like hey you know like in florida they said if you're in kindergarten to third grade you should not have access to this stuff they should not be teaching it that's it after that you can do like whatever parents have a right to know about it and they said that in fact teachers are still allowed to talk about identity and sexual orientation stuff, but not in a classroom setting, meaning a teacher could literally tell a student one on one if they asked, hey, what's that picture on your desk?

Well, that's my husband or whatever. And oh, OK, that wasn't banned. What was banned was a classroom curriculum setting of educating kids on these issues and only kindergarten to third grade, though they are now expanding it to i think all through eighth grade or whatever it is i think it is important the word children because if you're 17 and tomorrow's your birthday you're still a child yeah i guess it's like the thing that bothers me is that like conservatives will say things like we shouldn't teach this to children and it's like that i don't like some of these books would be incredibly inappropriate for like a six-year-old but for like an 18-year-old i don't know it'd probably be good to

know some of this stuff well um an 18-year-old is totally different yeah i know but 17-year-old. But for like an 18-year-old, I don't know, it'd probably be good to know some of this stuff. Well, an 18-year-old is totally different. Yeah, I know, but that's included in children. So like, for instance, I'll fight over... Not in schools, man.

Wait, what, not in schools? I don't think schools should have this stuff even for 17-year-olds. There's a lot of stuff available at a library. I don't know. Right, yeah.

I think like a video, a book showing how to use a butt plug is over the line. Sure. And even if you do think that... Sex ed stuff is fine. Sure. Well, I mean, like, a video explain— a book showing how to use a butt plug is over the line. Sure. And even if you do think that— Sex ed stuff is fine. Sure. Well, I mean, that's part of it, right?

I really disagree. Like, you're talking about kink, and kink goes beyond basic sex education. Do you think that, like, toys for women should be discussed in books? No. Okay. They probably should be.

For kids, you mean? No. What do kids mean? For 17 and under, I guess. For, like, 17 and 18-year-olds. I think instruction manuals should not be in— you know what I mean? Like 17 and under, I guess. For like 17, 18-year-olds. I think instruction manuals should not be in, you know what I mean? Like, that's my own position.

I think that the issue is that teenagers are engaging in, there's a lot of especially conservative parents that like to pretend that teenagers don't do anything sexual until they're 18. And that's just not the case, regardless of what they want to believe, especially when half these conservatives

get fucking pregnant at 16, 17, 18, anyway. But there's a lot of people like to pretend that their kids aren't into anything sexual blah blah blah um and then when it comes to children that are starting to exploit doing these things stupid things happen where people are putting dumb things in their bodies they end up going to ers or worse they don't tell their parents at all and they have like these hugely complicated problems probably not the most common thing in the world but again i think that for like a 17 and 18 year old like books on this available at a school library that's not like assigned as part of the curriculum.

I think you can argue whether or not it's a big deal or not. There's probably good arguments in both sets, but it's way different than like an eight year old having access. But that was part of the issue. The reason it comes up is because young kids did have access to these books. And that freaked people out. Sure. If that is the case, sure.

I don't know if I believe that's the case yet. I don't know if I'm seeing anything compelling. But if it is, I agree. Like there should be an age appropriate conversation around what's available to children right kindergarten through sixth grade like probably should have no access when i think you'd agree with that right ron de santis administration comes out and says kindergarten to third grade none of this stuff the democrats came out and lied and said it was don't say gay despite the fact that the bill barred from people from also talking about straight

marriage as well that i believe the issue with that bill was that after it specified k through three i want to say in the very next line it said an age appropriate up to high school as well i think there was a vague interpretation there we can look up the actual bill itself but i'm almost positive that it included up through high school as a vague line after that k through three thing i'm almost positive because i remember we read the we read the bill on stream but either way it wasn't a don't say gay bill you couldn't say straight either no well the issue could not say straight i don't know that was true you couldn't say straight but i did not specify the word gay or anything it just said you cannot talk about orientation or identity which includes all of it yeah but the problem is you generally don't need to talk about an

orientation of a straight because that's just what you assume right they i think that the the main concern the legal argument that i heard for the concern for the quote-unquote don't say gay bill was that that bill created a private cause of action that any parent could sue or bring legal action to any school whatsoever, whatever they wanted to, if they felt like one of these things

was being brought up in an appropriate manner. And that might extend to just saying that like an author of a poem is gay. You wouldn't necessarily say somebody is straight because that's just assumed, right? It's like in a movie, if we see like a husband and a wife kissing, nobody asks a question. But when two guys are kissing, it's like, a movie if we see like a husband and a wife kissing nobody asks a question but when two guys are kissing it's like

well why are they gay right obviously there's going to be a bit of a different treatment for gay relationships versus straight ones 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 become a member at timcast.com so you can watch the uncensored portion of the show which will be live at 10, 10 p.m. over at timcast.com. We'll put it up on the front page

and if you're a member, you have the opportunity to submit questions and actually call into the show and ask those questions so we will be taking calls from our Discord channel.

But for now, let's read some of these Super Chats. Daniel Kuhn says, isn't Destiny a girl's name? True. Where does Destiny come from? Is it just like a gamertag?

Yeah, when I was like eight years old, I was just, yeah. It was before the game. Yeah. Yes, unfortunately. Did the game make you more popular? Initially, it pissed me off because it kind of messed with my SEO, but I think I'm doing good now. It's trending on Twitter right now.

Yeah, it always is. Because the game is usually trending. And then if I do anything, people talk about me too, so it it gets mixed up i still get emails every now and then from people that are asking me like hey can you reset the password on my bungee account and like yeah it's kind of all right freedom jeffrey 1776 says hi tim how do i become an elite member you sign up at timcast.com for the 100 tier and that makes you an elite member and then you get access to the elite chat room and uh the people hanging access to the elite chat room and the people hanging out in the elite chat room are networking. That's the point.

So hopefully though, once we get our physical location set up, the third floor will be like the actual clubhouse and it will be basically like a hillbilly version of a social club that people in New York have. So like in New York, they have the $50,000 a year clubs, like ridiculously expensive

like just Soho House or whatever. We're going to do the redneck version. Wait, you're going to have like an actual place in here where fans are going to come in? I have. We have purchased a three-story building in West Virginia that we are putting on the first floor, a coffee shop. It's currently in the planning phase.

Okay. Second floor is going to be gaming and hangout. And then the third floor is the private club, which is going to be a hundred bucks a month, substantially cheaper than your typical social club. So it's like the working class version of these things. So people can hang out, meet each other, and collaborate, you know, like clubs do. Your own equinox. Is that what that is?

Well, I mean, like in New York, I think the Soho House is like $50,000 a year to be a member. Damn. It's crazy. Yeah, like $4,000 something per month they pay. But then like there's free food, there's free free drinks you're hanging out with a bunch of rich people so you're like i got an idea for a business and then someone connects you with someone else that's power right there helps people uh start businesses all right way back says de santos put out a perfect statement in regards to the trump indictment he said he won't assist in the

extradition and it's a political person prosecution he's won me back with that statement trump 2024 desantis 2028 i thought it was fine um but it's it's kind of like him being like you know don't count i'm not involved as a you know so it is what it is you know i'm not gonna give him a c minus c minus it's like yeah okay whatever all right let's grab some more mick spencer says hey, thank you for being who you are and always holding fast to your principles. I enjoy seeing you on EFAP way back. What's that? What's EFAP?

Oh, man, it's a show called Every Frame a Painting where they go over, like, movies, and it takes them, like, six hours to do a movie, and I've been on a couple of those, I think. Oh, they just break it down scene by scene? Yeah, frame by frame. Oh, wow. Yeah.

All right. Max Reddick says, Tim, Sam Cedar seems to think you are afraid to debate him claiming that you asked him to come on the show during COVID as his excuse for not coming on. Would you publicly ask him to come on the show? So the issue with Sam is I've known him for a really long time. And I made a tweet where I was like, we typically invite people on the left to come on the show. And then they just never do. They never respond or or they respond once, and they don't get back to us. And then Hassan and Sam both said, I'll totally do it. And so I privately messaged both of them and said, awesome, would be excited to have you, especially Sam, because Sam was the

first guy to ever give me a shout out in media ever. He said like, oh, look at these guys, Occupy Wall Street, fantastic work. And I was like, we'll cover the cost of everything, we'll fly you out. And then Sam basically basically was just like i'm not going on your show and then tweeted accusing me of like you know making it up or something oh it might have been a covid thing because he just went on um david's show he tweeted at me that he was going to come on the show and then privately was like oh i'm not coming out there and then i'm like okay whatever like you said you would you actually set a date and everything i told you the date i told you the time you said yes you agreed and now when i'm setting this up, you're flaking out behind the scenes and then putting me

on the spot. If Sam wanted to, would you host a debate with him on your show? No. And Hasan, yes. Hasan politely messaged me and said, hey, look, man, I know I said I would. I feel kind of... He said something like, I feel pretty bad, but I'm not comfortable flying right now with COVID.

And I was like, totally understand, dude. No problem. Later on, when I asked him again, he's like, bro, I host my own show. And I said, you are totally correct. Like, the idea that I'm going to ask someone who hosts their own show to cancel their show to come on my show, I just totally get it. So if I like, Kyle Kalinske, for instance, has talked about coming on the show before. But I'm like, whenever you can, because I know you do your own show. Like, I'm not, you know, people want to come on the show it's it's it's like doing me a favor but the issue with sam is that i i

believe he is like he's a grifter like you don't think he believes what he says i believe i think i think maybe half of it i think he doesn't know about a lot of issues and he says things just for the sake of shock value he makes a bunch of videos he's like another thing is like all he would do is rag on dave rubin he's like one of those. He makes a bunch of videos. Another thing is all he would do is rag on Dave Rubin. He's one of those guys who makes a bunch of videos just talking about drama and people that I'm really not interested. And then the publicly agreeing to come on the show in good faith, like when I made a good faith offer, and then privately backtracking and then putting it on me and now claiming

I'm scared. The whole thing's a bit. Tim's scared to debate me. No, dude. He's just a lowbrow grifter. Bro, I'll have you on any time you want to come on. Like, here you are, and I think you're substantially more

intelligent and capable of debate than Sam Seder is. I mean, obviously that's true. No, I'm just kidding. I think Sam's a really smart guy. I mean, I can't speak to your private messages, but yeah, I would hope. I don't know. I don't view him as a grifter. I feel like Sam is pretty smart compared to most of the people. i if i was scared of anybody in

the left to debate i think it would generally be i'll tell you i'll tell you one of the personal negative experiences okay but like still when you have on the show was when i tried to explain to him deontological versus utilitarian moral philosophy oh i watched this and he didn't understand it and so my like how do you how do you convey an idea to someone who doesn't understand these concepts? Well, I went for pop culture. And instead, like, it was a bunch of- I remember, because you said the villain is usually the utilitarian guy.

I remember, I watched this clip. I remember a while ago. And so I said, I think we're talking about universal healthcare, and I said it's utilitarian versus deontological morality or ethics, right? Deontological ethics is basically stating that you cannot take an immoral action

against an individual, regardless of the outcome. And utilitarian thinking is an action against an individual which is unethical is justified if it benefits the greater. And Sam was like, I don't know what that means. And I'm like, okay, how do I debate a guy who doesn't understand these concepts? Well, me thinking like I'm here to convey ideas in good faith said, think about Thanos versus like captain america thanos wants to wipe out and then his response was to make a video and all of his fans mocking me for talking about marvel but here's a better one when we released our first song he ran it through an audio filter to make it sound bad and then played it on his show calling it calling it garbage and lying about it i just saw like that the dude is just the lowest of low-tier grifters

did he i feel like I saw them. Bro, he ran my song through an audio filter. Was he on that episode? Because it was the girl and the other guy. I don't know. I don't remember if he was on the show. Sam Seder's show played the song we put out and put it through this weird filter to make it sound like garbage.

Okay. And that song actually did really well. It's the best song we've had so far, charted on Billboard in a bunch of different categories. And then they're just like, oh, it's oh man it sounds like nickelback and i'm like if anything it sounds like emo not nickelback you know i'll point something out it's just all fake grifting sam went on patrick bett david's uh value payment podcast i thought it was very cool i didn't see the whole thing but they talked about medicare they talked about finances and then sam you put up a video on your channel that says it's a picture of you and pat and it says sam cedar

debates rich guy who hates taxes like you didn't even video on your channel that says, it's a picture of you and Pat. And it says, Sam Seder debates rich guy who hates taxes. Like, you didn't even use his name. That's dirty, dude. It's all grifting. It's all fake garbage. Like, he's a huge podcaster. You should make a big deal out of that. He's grifting.

Well. But I love you, Sam. I love to have you on. I don't want to fun at every point. That's part of the YouTube game. People do that. I'm sure if I go through your channel, I'm sure you guys have got like crazy thumbnails and titles and stuff.

Like I think my editor probably puts up crazy thumbnails. Like there are times where I ask him, I was like, why didn't you have this person's name? And he's like, oh, like this, they don't do well on the algorithm. We're like, you can't put that person's name in the title, it'll fuck the video up or whatever. Maybe that's the person of theirs, but yeah.

But actually, Valuetainment Podcast would algorithmically be boosted way more than Rich Dude, which is very generic. Sure, possibly. When you say grifter, what do you mean by that? I'm just curious. In the literal literal sense i believe that his shtick is to say things to convince people to watch as opposed to say things principally which attract an audience okay so like me personally yeah there's a bunch of positions where like my opinion has evolved or changed

notably with like police we had michael mouse on the show and then you know my position changes more towards yeah okay maybe the cops aren't as you know i'm not gonna defend the cops as much as i used to uh for someone like sam like his people whether it was him or otherwise running my song through an audio filter to make it sound bad like that's just weird and dirty and and and there's been other instances like seriously though I don't really care to think about the guy. Okay. But when I publicly said, like, bro, I would love to have you on the show here, I'm thinking, like, I've debated him before. I know there were, like, people got their hoots and hollers out of it.

But it would be great to have him on the show. And then he pulls this stunt. I'm just like, the dude played me and then made it seem like I'm the one who backed out. It was all a grift to rally his audience. Hasan didn't do that. Hasan outright told me, like, I'm not comfortable traveling during COVID. Sorry, bro. And I was like, I appreciate it rally his audience. Hassan didn't do that. Hassan outright told me like, I'm not comfortable traveling during COVID. Sorry, bro. And I was like, I appreciate it, man. And that was the end of it. I saw a tweet from Destiny about a week ago that

says, I'm about to, I forgive everybody from my past, something like that. I'm moving forward. I like it. More of that. All right. All right. Let's read some more super chats. Free men die free says nobody will tolerate a Trump indictment while Bush, Biden, and Obama roam free while being guilty of acts of treason and war crimes. Powder keg is lit. Whether, I'll say this to you, Destiny, whether you agree with them having committed crimes,

the sentiment, I think you would agree, among the people of this country is probably there, right? Yeah, the sentiment is there, but again, I think we have to, it's important to ask from a judicial point of view, like, what is the crime being committed because sometimes we just really don't like somebody we want them to be like arrested you know i agree i think you made a

good point about think about if it was hillary or trump and like switch the positions i think the greater point often i talk about though is the emotional state of this country can't tolerate something like this it doesn't matter if it's true or correct what matters is we know trump supporters are going to outright be like it it's BS, it's unjust, end of story. Maybe, but I feel like there is, I agree with you to some extent, but I think that a country's strength is measured by the veracity of its institutions. And when your judicial institutions start to bend to the whims of whatever is politically

expedient, you might be creating a more scary world than if you have to tolerate some tumultuous short-term period of political unrest. I think that's a really important thing to consider. You're in a really scary area when judges are thinking like, we could indict this guy, but man, it's going to be really rough on Fox News for the next seven days. But that's how it goes.

It's like Chauvin. The Ahmaud Arbery case. You know about the Ahmaud Arbery case, right? I'd imagine you'd be on the right side of that one. Those were the guy that got chased down who was jogging in the neighborhood or whatever? Well, the felony burglary suspect who was fleeing the scene of a crime. It's amazing. Oh, man. We're going to have a way different.

This is the one where like— Well, did you watch the trial? Parts of it, but this is a long time ago. So the prosecution outright stated he was a felony burglary suspect. If you get your news from like corporate press or whatever i'm not familiar with the case do you are you um well then just look into it because i think i think you'd come out on the right i did but they were like there were so many claims like somebody claimed that for instance like he didn't have tennis shoes on he had boots on or whatever but

then i saw pictures of what it was like no these are not boots right that's a lie that's a material so the issue was the police went door to door everybody had known that someone had been committing burglaries. A gun had been stolen from a vehicle. The cops showed the picture of Ahmaud Arbery to a bunch of the neighbors. When Arbery entered a home under construction and was seen, neighbors all called each other. Someone witnessed the guy running down the street, and they were like, hey, that's the guy. The McMichaels got in the truck and chased after him, were told by police not to pursue, but pursued anyway.

They were in front of him. Arbery had a guy behind him who was filming the whole time. Arbery ran around the truck and then grabbed Travis, I think it was Travis Michael's shotgun, and they fought over it. It went off into his chest, killing him. I think we can make a whole bunch of arguments about whether they should have followed or not followed. But the fact that the dude who simply filmed it is spending the rest of his life in prison i think says a lot about the fact that it was it was totally bunk you know what i mean like that guy i wish i could cut fuck i hate myself that i'm not familiar this case i feel like this is one of those people i'm gonna go home and we'll look into it and it's gonna be completely different than how you've said it but i i'm not i just i can't comment because i don't i don't know i'm not i'm not coming out here saying he robbed he

stole a lollipop from a little kid while wearing, you know, construction boots and they came to his jogging. I'm giving you like, so the conviction was due to the fact that under the citizen's arrest law, there was a potential interpretation where the gist of it is, if it's a misdemeanor, you had to have witnessed the crime. But if it's a felony, you're allowed to make a citizen's arrest without being a witness to the crime. The issue was it was an old law that was written in a simplistic way that had like a comma or something. And the jury instructions by the judge was you interpret how you see it. The prosecution argued, regardless of a felony or misdemeanor, you had to be a witness. And the defense argued, no, no, no, there's two different clauses here. If it's a misdemeanor, you need to be a witness. However, it's a felony, you can make an arrest. The jury decided to take the prosecution's interpretation and thus they were convicted. So simply put, the left argues he was trespassing. No, no, no. The prosecution

outright said he was a suspect in a felony burglary, but because they did not witness the felony burglary, they had no justification for a citizen's arrest. When they say he was a witness for a felony burglary, what does that, or that he was a suspect for a felony burglary, what does that mean? It means he had illegally entered a private residence had he yes he's on camera doing it okay yeah and so the left said he's just trespassing he's just no like burglary does not mean theft it means when you illegally enter someone's property and then so then the story that you're telling me is these

three guys were just following two guys two guys the third guy saw him running on the street and started filming on his phone okay completely unrelated to mcmichaels he got charged along with him and is spending the rest of his life in prison that's a crazy i'll look at i'll i'll i'll try to look it up more because i yeah when i because i mean i argue with left-leaning people about rittenhouse they give me crazy interpretations as well but that's that's the case i'm far we were right about rittenhouse um you were right about right now yeah but that's just a case i'm more familiar with but um i think i think if you if you look into the arbery case you're going to be like oh wow yeah like the when the arbery case what did what did he enter there was

a house under construction he's on camera going into the property and like he looks around and then he leaves that's felony burglary now i'm not i'm not here to argue semantics or morality i'm saying that's literally under the law felony burglary which Now, I'm not here to argue semantics or morality. I'm saying that's literally under the law felony burglary, which the McMichaels use as justification. So there had been a string of literal burglaries. Like, okay, let me slow down. Sure. There had been a string of colloquially defined burglaries where someone entered property and took items. The circumstance in question that he was a suspect on was he was caught on camera entering private property,

looking around and then leaving. That makes him, you know, if that is proof that he committed the crime, that is felony burglary. We've actually dealt with this. So people need to understand this. If you have property with no fence, no barrier, people are allowed to walk on your property and do whatever they want. All you can do is ask them to leave. If you put up a sign saying no trespassing and they walk onto your property, they're now guilty of a slap on the wrist trespassing charge because they've been given a warning. If you take a piece of thread, a tiny piece of thread and wrap it around your property and someone goes underneath it, they've now committed felony burglary because they have bypassed a physical barrier regardless

of what that barrier is. So when he entered the the house he had committed a felony now he wasn't convicted of it i don't know the point was there were a string of burglaries and the police were asking people have you seen this man so when they saw him running into the street they were like that's the guy the cops told us about chased after him called the police the police said do not pursue okay so when you say this okay jesus christ it's been so long and i didn't cover this one closely. So when you say the cops told him that, right? So I'm looking at an article from The Independent. The white father and son accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery were told by police that he wasn't a burglar days before they chased the black 25-year-old and shot him dead in the street, according to prosecutors. So were the prosecutors lying there or did the police specifically say that this guy was not a burglar?

I need to know where that article is from because if i'm talking about facts after the case um these are opening statements relating to uh begin friday morning on the trial of the three white men accused of murdering black 25 year old ahmed arbery the police went to them and said we're looking for this man he is a felony burglary suspect the issue apparently the prosecutors also shared statements from the suspects where they admitted that they did not believe that he'd even stolen anything apparently gregory michael burglary though that's that's the important distinction burglary is illegally entering a premises yeah but were they chasing but that but they they were chasing him because they thought that he had carried out other burglaries exactly yeah right but but apparently

he wasn't he wasn't just jogging right this is not look yeah but i'm saying like was the citizen's arrest was a citizen's arrest because he walked into a property because they thought he was stealing shit a gun had gone property because they thought he was stealing shit? A gun had gone missing, and they thought he was the guy who did it. Yeah. There was a string of thefts. But then when Gregory McMichael is here telling investigators, I don't think the guy's actually stolen anything out of there for statements relating to seeing him. That was a video where he enters a building and then leaves.

They believe that that was evidence that he had been the person who had actually been stealing things. A few weeks prior to the incident, a gun had been stolen from a vehicle. That's the most pronounced part of the story. Gotcha. So regardless of- Also, this is saying Travis Michael shot Mr. Arbery three times with a shotgun. That sounds like it went off more than once. You should watch the video.

Okay. In the video- When they were fighting over it? It's off camera. So here's the issue. Okay. If two people are holding a gun, they're both in possession of the gun. Sure. So it's not as simple to say in a news story that a gun, they're both in possession of the gun. Sure.

So it's not as simple to say in a news story that he shot him three times. That's a prosecution. Yeah, but two people holding a shotgun. And fighting over it, and then it goes off. Three times? Probably a shotgun. He was still holding it, and then he fired it two more times. Okay, a shotgun.

You fired a shotgun before, right? Oh, yeah. Well, two people holding, even with buckshot, if you pull a trigger with two people, that shotgun's going to go flying. So it's really weird. If you watch the video, you can see both of their hands are on it and they're shaking it back and forth. They had tight grips.

Maybe. I'll look it up. I'll look it up. But also, taking into consideration the statements of the defense and the prosecution are going to favor their view of the story. Of course. And the ultimate conclusion was based on the fact that they were performing a citizen's arrest, but because they had not witnessed a felony in progress, they had no right to perform a citizen's arrest thus.

And because the cops told them explicitly to back off. Exactly. And that he wasn't a burglary suspect. He was. But the cops. Apparently, the prosecutor said that the cops had made the statement to these people days earlier that he explicitly was not a burglary suspect. Do we have the video to watch? The video the shooting shotgun yeah i'm curious oh i mean i'll try and pull it up but i gotta be honest we recently tried pulling it up it's really hard to

find but let's let's read some more yeah i don't want to but anyway my point is just this not that it's like the clearest cut case of self-defense like with kyle rittenhouse sure but it's that this guy's not a jogger it's not so simple say like three guys lynched this dude or whatever that was wait was he not a jogger do we not think like come on bro like you think a guy drove 26 miles from his house to jog through a random suburban neighborhood um i don't even know if that's how this reminds me of like when people like did written house go to a whole other state to defend his property the dude didn't live there yeah sure but i don't know where he i don't know where he lives maybe maybe he lives in an apartment complex he drives for us a joke i don't know i truly don't know i don't know yeah we'll read some more super chats

and then we'll we'll we'll talk more you know members only i don't want to uh what a guy would a guy drive 26 miles to walk into a construction site and walk away i'm not sure like that's what he apparently did well but well purportedly he was jogging right so they say he was jogging but there's video you can watch of him entering this property and and then the left was like well he was just looking around you know it's like come on he's jogging that decides to go look around in someone's private property it's just weird it's if it's an under construction site i don't know no dude seriously you're telling me that a shotgun went off three times and a guy's chest while he's fighting over it that's a seriously question right watch the video i don't know i

would want to see the video but do your super just go sorry but no but like the idea that someone went jogging that decides to in the middle of the night jog in the middle of the night and then go into someone's house it just doesn't seem to make sense construction site but yeah but but like it's not like a barren frame it's a house it's a fully constructed house and there's like materials inside they're doing the interior but whatever okay all right let's see what we got here um mike cassinelli with big old super chat it just says celebrate the first super. Well, thank you very much. They started doing that thing where it's like, whenever you Super Chat for the first time,

you get an award or something on YouTube. Oh, yeah, on the little YouTube chat. Nice. Do you guys have memberships for your YouTube yet? We had members-only chat, but we switched to just running a Discord because it's better. And then let people do the free chat. I mean, you can pay for memberships on YouTube

to get little icons next to your name if you guys have them. Yeah, we do. We do have that. They have little beanies. Oh, cute. Yeah. And you get Bocas and Roberto Jr. emojis. Gotcha.

All right. Let's see. Let's grab some good ones while we're here. Iggy the Incubus says, seeing as Pandora's box is open, can we indict Bush for lying to America to justify Iraq's invasion? What about Obama for Abdul Amar al-Awlaki?

Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki. I mean, how about we just go for Bush and the Iraqaq invasion and all that stuff should he be arrested for that i mean break a law i mean is it illegal for the president to lie to citizens i don't know is that a law i'm not sure if that's a law man protected it should be like declaring war all right let's uh let's grab some super chats i'm trying i'm trying to i'm trying to find a good one you know so uh bear with me guys raymond g stanley jr says tim libby listened to you in an article about biden saying trans people shape our nation's soul no affirming care only only child sex change and medical mutilation nice correct words oh hi destiny i know i'm always yelling

at the post-millennial it's funny and they like they listen to the show and libby's always hanging out so it's like they know like i they know i know that they're they're gonna listen but they wrote an article where they said something like assault rifle and i was like it's not an assault rifle so they fixed it and then they called something gender affirming care and i'm like just call it a child sex change all right what do we got just a lot of people who don't like destiny based yeah yeah uh let's see we got noob actual says hey tim i appreciate your insight on the show you give i'd love to see you guys reach out to lucas botkin he has very radical really traditional 2a views top-notch american very interesting all right yo uh yomenai gaming says this is infuriating destiny is outright wrong about

trump he never threatened to withhold aid biden did that on camera look up the trump call wow is that true today's the first i've ever heard that trump was threatened to withhold aid also pretty sure that's what he got impeached for that was that was the news narrative but to be, we should probably just pull up the actual transcript of the call and then be right as to whether it was or wasn't. All right. Let's see. Here's another one that says Destiny's a liar. Yes. All right.

John Casey says, does anyone believe that Trump can receive a fair trial in New York, let alone in New York City? They want to take this farce to court fine, but they should have to change it to a neutral venue as possible. To as neutral a venue as possible. What does that mean? It shouldn't be tried in New York City. Yeah, but I mean like,

what would be a neutral venue for Donald J. Trump? Northern, if you go north of New Yorkork city literally 45 minutes you actually get a 50 50 zone sure you get a jurisdiction with a court that's i'm just saying that like i'm imagining like interviewing jurors like do you have a strong opinion on donald trump like it feels like everybody's going to be incredibly well no but there's a there's like if you go 45 minutes north of new york like not even 40 of manhattan if you go just north of like the bronx

it's 50 50 republican democrat so if they asked people you'd get people like i voted for him sure oh yeah no but i mean like like typically a jury's supposed to run by it's not supposed to be six in favor of six against him it's supposed to be right right yeah it's just gonna be heated yeah there's no way to get a jury who's gonna be like i don't know who this man is yeah i don't have strong opinions on yeah do you know who this man is? I do. He was the president. Do you like him? Oh, boy. That's going to be scary, too, because there's gonna be people who are going to look around

and they're going to be thinking they do like him, but they're not going to say it publicly. William Jones says, Tim, you need to get update on your two way rights. You can use weed and have guns. Courts gave it the OK about a month ago. I don't think that's on the the forms right now. I don't think it's on the uh the forms right now i don't think it's on the forms all right el rojo grande says obama was sued by the aclu for that strike and lost the courts have already decided it wasn't lawful which can only mean it was a crime just never

charged wait what is that if they sued him for that and lost how did they decide it was unlawful uh yeah it depends was it it was like a wrongful death suit like it depends on what the lawsuit was but you know like wasn't oj he he won the criminal case but lost the civil case sure and then he wrote a book called if i did it and then the family won the rights to the book and then made the if really really small it just says i did it you know that was funny all right david morton says i disagree with destiny on almost everything but he has my respect for standing up to the online jihadis russell miller says tim and destiny true centrists i can agree and disagree with

both of you on different topics but i recognize legitimacy of your stances white pill episode what is that supposed to mean i think it means that like i'm half cuban i don't appreciate that well like people think you're being honest about your views you're not trying to be wrong white pilled white white pilled it just means optimism okay yeah i'll let him slide for now white pill means you you give them hope for the future okay yeah it's a good thing dye your hair blue it's a good thing dye your hair blue yeah a lot of a lot of blue hair comments yeah what broke what made you decide to dye it blue charity oh interesting but now i like it because it triggers the ever-living hell out of people

i'm like the blue-haired guy cuck that everybody hates so well there you go all right here's what we're going to do if you haven't already would you kindly uh oh here we go uh ant 345 says when i worked on a house under construction someone someone robbed about $3,000 in tools and materials. That happens a lot. That happens a lot. All right. If you haven't already, would you... Oh, wait.

Hold on. I got to read one more. SpidgeB says, Sam Cedar is obsessed with Tim. Half of his thumbnails have Tim Pool in the headline. If you're going to go low, go get Ethan Klein. He'll bring Cedar like he did to Crowder.

Two for one. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. All right. Smash the like button. Subscribe to the channel. Become a member at TimCast.com. Go to TimCast.com. Click join us. Sign up. Join the Discord server. Chat with all the people as the show's going on and your chat appears on screen. And if you're in the VIB chat, meaning you've been a member for at least six months or you sign up at the $25 tier, you can submit questions and maybe even get selected to call into the show and ask questions, which we will be taking tonight. So that members-only show will be up in about 10 minutes. Don't miss it.

It'll be live on the front page of timcast.com. You can follow the show at timcast IRL everywhere. You can follow me personally at timcast. Destiny, do you want to shout anything out? YouTube.com slash destiny, Instagram.com slash destiny, and twitter.com slash the omniliberal. And also for the show that Tim is doing and me,

I don't think we'll be on the same one, but festival.minds.com. If you want to buy tickets to the event going on at Austin, buy the guys that are working at minds.com. I actually, I checked that URL and it didn't take me to a ticket page. So it might be tickets.vulcanpresents.com at the moment. They may end up changing that and doing both. Oh, true. Yeah, Sean, good one. If you're listening to me,

you gave me the wrong link, so suffer. So you can go to tickets.vulcanpresents.com, and that's where you can get the tickets. April 15th, MindsFest. Damn. Sean? If you want to see Stephen debate Milo, it's going to be happening on April 11th,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, uncensoredamerica.us for tickets for that. And more upcoming events. We're coming back to Penn State after Girl's Spin on Alex Stein. So we'll see what happens next time. People follow you on Twitter? Oh, what's that? That's going to be interesting because between the two of you, I don't know how anyone's going to talk.

Between me and Milo? We're going to moderate it. Yeah. It's going to be a little physical gesticulation. Yeah. Show your feelings. Is he straight now or? He's ambiguous to moderate it. Yeah. It's going to be a little physical gesticulation. Yeah. Show your feelings. Is he straight now or? He's ambiguous.

Well, no. So here's the thing. The media lied about it. He says ex-gay. He says, Milo explained that he is still attracted to men, but he abstains. He's less of a degenerate now. He's kind of given up the degeneracy lifestyle. And so for that, if he's not having sex with men at the moment, it doesn't necessarily

mean he's straight or gay. He's just celibate. He prefers reformed sodomite. Yeah. He's not straight. What if he's not having sex with men at the moment, it doesn't necessarily mean he's straight or gay. He's just celibate. He prefers reformed sodomite. Yeah. He's not straight. What if he had sex with women? But he, so his point was that when he came out and said this, he's still attracted to men, but he's choosing to abstain from sex altogether. Oh, altogether.

The media came out and said he's claiming he's straight now, and he never said that. Are you really gay if you abstain completely? I don't know. I wonder what makes you gay, the act of sex or wanting it. All wanting all right all right let's get to the members only section follow me on the internet anywhere we also have search dupreya yeah search.com let's get to the members only all right everybody we will see you all over at timcast.com in about seven or so minutes thanks for hanging out you