Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation | Timcast IRL

00:02:02.000 The Republican Party has released their investigation into the Auto Penn scandal, and they are formally requesting the DOJ void or at least investigate.

00:02:11.000 They're declaring void, and they're asking for the DOJ to invalidate pardons and executive orders from Joe Biden.

00:02:16.000 Pam Bondi has tweeted, actually, they're already investigating it, and this information is great for them.

00:02:23.000 So we'll see if this actually manifests in anything because the response from many Republicans is, call me when you've actually indicted someone.

00:02:31.000 I think it's fair to say that Letitia James and others are currently facing indictment.

00:02:37.000 So call me.

00:02:38.000 I mean, it is happening, but I think a lot of people want to see a lot more action.

00:02:41.000 And then, of course, my friends, Snap Occalypse.

00:02:41.000 So we'll talk about that.

00:02:44.000 That's right.

00:02:45.000 Food benefits set to expire in just three more days.

00:02:49.000 And there's fears of food riots and what might happen.

00:02:52.000 Now, states have filed suit against the federal government saying you need to release or disagree with Snap benefits.

00:02:58.000 But this makes literally no sense because who are you suing?

00:03:00.000 If the political system doesn't allocate funding for Snap, you can't sue the executive branch into doing anything if they don't have the power to do it.

00:03:08.000 So it'll be strange.

00:03:09.000 Now, the Trump administration says they will not pull emergency funds as videos go viral of people threatening to loot supermarkets and steal your groceries.

00:03:19.000 So it's going to get interesting.

00:03:20.000 Now we'll talk about that.

00:03:21.000 But before we do, we got some great sponsors for you, my friends.

00:03:25.000 We've got Beam Dream.

00:03:27.000 Everybody knows I love Beam Dream.

00:03:29.000 It is a nighttime blend to support you as you are preparing to go to sleep.

00:03:32.000 I drink this every single night.

00:03:35.000 No joke.

00:03:37.000 It's absolutely incredible.

00:03:38.000 It's got magnesium, al-theanine, it's got melatonin, and no grogginess, zero sugar, only 15 calories, and they got a ton of amazing flavors.

00:03:47.000 I need to try the peanut butter one.

00:03:49.000 I love the pumpkin spice and the caramel.

00:03:51.000 I recently bought the pumpkin spice.

00:03:53.000 My sleep score improved.

00:03:54.000 I was in the mid to high 80s consistently, and I started drinking a glass of this before bed every night.

00:04:01.000 And I think it's a combination of things that's improved my sleep.

00:04:03.000 It's one hydration, but I think the magnesium is really what I needed.

00:04:07.000 And my sleep score is now in the mid to high 90s almost every single night.

00:04:10.000 I'm a big fan.

00:04:11.000 Go to shopbeam.com slash Timcast and pick up your Beam Dream today.

00:04:18.000 And shout out to Beam Dream for sponsoring the show.

00:04:20.000 Also, don't forget to go to castbrew.com and pick up some delicious cast brew coffee.

00:04:25.000 Pool water coming soon.

00:04:26.000 We're working on it.

00:04:27.000 We, of course, have Mary's Ghost Blend S'mores, castbrew.com, and everyone's favorite Appalachian Nights, my favorite coffee ever.

00:04:35.000 Easy for me to say because I'm the one who personally blended this.

00:04:38.000 No joke.

00:04:39.000 I grew up around coffee.

00:04:41.000 My family in a coffee shop very briefly.

00:04:43.000 We ordered a bunch of samples of various coffees that I knew I liked.

00:04:47.000 We blended them in the right proportions, and this is what came out, and it's my favorite.

00:04:50.000 But don't forget there's also low acidity in Graphene Dream.

00:04:54.000 But don't forget to also smash that like button.

00:04:54.000 Check it out.

00:04:57.000 Share the show with everyone you know.

00:04:58.000 Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.

00:05:00.000 We have Dave Ehrenberg.

00:05:02.000 Great to be here, Tim.

00:05:02.000 I'm Dave Aaronberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka Florida lawman.

00:05:08.000 I do legal analysis, and it's my first time here.

00:05:11.000 Thanks for having me.

00:05:12.000 Absolutely.

00:05:12.000 It should be great, especially considering this to hear your insights.

00:05:14.000 So it will be fun.

00:05:15.000 Tate is hanging out.

00:05:16.000 What is up, guys?

00:05:17.000 Tate Brown here holding it down.

00:05:19.000 I am happy to be here.

00:05:19.000 It's going to be a fun show.

00:05:22.000 I'm Seamus Coglin.

00:05:23.000 I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes.

00:05:24.000 I've made over 600 animated videos and gotten millions of views with $0 spent on marketing.

00:05:29.000 The left owns entertainment media in this country, which is why myself and my team are pushing back.

00:05:34.000 We're currently working on a full-length animated show.

00:05:38.000 We've already got the 25-minute-long pilot made.

00:05:41.000 We're crowdfunding it.

00:05:42.000 We're three weeks in and we've got three weeks left.

00:05:44.000 We're over 50% funded, but I need you to help us get funded.

00:05:49.000 If you want to help us create the future of entertainment, if you want entertainment media made by people who don't hate your values and are going to promote a positive message through good storytelling and jokes, go over to twistedplots.com, support us.

00:06:01.000 You'll get access to the pilot and you'll be helping us build the future of entertainment.

00:06:04.000 That's twistedplots.com.

00:06:06.000 Right on.

00:06:07.000 Well, let's get to the news.

00:06:08.000 We got the story from Fox Baltimore.

00:06:10.000 I don't know why I chose Baltimore as the source, but interesting nonetheless.

00:06:13.000 GOP asks DOJ to invalidate some pardons and executive orders signed with Biden Autopen.

00:06:19.000 The pardon of Hunter Biden by his father, former President Joe Biden, has appeared to get under Trump's skins that happened.

00:06:24.000 But that pardon is just one of hundreds at the center of an investigation by the GOP Led House Oversight Committee, which argues in a brand new report that President Biden's so-called cognitive decline, combined with his use of AutoPen, warrants a second look by the DOJ, echoing sentiments from Trump.

00:06:39.000 During a July 14th speech to military generals at Quantico, Virginia, President Trump said, quote, the auto pen is maybe one of the greatest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years.

00:06:47.000 Trump even released a presidential portrait of his predecessor depicting an auto pen instead of Biden's face.

00:06:54.000 They just released a report entitled, The Biden Autopen Presidency Declined, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.

00:07:00.000 In addition, the committee has made public more than a dozen interviews with top Biden officials, as well as former White House physician Kevin O'Connor.

00:07:06.000 In one video, Connor is asked, quote, were you ever told to lie about the president's health?

00:07:11.000 In response, O'Connor pleads the fifth.

00:07:13.000 On the advice of counsel, I must respectfully, respectfully decline to answer.

00:07:18.000 At the center of the investigation are questions about who was actually making key policy decisions, including executive orders and pardons.

00:07:24.000 Republican lawmakers assert in one report, as President Biden declined, his staff abused the AutoPen and a lax chain of command policy to affect executive actions that lack any documentation of whether they were in fact authorized.

00:07:36.000 Now, we have this post from Attorney General Pam Bondi.

00:07:39.000 She says, my team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's reported use of the auto pen for pardons.

00:07:45.000 James Comer's new information is extremely helpful, and his leadership on this issue is invaluable.

00:07:50.000 We'll continue working with GOP Oversight to deliver accountability for the American people.

00:07:55.000 Suffice it to say, this is unprecedented, right?

00:07:59.000 Totally unprecedented.

00:08:00.000 Now, there's a problem here, though.

00:08:02.000 First off, we don't know if he used the auto pen when he did the pardons.

00:08:05.000 And secondly, if he did, there's no requirement that I know of that you have to sign a pardon.

00:08:10.000 And also, you have this part of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, which gives the president broad clemency powers.

00:08:19.000 So when the pardon goes into effect, it only needs to be accepted by the subject.

00:08:24.000 Since the pardons were accepted by the subject, there is no mechanism to reverse them.

00:08:28.000 So I know this gets a lot of people hot and bothered, and I respect the investigation, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere.

00:08:36.000 Interesting.

00:08:36.000 Well, I mean, listen, he has the legal perspective here.

00:08:39.000 So I'm not an expert in law.

00:08:41.000 I know that.

00:08:42.000 Listen, as just cartoons.

00:08:44.000 Yeah, just cartoons.

00:08:45.000 But in my expertise as a cartoonist, I just feel that there's at the very least, even if not a legal issue, though, again, I don't know the law well enough to argue with you about that.

00:08:53.000 It seems like at the very least, a moral gray area.

00:08:56.000 Now, that the president could, you know, that we could have all of these pardons signed, even though the president wasn't actually necessarily consenting to them.

00:09:03.000 We have no paperwork documenting that he was, and this was done again by the AutoPen.

00:09:06.000 That is, you know, I respect what you're saying, Chambers, about not having the expertise, the legal knowledge.

00:09:11.000 Now, I also lack the legal knowledge to argue through, but I certainly have a ton of arrogance.

00:09:16.000 So I would argue, I'm half kidding.

00:09:19.000 No, I guess the question is, what the GOP is basically asserting is that Biden actually didn't authorize this.

00:09:25.000 The problem, I suppose, is that is a nebulous argument.

00:09:28.000 I mean, Biden says he did.

00:09:30.000 And so if they're arguing that he was in cognitive decline, I mean, that may be true, but someone in cognitive decline can still tell someone to do something.

00:09:40.000 It seems to me that the only thing that's going to matter in this is the willingness to use power in a way to benefit your side.

00:09:49.000 I mean, you make a good point.

00:09:50.000 You don't need to be a lawyer to have the common sense to know that where's this going to go, right?

00:09:54.000 I mean, how are you proving that this was a farce?

00:09:58.000 Like, are you going to ask President Biden?

00:10:00.000 Well, he said he was fine.

00:10:02.000 You brought up the fifth, the guy taking the fifth.

00:10:04.000 That doesn't tell you anything except makes him look bad.

00:10:08.000 It makes the administration look bad as well, Biden administration.

00:10:11.000 But where does it go?

00:10:12.000 How do you prove that someone did something illegal or unethical?

00:10:15.000 There's no way to do it.

00:10:16.000 This is the smoke that President Trump wants.

00:10:18.000 He wants us to be talking about it.

00:10:20.000 It makes him look better.

00:10:21.000 It makes Biden look bad.

00:10:22.000 And it keeps us from talking about other things he doesn't want us to mention.

00:10:26.000 Well, I mean, but in theory, couldn't you actually prove that there was some wrongdoing if an investigation got a warrant to search the text messages or communications between any of the people who might have done that?

00:10:36.000 I mean, couldn't it potentially uncover that they stated an intention to do something even though the president never consented?

00:10:41.000 You would have to get a smoking gun.

00:10:42.000 You would have to get something that said, Biden knows nothing about this.

00:10:46.000 I am signing this pardon myself.

00:10:50.000 But don't we actually, we don't have a smoking gun, but I think we certainly have probable cause.

00:10:53.000 Wasn't there a statement from Zeins that we covered this a while ago where he said something like he responded 15 minutes after someone made a statement saying use the auto pen and do it?

00:11:02.000 There was some story like six months ago where this was like the predicate for the investigation that the argument was Joe Biden could not have responded quickly enough and Zeince couldn't have sent the request fast enough before he instructed staffers to use the auto pen to issue some kind of order or pardon.

00:11:17.000 Let me see if I can find this.

00:11:20.000 And while you're looking for that, part of the problem is that President Biden validated all of it.

00:11:24.000 They asked him afterwards and he said, yeah, I did all this.

00:11:27.000 So how would you now show that he wasn't aware of it?

00:11:30.000 Well, let me ask you a question then.

00:11:31.000 If what Tim's saying is correct, or let's create a completely hypothetical scenario.

00:11:35.000 Like they either find this smoking gun, or maybe if it's not somebody who was dumb enough to explicitly write their crime and text and send it to somebody, you had a circumstance where it literally wouldn't be possible for the person to have communicated with the former president quickly enough to get the approval.

00:11:52.000 Let's say you have that smoking gun and you are able to prove that this person acted without the president's consent, but the president later says, I'm fine with the fact that it happened.

00:12:02.000 Where are we at there legally?

00:12:03.000 I think it's over.

00:12:04.000 If he validates it, even after the fact, then it's a done deal.

00:12:08.000 You'd have to show that he was totally in the dark.

00:12:11.000 It went against his will, and that he hasn't endorsed it, validated it afterwards.

00:12:16.000 So he can retroactively validate it, even if at the time he hadn't?

00:12:20.000 He could say, I supported that.

00:12:22.000 And he has.

00:12:22.000 That's all he has to say.

00:12:23.000 But I guess my question is if they were able to prove that he couldn't have gotten the communication in time.

00:12:29.000 It's really impossible because you'd have to show that I didn't know about it at the time.

00:12:33.000 I don't approve of it.

00:12:35.000 Maybe that would get you somewhere.

00:12:37.000 But if he said, no, I did.

00:12:40.000 That's all you need.

00:12:41.000 And he has said that.

00:12:42.000 He said, yes, I did this.

00:12:43.000 I approved it.

00:12:44.000 That's all you need.

00:12:45.000 Let's see.

00:12:45.000 There's a couple of things.

00:12:46.000 It would be very, very difficult to find any kind of smoking gun on this.

00:12:49.000 Yeah, you'd have to prove that writing, and then you have to show that he still says that, no, I didn't know anything about it.

00:12:54.000 What?

00:12:55.000 What's going on here?

00:12:56.000 So the core issue is White House.

00:12:57.000 He has said that before about a few things.

00:12:59.000 What are you doing here, man?

00:13:00.000 Jeff Zeins authorized the auto pens used for documents, particularly on the night of January 19th, 2025, less than 14 hours before Biden left office.

00:13:07.000 Emails show a late evening process after a meeting with aides ending around 10 p.m.

00:13:11.000 An aide summarized Biden's decision and sought approvals.

00:13:14.000 Zeins replied at approximately 10:31, stating, I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all of the following pardons, sometimes via his aide, Rosa Poe, who had access to his email and acted with his verbal permission.

00:13:26.000 I think the ultimate question is: right, is it legal for the Biden to say after the fact, yeah, it was fine?

00:13:35.000 Does that make it an executive action?

00:13:37.000 Yeah.

00:13:40.000 It is not improper for him to approve of something after the fact.

00:13:43.000 If the chief of staff says, we're going to do this, and then are you okay with that, boss?

00:13:48.000 Yeah, I'm fine with it.

00:13:50.000 So let me ask you another question.

00:13:51.000 If someone said, hey, go use the auto pen and pardon all these people.

00:13:55.000 And then a day later said, hey, boss, by the way, I told them to go do this.

00:13:58.000 Yeah, that was fine.

00:13:59.000 Is it the same thing?

00:14:00.000 I would think it'd be okay.

00:14:02.000 Like as far as overturning it, because there's no real process for overturning a pardon.

00:14:05.000 It's so broad in the Constitution.

00:14:07.000 Plus, there's no requirement you need to sign anything for a pardon.

00:14:10.000 The person just has to accept a pardon and it's done.

00:14:13.000 That's why I think this is much to do about nothing.

00:14:15.000 You may be right that he wasn't all there at the end of his presidency, but as far as undoing pardons, no, that's not going to happen.

00:14:22.000 I think the bigger question is just who has the willpower to enact their willpower.

00:14:26.000 Who has the willpower to enact their willpower?

00:14:28.000 Yeah, it's a question of, like, as we've seen over the past several years, the way the political game is being played is you can assert things without a factor basis.

00:14:41.000 And as long as you're willing to tell men with guns to do it, it'll get done.

00:14:45.000 So this, looking back at basically everything we've seen over the past eight years with the Russiagate scandal, with the arrest of Trump's lawyers, things that are unprecedented happen if people in power want them to.

00:14:58.000 So we can make the argument that arresting Jenna Ellis and charging under RICO is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and downright insane.

00:15:06.000 They did it anyway.

00:15:07.000 We could argue that charging Donald Trump with 34 felonies without any underlying crime proven by the government is unprecedented and insane.

00:15:15.000 But so long as people with power say, look, we're going to do what we want, the question then falls to here, can you make an argument justifying your actions to enough people to get it done?

00:15:24.000 And I honestly think you don't even need the argument at this point.

00:15:27.000 I think we're so far past that.

00:15:28.000 Republicans are going to say, hey, team, we're doing it.

00:15:32.000 And they're going to say, lock them up.

00:15:33.000 The Democrats already did the exact same thing and tried to lock people up and did lock people up.

00:15:38.000 So the Republicans are going to respond in kind.

00:15:40.000 That's why this looks like to me, the GOP Oversight Committee, I agree with you on the functionality of Biden said he did it.

00:15:47.000 You know what I mean?

00:15:48.000 What are you proving that his brain didn't work?

00:15:49.000 Well, you know, maybe, but what's the argument?

00:15:52.000 The ultimate argument is going to be, we've now decided and we will ask the courts to assert that is not acceptable.

00:15:59.000 And then they'll use that to go after Fauci, Schiff, or whoever else had received pardons for the unprecedented amount of time covering a wide array of unknown crimes.

00:16:08.000 Well, also, it's a little bit unprecedented as far as legal territory goes.

00:16:11.000 Again, my understanding is a non-lawyer to have somebody in office who's so clearly steeped in cognitive decline.

00:16:17.000 This is something people talked about this a little bit with Reagan, where they said former staffers came forward after his administration and said that he seemed to be losing it a little bit.

00:16:24.000 But with Joe Biden, not only was it so far advanced that people were able to tell when he was president, I mean, while he was still running, during the primaries, people were talking about this, the fact that the man was clearly in some stage of except the media.

00:16:37.000 So except for the media.

00:16:39.000 But the media did what we knew what they would do, which is they said he's not in cognitive decline.

00:16:44.000 And then as soon as he left office, they started publishing their books and doing their op-eds.

00:16:48.000 And yeah, oh, he actually was in cognitive decline.

00:16:51.000 And here's the esoteric knowledge I had being in the administration the whole time.

00:16:54.000 Well, there's another argument, too, and it was that, was it Jack Smith, I think, who made the statement?

00:16:59.000 Was it Jack Smith who said it wasn't going to prosecute?

00:17:02.000 It wasn't Jack Smith.

00:17:03.000 Who was it? 0.93

00:17:04.000 The reason they wouldn't prosecute Joe Biden is because he's a forgetful old man.

00:17:07.000 It was, was it Robert Hurr?

00:17:09.000 Robert Hurr.

00:17:10.000 Right, right.

00:17:10.000 Sorry, sorry.

00:17:10.000 Yeah, Jack Smith was in the Trump case.

00:17:12.000 And many people pointed this out that it was hypocrisy within the DOJ.

00:17:18.000 But how do you simultaneously say this man is effectively in decline and incapable of standing trial while at the same time saying he's certainly capable of being president?

00:17:30.000 I understand the functional argument of, hey, look, the Constitution doesn't say if you're brain damaged in a coma or anything like that, you're not president anymore.

00:17:39.000 I think the play Trump is going to make is the courts should rule that it is.

00:17:44.000 Right, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

00:17:46.000 I mean, are you expecting when you say the courts should rule?

00:17:48.000 So who challenges it?

00:17:50.000 Is it Comer who has standing to challenge someone's pardon, a president's pardon?

00:17:54.000 No, it would be when the DOJ brings criminal charges against Anthony Fauci.

00:17:58.000 For example.

00:17:58.000 Oh, yeah, but I mean, okay, well, if they bring criminal charges against someone who's been pardoned, that's going to be a quick decision.

00:18:04.000 The pardon power is so broad, so absolute, that it's not, I just think that'd be a waste of time.

00:18:10.000 I don't think the DOJ does that.

00:18:11.000 And they certainly won't bring criminal charges against President Biden for doing that because the Supreme Court has given pretty much blanket immunity to the president for any official action.

00:18:20.000 So that's why I think like a lot of this stuff's just spinning our wheels.

00:18:24.000 And it's fair to talk about cognitive decline.

00:18:26.000 I mean, Democrats would talk about that after the fact.

00:18:29.000 It's fair to talk about Robert Hurr because Robert Hurr did come out and say that.

00:18:32.000 And it's a fair comment to say, well, how does he say that here?

00:18:35.000 And how does it not apply there?

00:18:37.000 But when Robert Hurst said that, he did that as a reason why they were not going to prosecute Joe Biden.

00:18:43.000 They said that if he went on the stand, no jury would convict him because of that mental decline.

00:18:49.000 You have to show intent.

00:18:50.000 And he didn't have the intent to withhold those documents from the government.

00:18:54.000 So let me ask you about, you're familiar with the 34 felony accounts for Trump in the case.

00:18:59.000 Yes, sir.

00:19:00.000 There was no proven secondary, or I should say primary crime.

00:19:04.000 So they effectively have an aggravating crime of some sort.

00:19:07.000 They have falsification of business records and furtherance of a crime, but the government never proved another crime.

00:19:12.000 So this violates due process.

00:19:15.000 Well, they didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

00:19:18.000 You just have to show that it led to another crime, which was the initial one was the falsification of business records.

00:19:25.000 And the other crime, they gave like three options.

00:19:28.000 And said, we don't need to prove it.

00:19:29.000 That's right.

00:19:30.000 Well, that's unprecedented.

00:19:30.000 That's right.

00:19:31.000 I mean, the government has to prove a crime against someone if they're going to accuse them of it, right?

00:19:35.000 It didn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they had to at least show the theory, and they did show the theory.

00:19:43.000 And then the jury, the judge allowed it, and the jury found unanimously that he had.

00:19:47.000 I mean, but is there in U.S. history a time where the government said, we're going to presume another crime did happen without proving it to then criminally charge someone with a crime that requires it?

00:19:57.000 I don't know about in history, I don't know all that, but I think it's a big ask, right? 0.99

00:20:02.000 That's a big ass. 1.00

00:20:03.000 I have to be a historian for that rather than a legal guy. 0.99

00:20:05.000 My understanding is most analyses of this has been for the first time in U.S. history, a crime which requires a proven underlying crime did not have one.

00:20:16.000 And so obviously the falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, which was beyond its statute of limitations.

00:20:23.000 However, they upgraded to a felony arguing that there was falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.

00:20:30.000 The implication being that's an add-on charge when you have an underlying crime.

00:20:35.000 Like a mafioso is going to murder somebody and then falsifies records after the fact.

00:20:39.000 They say we're adding this onto that charge of that crime you did.

00:20:42.000 You have felonies that couldn't have happened unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the first crime actually happened.

00:20:50.000 So that's my point with all of this is what may or may not be or what we want to happen or what usually happens clearly is out the window.

00:21:01.000 Right.

00:21:02.000 The intent to defraud here only required that there's an intent to commit another crime or to conceal another crime, right?

00:21:08.000 So the issue is the government has to prove in all instances if they're accusing you of a crime.

00:21:12.000 Right.

00:21:13.000 You don't have to prove the commission of another crime, just that it was intended.

00:21:17.000 And that's the difference.

00:21:18.000 So they had to show that why did you conceal those documents, the business records?

00:21:24.000 And the reason is to hide campaign finance violations or whatever they decided.

00:21:29.000 They're going to have to prove that crime.

00:21:32.000 You know, my view is largely if our justice system says we can create crimes and charge you with them, that your penalty is upgraded because we implied without proof another crime happened, then our justice system is gone.

00:21:48.000 This is unprecedented.

00:21:50.000 The idea that the state is going to say, look, we're going to charge you with felonies.

00:21:55.000 We can't unless we prove another crime, but we don't have to prove the other crime.

00:21:57.000 It just, it's an absurdity.

00:21:59.000 Well, again, it's only the intent that you tried to conceal something else, like a campaign finance violation.

00:22:05.000 You don't have to prove that you actually committed a secondary crime.

00:22:09.000 You just need to show the intent to conceal it.

00:22:12.000 And that's what they did.

00:22:13.000 So attempted robbery, attempted murder are also charges.

00:22:18.000 if they're accusing trump of campaign finance violent like i'll put it this way if someone attempts to uh evade taxes or attempts to commit campaign violence violations are those crimes like with the doj go after you if you were if you were trying to attempted to commit election excuse me election violations yeah Yes.

00:22:38.000 And when it came to the three possible crimes for Trump, one was that his intent in concealing the business records was to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.

00:22:38.000 Yes.

00:22:48.000 A second one was a violation of New York election law that concerns unlawful conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.

00:22:56.000 And the third one was violation of New York tax law.

00:23:00.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:23:00.000 All right, finish it up.

00:23:02.000 What you're saying is, you don't like the fact that they didn't have to prove that there was a violation of any of those three crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and that should be unconstitutional.

00:23:12.000 I would argue it is.

00:23:12.000 The courts are not.

00:23:14.000 It is unconstitutional.

00:23:16.000 Because let me ask you this.

00:23:17.000 Can the government impose a penalty on an individual at any point without proving they committed a crime?

00:23:27.000 No, but here the statute says that you just have to conceal the records, which he was proven to do so.

00:23:35.000 And that's just a misdemeanor.

00:23:36.000 But to elevate it to a felony, you don't have to prove a second crime.

00:23:39.000 You just have to prove the intent.

00:23:40.000 You're doing it for a reason, for a bad reason.

00:23:43.000 And when you ask me, are there other examples in the law where that is?

00:23:46.000 I can't name it.

00:23:48.000 But the courts have found that that is allowed.

00:23:50.000 So my understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, but I've just read the various legal analyses on this, both left and right, is that it is the first time in U.S. history an aggravated or add-on charge did not have a proven underlying crime.

00:24:03.000 Now, maybe first time in history is a bold claim.

00:24:05.000 It's an absolute.

00:24:06.000 But my argument would be then, if it is to be argued that the U.S. government or the states have the power to expand or increase your penalties or charge with a crime without actually proving a component of what requires, then the Constitution is out the window.

00:24:22.000 Then all gloves are off.

00:24:24.000 No holds barred.

00:24:25.000 Razor Y in the boxing glove doesn't matter anymore.

00:24:28.000 The point is this.

00:24:31.000 Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor.

00:24:34.000 And if the government can prove you falsified your business record straight up, misdemeanor charge.

00:24:39.000 If they know you did and don't pursue that charge, it goes beyond the statute of limitations.

00:24:43.000 They can't bring those charges later on.

00:24:44.000 If the government can say that falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime, the only, so let's put it like this.

00:24:53.000 Let's segment this.

00:24:55.000 Misdemeanor, falsification of business records, let's argue it's a misdemeanor, so it's maximum one year probably.

00:25:00.000 On top of that, the felony charge after the fact, in furtherance of another crime, is an extra addition, right?

00:25:08.000 So we've got the base-level misdemeanor, the upgraded felony expands the penalty.

00:25:12.000 This would imply the government has the ability to impose penalties on you without proving you committed a crime.

00:25:19.000 Well, you're proving intent.

00:25:21.000 So compare this to conspiracy.

00:25:23.000 If you guys conspire to rob a bank and you actually don't rob the bank, but you had the intent to do so and you agreed and you did something like, you know, you bought some, you know, some rope or something to tie someone up.

00:25:37.000 They can bust you for the conspiracy, even though they never proved that you robbed the bank, you completed it.

00:25:43.000 And all this is about intent.

00:25:45.000 This is in your mind.

00:25:47.000 Fair point, but the conspiracy itself is the crime.

00:25:49.000 That's correct.

00:25:50.000 So the argument would be threatening to murder someone is a crime.

00:25:55.000 Murdering someone is a different crime.

00:25:57.000 My point is the government has never proven there was another crime.

00:26:02.000 Well, remember, we're showing the intent.

00:26:04.000 You don't have to prove another crime.

00:26:06.000 You just have to prove there was intent for another crime.

00:26:09.000 Right, I understand that.

00:26:10.000 So my point would be the unprecedented case where they upgraded a misdemeanor to a felony to use against Trump.

00:26:17.000 And just moving beyond this, we will also face the unprecedented nature of Trump, Trump's DOJ, attempting to go after in any way possible.

00:26:27.000 Maybe even it's just to jam up the people who receive these pardons, Fauci being the principal example.

00:26:34.000 They will use, let's just, I don't know, circuitous legal means to go after him in some way.

00:26:42.000 There are felony statutes on money laundering and fraud, where if you have a crime of reporting violation, transactional reporting violation, a seemingly minor offense, but if it's used to do money laundering or fraud, then that too would raise the offense level, just like in Trump's case.

00:27:04.000 There are other examples where, but I see your problem is that you don't like this whole area where unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a second crime, then they shouldn't be elevated.

00:27:14.000 Well, it would be like saying the government charged someone with money laundering, but never proved money laundering.

00:27:18.000 They said he had a meeting where he talked about money laundering.

00:27:21.000 We could never prove the money laundering happened, charged him, and convicted him.

00:27:25.000 Well, there are, when it comes to money laundering, if you're not reporting things properly, you can get hit with a lower level crime.

00:27:31.000 But if the intent is to do some major drug dealing and that's why you're concealing it, the intent there, without even proving the drug dealing, you can still get busted for a higher crime.

00:27:39.000 I suppose the issue with this is the upgraded charge requires the underlying crime as opposed to conspiracy, which is the intent.

00:27:47.000 Well, the intent is all you need in the upgraded crime.

00:27:50.000 You don't need to show they actually committed the election violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

00:27:56.000 You just have to show that the object, the reason why he was concealing, cooking the books, was because he wanted to spend more for the election than he was allowed.

00:28:05.000 I suppose we'll see because it's been floating appeal for over a year now, right?

00:28:08.000 Like the judges have heard the case.

00:28:09.000 They've not ruled on it.

00:28:11.000 I think, and then we'll jump to the next story, Snapocalypse.

00:28:14.000 My view of this whole thing, and the reason why I brought it up was because everything we're seeing is unprecedented.

00:28:21.000 The Democrats going after the political opponents is unprecedented.

00:28:24.000 The arrest of Trump's lawyers is unprecedented.

00:28:26.000 RICO charges for soliciting legal services unprecedented.

00:28:29.000 I think Trump had, it might have been like three or four lawyers who were arrested.

00:28:33.000 And we've never seen anything like, look, I can't speak for the entire country for the entire history of the country.

00:28:38.000 So it is a bit hyperbotic to say never.

00:28:41.000 I would say in my lifetime, it is shocking and terrifying when the Democrat DOJ starts arresting the lawyers of their political opposition.

00:28:48.000 What lawyers were arrested?

00:28:49.000 Jenna Ellis.

00:28:50.000 There was, I think it was two lawyers from the Georgia case and one in Wisconsin.

00:28:53.000 Jenna Ellis was the most notable because she ultimately ended up pleading guilty to RICO charges.

00:28:58.000 And the RICO charges stemmed from her drafting a letter, Trump solicited her to draft a legal letter to pursue an election challenge.

00:29:07.000 And they argued RICO because Trump's election challenge was a conspiracy to overturn an election.

00:29:14.000 And because she participated, she was now had committed a crime.

00:29:18.000 Well, Jenna Ellis wasn't charged by the Fed, so it wasn't.

00:29:20.000 It was by the state.

00:29:21.000 It was the state of Georgia.

00:29:22.000 That was Fonnie Willis's case.

00:29:24.000 And that one was because they charged her with trying to overturn the election by writing letters and doing all that stuff. 0.99

00:29:33.000 Lawyers writing letters is a crime now?

00:29:35.000 Well, it could be, yeah.

00:29:37.000 Lawyers who, like concigliaries for the mafia, have been accused of crimes for many years. 0.78

00:29:42.000 Is it illegal to challenge an election?

00:29:44.000 It is not illegal to challenge an election through the proper channels, through courts.

00:29:49.000 But what you can't do is, you know, you can't call the Proud Boys to come to the Capitol.

00:29:54.000 Jen Alice didn't do that. 1.00

00:29:55.000 Oh, well, I'm saying in general.

00:29:56.000 So we can, you know, instead of, I'm not here to argue January 6th.

00:30:00.000 I'm arguing specifically the unprecedented action of arresting Trump's lawyers.

00:30:04.000 Well, if she committed a crime, just because you have a bar card doesn't give you a get out of jail free card.

00:30:09.000 You know, you're charged with, she was charged with two felonies, and she actually took a plea.

00:30:13.000 Right.

00:30:13.000 That's right.

00:30:14.000 She pled guilty.

00:30:15.000 Indeed.

00:30:16.000 Pleading guilty always implies the guilty party is guilty, right?

00:30:16.000 That's less a crime.

00:30:20.000 Well, I'm a former prosecutor, so.

00:30:21.000 Of course not.

00:30:22.000 There's the trial tax and Jenna Alice's fear that there was no defense apparatus from a legal machine at the state and federal level willing to arrest lawyers.

00:30:34.000 So she cowardly bent the knee and cried on TV and admitted to things when all she did was draft a letter.

00:30:41.000 She wrote a letter for Trump.

00:30:42.000 They charged her with RICO.

00:30:44.000 And the bigger picture, I think, in all of this is, show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

00:30:48.000 And that's the ultimate point with the GOP Oversight Committee, with the pardons.

00:30:53.000 We're looking at Letitia James on mortgage fraud now, Adam Schiff on mortgage fraud.

00:30:57.000 And the argument from the other side is Trump is going after his political opponents.

00:31:01.000 And I'm sitting here being like, and they went after him.

00:31:04.000 What's the difference?

00:31:05.000 But you're talking about Fonnie Willis in Georgia.

00:31:08.000 That's different than, right, that's not Joe Biden.

00:31:10.000 That's not Mary Garland. 1.00

00:31:11.000 You're talking about Jenna Ellis, who the reason why she was prosecuted was because she was participating in lies that Rudy Giuliani made before Senate committees. 0.78

00:31:19.000 And so if you lie, if you commit perjury, you know, you're going to get bit for it.

00:31:23.000 And that's why.

00:31:24.000 She wrote a letter.

00:31:25.000 I forgot it was to a politician in Georgia requesting access or something or challenging the election in some capacity.

00:31:32.000 And this is the most egregious.

00:31:33.000 They argue that, I mean, she was charged with specifically Rico, like a felony conspiracy involved in Trump's election schemes.

00:31:40.000 But there was another lawyer in Wisconsin. 0.69

00:31:44.000 It's ridiculous, right? 0.94

00:31:46.000 So your political opponent, he's the frontrunner. 0.71

00:31:50.000 Whatever the argument is, it is insane that they went after all of Trump's confidants, his staffers.

00:31:57.000 And it extends, it does extend to J6, obviously not to anyone who was violent, but criminally charging people who weren't even there and giving them 20 years in prison, or even some of them that were for rioting, as well as people who got hunted down for misdemeanors.

00:32:11.000 Well, that's where the conspiracy comes in.

00:32:13.000 We talked about that, seditious conspiracy.

00:32:14.000 You didn't have to be there to be part of the conspiracy.

00:32:17.000 I think you're talking about like Enrique Tario and people who weren't there on the scene.

00:32:21.000 Right, right.

00:32:22.000 That's it.

00:32:24.000 And so I suppose the issue is we have a lot of laws on the books.

00:32:27.000 And if the Democrats say, let's rip precedent and throw it out the window, then Trump say Trump's going to respond with, I got a nuclear bomb waiting for you and I win the election.

00:32:35.000 I think what Merrick Garland, who's criticized by the left for being too timid and too weak, I think what he did was very different than what you're seeing now, where President Trump ordered Pam Bondi to prosecute his enemies.

00:32:50.000 And then Bondi wavered on that.

00:32:52.000 She didn't move forward on that because she's an experienced prosecutor. 0.62

00:32:55.000 But then they, so Trump said, all right, I'm going to fire Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, because I don't like what he told me.

00:33:03.000 He says there's not enough evidence.

00:33:04.000 So then he appointed Lindsey Halligan for the sole purpose of prosecuting his enemies, James Comey and Letitia James.

00:33:13.000 And so now you have the prospect of these cases being thrown out because of vindictive prosecution.

00:33:17.000 And that's where a president needs to be careful because when you directly order your prosecutors to prosecute your enemies, you're going to get a venture.

00:33:25.000 The Democrats are thinking.

00:33:26.000 But when did that happen?

00:33:28.000 So we've got the E. Jean Carroll case where they created a law specifically to allow just her to file a civil election.

00:33:36.000 That's not feds. 1.00

00:33:36.000 That's the state of New York. 1.00

00:33:37.000 Indeed.

00:33:38.000 Well, the argument is the Democratic Party is not just a federal organization or a state organization.

00:33:42.000 They're in fact both, and their leadership operates across the board, state, and federal, and city and local and otherwise.

00:33:48.000 But also you had the feds raided Trump's home.

00:33:51.000 You had – Well, they had a warrant for that.

00:33:53.000 Sure.

00:33:54.000 And then you've got the prosecution of Trump for documents where they actually staged photos and put cover sheets on documents they pulled from boxes.

00:34:01.000 And then Joe Biden, who actually explicitly was found to have retained national security information for the purpose of making money, was not charged because they said, ah, well, you know, we couldn't convict him anyway.

00:34:11.000 The American people aren't going to tolerate it.

00:34:13.000 Whatever your argument's going to be for the legal reasons, the American people see a story of Joe Biden withholding documents at multiple locations and them saying we can't charge him and Donald Trump them raiding his home and saying, but him we can.

00:34:26.000 The distinction in the minutiae of like the granular legalese as to why it makes sense or doesn't doesn't matter in a partisan environment like we have right now.

00:34:35.000 You can't do it.

00:34:36.000 And that's why historically, we've not seen a political party or political actors go after their top-level rivals.

00:34:43.000 Like raiding the Frontrunner's home in any way is nuts, even if they did do something wrong.

00:34:50.000 Well, I have Bolton too.

00:34:51.000 Bolton, too.

00:34:52.000 Well, Bolton's a different matter.

00:34:53.000 Bolton, I actually do think they have legitimate facts there.

00:34:56.000 That's going to be tainted by the politicized prosecutions, Letitia James, and James Comey, though.

00:35:00.000 It feeds into that, even though Bolton looks like that may be a legitimate case.

00:35:04.000 As far as rating is home, I have to push back on the term rating because when they went in, first they got a search warrant signed by a federal magistrate showing there's probable cause that evidence of a crime existed in Mar-a-Lago.

00:35:16.000 And then they didn't raid it.

00:35:17.000 They went in there unarmed.

00:35:19.000 They gave Secret Service a call in advance.

00:35:21.000 They went in there with plain clothes and they searched the place and they recovered the documents that Trump and his lawyers said they didn't have.

00:35:28.000 And so that was done the proper way.

00:35:30.000 And then it went down.

00:35:31.000 James, excuse me, Jack Smith could have filed that case in Washington, D.C. That would have been so much better for him politically because you have the liberal Washington, D.C. jury pool.

00:35:42.000 You have the judges who are a lot more favorable.

00:35:44.000 But instead, he filed it in South Florida where he knew that Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointed judge, would be there and would possibly get the case. 0.93

00:35:53.000 And that was the beginning of the end for him.

00:35:55.000 It seems like there's always some unfortunate legal reason why they're not going to go after the Democrats on these issues.

00:36:03.000 How so?

00:36:04.000 Well, like the Biden being the most, the easiest example.

00:36:08.000 We can look at the general unprecedented nature of, like I mentioned, the E. Gene Carroll case, where you're familiar, they created a law, they passed a law saying we're going to allow people to resurrect claims beyond the statute of limitations.

00:36:22.000 It was used just for Trump.

00:36:24.000 Highly dubious story.

00:36:26.000 Or you also have the civil fraud case, where with Trump, they claim he defrauded because he had documents, misstated the size of his penthouse from $10,000 to $30,000, even though the financial paperwork submitted had the disclaimer, you must do your due diligence.

00:36:43.000 The numbers may be inaccurate, as all financial paperwork does.

00:36:46.000 And Deutsche Bank even said we weren't defrauded.

00:36:48.000 So they launch all of these things, and then we're told there's actually no legal mechanism by which we can find accountability for these unjust actions.

00:36:57.000 I want to give you credit for the New York case.

00:37:01.000 I want to say that that one is something that I think a lot of people are now saying that was unduly politicized.

00:37:09.000 That was the Alvin Bragg case.

00:37:12.000 The civil fraud.

00:37:13.000 The New York, the there's 34 felonies, civil fraud, and Egypt. 0.60

00:37:18.000 The 34 felonies.

00:37:19.000 They were all New York. 0.81

00:37:20.000 Yeah, that one.

00:37:21.000 I mean, first off, Alvin Bragg and Leicester James both campaigned on going after Donald Trump.

00:37:26.000 They both said you should never have done that.

00:37:28.000 So I grant you that.

00:37:30.000 And I think that in retrospect, that the New York case seemed to be a case where the DA was trying to find something there, and they resurrected this 34-count case.

00:37:40.000 And I think that looked bad.

00:37:42.000 And that was the first case against Donald Trump.

00:37:44.000 That was not the Biden Justice Department, but that was Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, making that decision.

00:37:49.000 And I got to say, it's been my experience that when you're an independently elected district attorney, you're not getting calls from the White House to do things.

00:37:56.000 Because if you had, if that happened, I would have gotten calls because I had Mar-a-Lago in my jurisdiction.

00:38:02.000 I never got a call from them and never even got invited to a Hanukkah party.

00:38:06.000 But as far as the Egyptian Carroll case, that law that was passed in New York was not for Trump.

00:38:11.000 That was done for sexual survivors. 0.97

00:38:14.000 It was used against Harvey Weinstein.

00:38:15.000 It was used against a lot of rich, powerful men.

00:38:18.000 Trump did get caught up in it, and that statute was used against him.

00:38:21.000 And, you know, it was interesting about that.

00:38:23.000 That's how I first found out about you, Tim, in this podcast, because the jury selection, you remember when the jury selected?

00:38:28.000 That's right.

00:38:28.000 They said they watched my show.

00:38:29.000 That was unpolitical.

00:38:30.000 It was.

00:38:31.000 Yeah.

00:38:32.000 Well, to be fair, he said he's seen an episode of it or something like that.

00:38:35.000 And they tried claiming that he was a fan, but he just saw an episode one time or something.

00:38:38.000 The lawyers for Egypt Carroll said, you must remove this person from the jury because he watches Tim Poole podcast.

00:38:45.000 And Tim Poole had talked about how bogus these cases were.

00:38:49.000 And so the judge said, no, we're going to keep him on the jury.

00:38:52.000 And then he ruled away with the rest of the report.

00:38:54.000 Because he wasn't really a viewer of the show, right?

00:38:56.000 When you looked at what he had actually said, it's like, something to the effect of like he had seen episodes of my podcast, but it wasn't like he was a regular viewer or anything.

00:39:06.000 I thought actually it was a sign of America's strength that you have people who watch your show and then decide as a member of the jury, they're just going to follow the evidence and the law in front of them and then rule the way they did.

00:39:15.000 I think it's fake.

00:39:16.000 I think a highly partisan jurisdiction with an 80-plus percent Democrat base is going to find a jury to convict their chief political opponent, bringing up highly dubious cases like the 34 felony account, which is nuts.

00:39:28.000 The fraud case, which as anybody who's ever done real estate knows, is an absolute absurdity to claim that because the square footage was misrepresented, that he had defrauded his lenders who straight up said he didn't defraud them.

00:39:40.000 And the E. Jean Carroll case, where her story made no sense and she claimed she was wearing a dress that didn't exist at the time, according to various reports.

00:39:46.000 Not to mention, Trump owned the hotel across the street.

00:39:49.000 No one witnessed it.

00:39:50.000 She got the years mixed up, apparently.

00:39:52.000 She had no key to access the room.

00:39:54.000 Somehow Trump got in anyway.

00:39:56.000 The story is 30 years old and makes no sense.

00:39:58.000 Yet the jury still said, sounds good to me.

00:40:00.000 That sounds completely insane.

00:40:02.000 And when you look at, again, the arrest of Trump's lawyers, it seems to me like, man, Democrats hate Trump. 0.80

00:40:07.000 They viscerally hate him.

00:40:09.000 And I mean, generally speaking, the aligned Democrat voter base and the politicians.

00:40:14.000 So they are willing to bring cases that should not be brought and they can easily find juries that will convict or find liability.

00:40:20.000 Well, I would maintain that the federal cases brought against Trump were very legitimate.

00:40:24.000 I think that the January 6th saw it with their own eyes.

00:40:27.000 I think the documents, they gave him time and time again to return the documents.

00:40:31.000 He refused to.

00:40:31.000 They gave him a subpoena.

00:40:33.000 He ignored it.

00:40:34.000 Then they had to search the place.

00:40:36.000 And then they charged him and they charged him in South Florida, a red state, a red community where they could have done it in D.C. Well, they didn't.

00:40:45.000 Well, so the challenge for me is that the Trump circle, his employees, they refute those claims.

00:40:52.000 They argue they didn't try to withhold documents.

00:40:53.000 They offered them up.

00:40:55.000 This makes no sense.

00:40:56.000 That they invited these people in previously, shut them around.

00:40:59.000 And the Biden DOJ was fabricating a justification for why they went in the way they did.

00:41:03.000 Considering they wouldn't charge Biden for a similar crime, I'm less inclined to believe their accusations against Trump.

00:41:09.000 Well, the difference is that it's not that you possess the documents, it's the refusal to give them back.

00:41:13.000 Right, that's a lie, right?

00:41:14.000 And my point is.

00:41:15.000 Well, how is that a lie?

00:41:16.000 Well, Trump's refuted it.

00:41:17.000 Trump, his team, his lawyers have said, no, we told them straight up what we had.

00:41:20.000 We told them where they were.

00:41:21.000 We put them in a room.

00:41:22.000 They're fabricating the refusal.

00:41:25.000 And my point is, we've got no evidence he refused.

00:41:29.000 His lawyer wrote letters saying that and handed over documents to the authorities.

00:41:29.000 We do.

00:41:34.000 And those documents were only a small portion of what was there.

00:41:37.000 And then he found all the documents.

00:41:39.000 But didn't Trump's team refute that they refused any documents?

00:41:42.000 I don't know.

00:41:43.000 The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

00:41:45.000 The fact that a lawyer says, I'm going to turn over documents, doesn't prove he intentionally withheld anything.

00:41:50.000 The lawyers said that they turned over all the documents that they believed were released.

00:41:54.000 The responses of the subpoena.

00:41:55.000 And then, but the lawyers weren't told everything.

00:41:55.000 Right.

00:41:58.000 They were kept in the dark by their client.

00:42:00.000 They gave everything.

00:42:01.000 How do we know?

00:42:02.000 Trump's denied that.

00:42:02.000 I mean, you're asserting his fact without proof.

00:42:04.000 Well, no, the proof is that they found all those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

00:42:07.000 It doesn't prove that Trump knew they were there.

00:42:08.000 It doesn't prove the lawyers intentionally withheld them, or Trump did either.

00:42:11.000 So when you have a staff of people— Trump said they're his documents.

00:42:14.000 Remember Trump's defense was that I have the ability and the right under the Presidential Records Act to keep these documents of the claim of refusal to turn them over, which is the point I'm bringing up.

00:42:24.000 So I use this example pretty often for the people who believe the moon landing was fake.

00:42:28.000 They say, how did we lose the technology to pass the Van Allen radiation bill?

00:42:32.000 And I said, because it was in an office in 1970, the administration changed and people moved boxes around.

00:42:36.000 I don't know where they went. 0.77

00:42:37.000 The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly.

00:42:43.000 So when the DOJ goes or the Biden admin says, we want these documents and his lawyers say, here's what we have.

00:42:48.000 And then Trump's like, I don't know, whatever.

00:42:49.000 Trump's not monitoring that day-to-day operation.

00:42:52.000 Like, I got a company here with 40 employees.

00:42:54.000 And if every, you know, everybody, every time someone comes to me and says, hey, how do I turn the plumbing off because we're going to fix something?

00:43:00.000 You think I know?

00:43:02.000 So it's silly to argue that Trump was cognizant of literally every document he had and use it as justification to go into his house and accuse him of a crime when Joe Biden explicitly stated he kept documents that he did not have the authority to keep because he wanted to write a book and make money off of.

00:43:18.000 Right off the bat, I'm going to say, by all means, maybe Trump did intentionally withhold these things.

00:43:23.000 Biden did intentionally withhold them, and we know it's a fact.

00:43:25.000 It was reported across the board.

00:43:26.000 And they wouldn't prosecute him.

00:43:28.000 But when Biden was asked to turn the documents over, he did.

00:43:30.000 He never kept documents after he was asked to return.

00:43:33.000 That's the difference here because Trump we don't have proof of.

00:43:37.000 Well, we know that Trump kept the documents and he admitted.

00:43:39.000 He said, I didn't return them because they're my documents.

00:43:41.000 I'm the leader of the fact.

00:43:43.000 So my point is this: they said, hey, turn over documents.

00:43:46.000 Trump said, sure, whatever, I guess.

00:43:48.000 The lawyer doesn't.

00:43:49.000 They then raid his home, find a bunch of documents, lay them on the ground, put cover sheets on him, take a picture, and say, look what you found.

00:43:54.000 And Trump says, hey, well, I'm the president.

00:43:55.000 I can keep him.

00:43:56.000 Well, also, you had Walt Nada, his guy, moving documents around so that the investigators wouldn't see them when they came over.

00:43:56.000 Can I?

00:44:03.000 Again, I think the principal issue here, and the DO.

00:44:08.000 So here's what I see when I'm here's my perception of you.

00:44:13.000 The DOJ said it, so it's true. 0.91

00:44:14.000 Trump's DOJ says it can't be true.

00:44:18.000 No, actually, you know, I ran against Pam Bondi, and then she beat me, and then she hired me as her drug czar.

00:44:24.000 Actually, I'm not here to bash individuals at the DOJ.

00:44:28.000 I'm not saying you're bashing.

00:44:29.000 What I'm saying is it seems like if the Democrat DOJ asserted as fact, you just say, okay.

00:44:35.000 But what is the false fact?

00:44:37.000 What is the lie that the Biden DOJ said?

00:44:41.000 Well, Trump's team has refuted they intentionally withheld from the DOJ.

00:44:44.000 They said they showed him where everything was, let him come in.

00:44:47.000 And if the argument is after the fact, well, you can't hold these documents, you're taking what someone would like, crafting a legal defense.

00:44:55.000 Well, even if I did have these documents as president, I have plenary declassification powers anyway.

00:45:00.000 And you're using that to imply he intentionally withheld from the government.

00:45:03.000 Oh, I wish that they could have argued that in court.

00:45:07.000 I wish that this could have been tried in court where both sides could have made their arguments so we can decided who to believe.

00:45:14.000 But unfortunately, Aileen Cannon, a judge appointed by President Trump, dismissed this case based on an unprecedented legal theory that the special counsel statute was unconstitutional.

00:45:24.000 And then when Trump won, he then dismissed the cases permanently.

00:45:28.000 I would argue that if they're not going to go after Joe Biden for a comparable case, both, it's moot.

00:45:33.000 And so, like, we had, it was Joe Biden's ghostwriter who actually, I believe, didn't he destroy evidence as well?

00:45:40.000 Was the, was the reporting that he had a recording of with Joe Biden where they were going over the story and over the book he wanted to write, where Joe Biden said he kept these national security documents because he wanted to write a book.

00:45:51.000 He wanted to sell, he wanted to make money.

00:45:53.000 He didn't say he could supposedly make money, but he wanted to write a book.

00:45:55.000 So we know he had the intent to do it.

00:45:57.000 And I believe the reporting was that the ghost record quickly destroyed the evidence of Biden having admitted to this crime.

00:46:03.000 And so when I see that story, they're not going to go after him.

00:46:07.000 Everything else is a lie.

00:46:08.000 It's like, you know, why would I believe someone at that point?

00:46:12.000 But we should talk about Snap Occultus, but I do want to add one more thing to this.

00:46:16.000 You will never convince me of the credibility of Merrick Garland or the Biden administration because Merrick Garland did something truly unprecedented, held a press conference where he announced the indictment of two Russians no one ever heard of or had seen before to impugn personally my honor because we have a show on Friday mornings where we talk about theology and aliens and Bigfoot and things like that.

00:46:37.000 He claimed that Dave Rubin was part of a Russian influence operation without any evidence because Dave Rubin commented on funny viral videos.

00:46:45.000 That's the Merrick Garland DOJ.

00:46:47.000 Now, the questions I have is, he never presented any evidence.

00:46:51.000 It's conjecture in an indictment.

00:46:52.000 He used it to smear me, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others.

00:46:56.000 The case was dropped informally in December because the election was over, and my lawyers couldn't get them to move on it or publish a statement.

00:47:04.000 These people, I'll make every polite argument I can logically, but my personal experience having been maligned by evil men using the power of government to destroy their political opponents, I've faced it personally.

00:47:19.000 And when I get a call from journalists saying, explain to me why you're named as an individual in this Russia investigation, the Biden DOJ did a press conference where Merrick Garland comes out, makes a bunch of claims, never proven, and with zero evidence, but they wrote it in an indictment.

00:47:39.000 And then I've got sponsors calling me up.

00:47:42.000 I've got threats, death threats or otherwise, because we licensed a show to another company based in Tennessee called The Culture War, where Friday mornings we would debate various issues, which include flat earth, theology, interdimensional beings, a plethora of nonsense and cultural topics, which does include dating, like our next show we're still doing is going to be dating on November 8th, and routine interviews.

00:48:04.000 Now, Dave Rubin is the most egregious example of how this was a fraudulent DOJ case to prosecute their political enemies in that Dave Rubin's contract with Tenet was specifically to look at viral videos of like cats and laugh.

00:48:18.000 And Merrick Garland publicly and personally came out and said this was spreading Russian propaganda.

00:48:23.000 So forgive me, but I don't think a video of a cat falling into a tub was Russian propaganda, nor my argument with the geocentrist on why the earth is the center of the universe.

00:48:32.000 That was a lie.

00:48:33.000 And worse still, I had to hire two legal teams because of this.

00:48:37.000 And in December, my lawyer called me and said, the Biden DOJ has dropped the case informally and they will no longer be in communicating with us.

00:48:45.000 And I said, no way.

00:48:48.000 They cannot go on TV and spit in my face like that and then drop it all.

00:48:53.000 It was political.

00:48:54.000 The only reason they did it.

00:48:56.000 So in December of last year, and they have never come out and done anything about it.

00:49:00.000 Now, I'm not about to call the DOJ and say, guys, can we finally wrap this up?

00:49:04.000 However, Lauren Chen issued a statement saying that in April, under Trump, the DOJ formally closed the investigation with no evidence or proof, yet still it is weaponized by the corporate press against me.

00:49:14.000 And that was the Biden DOJ that did it.

00:49:16.000 So these people are unrepentant evil. 1.00

00:49:19.000 They are liars. 1.00

00:49:20.000 And they did this to destroy their political enemies and media. 1.00

00:49:24.000 And now we've got another story.

00:49:25.000 Mike Benz reporting that the Atlantic Council specifically targeted me because in 2020, when the election fraud narrative was going around about Dominion and the right was claiming that fake ballots and all that stuff, I said that's ridiculous the whole time.

00:49:38.000 And then I said the strategy used by Democrats in 2020 to win was ballot harvesting, which is legal.

00:49:44.000 And that was the key to them collecting these votes.

00:49:46.000 And according to Mike Benz, the Atlantic Council traced back the emergence of the ballot harvesting narrative, which ultimately resulted in 10,000 mules as a bunch of other and a bunch of other legal actions and said, Tim Poole is the progenitor of this theory.

00:50:00.000 We need to shut him down.

00:50:01.000 And what happened?

00:50:02.000 YouTube came down on us with the hammer, banned a bunch of episodes, and suppressed my accounts and channels.

00:50:07.000 The Biden DOJ personally went to various outlets and threatened to suspend and censor people.

00:50:13.000 So we can have a debate on the merits of various legal cases.

00:50:16.000 And that's me being nice because I think when you get to the bottom of it, Biden's DOJ were crooked as crooked could possibly be.

00:50:22.000 And that's not saying anything about the Trump administration. 0.97

00:50:24.000 It's just that I had to live through what those people did, the stress and the death threats I received still to this day because Merrick Garland is an evil, evil man. 0.96

00:50:32.000 Well, Rustoff. 0.96

00:50:34.000 Rant over.

00:50:34.000 Sorry.

00:50:35.000 Yeah, no, I hear you.

00:50:36.000 And I'm aware of what you went through, Tim.

00:50:39.000 And when I looked at the indictment, it did not allege any wrongdoing by the influencers like you who created content for that company.

00:50:48.000 Right.

00:50:48.000 Never did.

00:50:48.000 Fake.

00:50:49.000 In other lives.

00:50:50.000 They described you as an unwitting victim of it.

00:50:52.000 In fact, I looked up the press conference itself, and in the press conference, Merrick Garland did say this: the company never disclosed to the influencers or to their millions of followers its ties to RT and the Russian government.

00:51:06.000 So the only thing I'd say is that I know they never released any evidence.

00:51:10.000 They dropped the case two months later.

00:51:12.000 The play here was simple.

00:51:14.000 They did a press conference for what reason?

00:51:17.000 For what reason to a press conference and then dropped the case a month later, a month and a half later.

00:51:21.000 I think the press conference was to call out the Russian actors for infiltrating and trying to influence the election, but they used unwitting influencers.

00:51:31.000 And I think that I understand why you're so pissed off at it.

00:51:33.000 Well, let me ask you a question in response to that.

00:51:35.000 What about a debate on modern dating in the United States as Russian propaganda?

00:51:40.000 Doesn't propaganda to me.

00:51:41.000 It certainly doesn't.

00:51:42.000 So why is Merrick Garland claiming that I was unwittingly sharing Russian propaganda?

00:51:47.000 Because he's lying. 0.90

00:51:49.000 And it's ridiculous that, listen, the challenge we have in this country largely is that there's a group of people that just believe these evil people.

00:51:58.000 But for me to have to experience it, and I'm sitting here going, guys, we had a guy on who was a geocentrist, and we had another guy on who was a flat earther debating.

00:52:09.000 I don't understand how this is Russian propaganda.

00:52:12.000 Why did the AG go on TV and claim that I was doing that, unwittingly or otherwise?

00:52:18.000 And you've had people on here who talk about Ukraine on the Ukrainian side against Russia.

00:52:22.000 Tim Casty RL never had a license agreement with Tennant Media.

00:52:24.000 Yeah, Tim Cast is different.

00:52:25.000 Culture Wars where they talk about an entirely separate company.

00:52:29.000 Right.

00:52:29.000 But I'm just saying that I get why you're upset about it.

00:52:32.000 I understand.

00:52:33.000 He lied.

00:52:34.000 But I'm just trying to get in Merrick Garland's brain that Merrick Garland is someone who, remember, he appointed a special prosecutor who prosecuted Joe Biden's son.

00:52:43.000 I mean, that's something, right?

00:52:44.000 No, because he pardoned him.

00:52:45.000 He took, well, but not Merrick Garland didn't, but he actually prosecuted Joe Biden's son.

00:52:50.000 That's meaningless.

00:52:51.000 Well, also, Matt Gates, who was investigated under the Bill Barr Department of Justice, Merrick Garland took that investigation over and then dropped the investigation.

00:53:01.000 He also allowed it.

00:53:02.000 Because it was bunk.

00:53:03.000 Well, so the issue here is this.

00:53:06.000 I'll say the same thing.

00:53:07.000 Just like that, Merrick Garland dropped the Russian influence investigation into tenant.

00:53:12.000 He does a press conference, says, look at this bad thing that happened.

00:53:14.000 And then two months later, he says, we don't care about that.

00:53:17.000 Would it have been prudent of him to come out and say, we have no evidence, we were wrong, and so we're stopping the investigation.

00:53:24.000 Well, when they announced the indictments, they came out and said, here's why we're doing the indictments.

00:53:29.000 And they made clear that the influencers themselves, like you, were not involved in that.

00:53:33.000 That's not the point. 0.96

00:53:34.000 The point is he claimed that I'm an idiot who was sharing Russian propaganda through Russian propaganda through a show that is largely apolitical. 0.99

00:53:43.000 And then when he decided there was no evidence and they weren't going to pursue it, he said, let him stew and rot like whatever. 0.99

00:53:49.000 I'm going to avoid swearing.

00:53:50.000 Maybe it would have been professional for a man who did a press conference asserting that several high-profile conservative leaning individuals or politically on the right, you want to malign them and impugn their honor.

00:54:02.000 And then you find out you're wrong.

00:54:04.000 Maybe you then hold another press conference and say, I'd like to formally apologize to these individuals who worked for this company.

00:54:09.000 We will not be pursuing this case.

00:54:11.000 We don't have the evidence to do it.

00:54:12.000 Goodbye.

00:54:12.000 Thank you.

00:54:15.000 Well, first off, prosecutors never do that.

00:54:18.000 Why?

00:54:18.000 Is it common for the AG to do a press conference maligning individuals like that?

00:54:22.000 The only time that they speak is at the four corners of the indictment.

00:54:25.000 They announce the indictment and then the stuff goes away.

00:54:29.000 And that is something that in the prosecutorial profession, when people are investigated, they often don't even tell them that the investigation is over.

00:54:34.000 So as far as what happened at the end of the investigation, I think he didn't feel the need to apologize to you because he came out and said you were not involved in this.

00:54:42.000 And so for him, he's thinking, that's all I need to do.

00:54:44.000 But that's why I don't know what was the crime.

00:54:48.000 The crime was the use of dollars to infiltrate the to meddle, essentially, by the Russians.

00:54:56.000 The Russians had this influence operation and it was undisclosed and it was through RT.

00:55:02.000 Why publicly announce it?

00:55:03.000 Because it was an indictment.

00:55:04.000 You announced it at the time of the indictment.

00:55:06.000 It's unethical to talk about it during the investigation.

00:55:08.000 You have to do it.

00:55:09.000 Every indictment has a press conference?

00:55:11.000 No, just the major ones.

00:55:12.000 Right.

00:55:13.000 And so why drop a major investigation?

00:55:15.000 Why do a press conference on a major?

00:55:17.000 Why do a press conference for what you would ultimately have no evidence for and would drop?

00:55:22.000 Is that common?

00:55:23.000 Maybe it is.

00:55:23.000 I don't know.

00:55:24.000 They say we have a major investigation into this Russian thing.

00:55:27.000 And then a month later, like, no, we don't care about that.

00:55:29.000 No, they do.

00:55:30.000 When they have an indictment, not an investigation.

00:55:32.000 They weren't announcing an investigation.

00:55:33.000 They were announcing an indictment.

00:55:34.000 Yep.

00:55:35.000 And the funny thing.

00:55:36.000 It's unethical if they announce an investigation like James Comey did right before the 2016 election.

00:55:40.000 So, you know, it's funny because I end up with two legal teams and we're begging them, like, guys, we need to understand what happened here because I want a full breakdown of this.

00:55:52.000 I want, we'll provide the DOJ with whatever they need, and then we can issue these statements and show these documents and prove what was going on.

00:56:00.000 And then we'll prove the cult, like in this, in this pursuit, we'll show the culture where which we license is a relatively apolitical show.

00:56:07.000 We've done feminism and politics, modern dating. 1.00

00:56:10.000 We've done geocentrism, interdimensional theory, time.

00:56:13.000 We had one guy in talking about MH370.

00:56:16.000 Usually, like last Friday, we had a political debate, but it's, you know, 80-20 if that.

00:56:22.000 And instead, I get a call saying the DOJ has no interest in pursuing this case at all, and so you have nothing to worry about.

00:56:28.000 And I said, I'm not worried about them not pursuing it.

00:56:32.000 I said, I'm not worried about them pursuing it.

00:56:33.000 I'm worried about them dropping it after accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda.

00:56:37.000 And they said, you know, you know what the assessment is?

00:56:40.000 The real intent of Merritt Gollin's press conference was an October surprise.

00:56:43.000 It was launched at the end of September to malign Donald Trump and conservatives to imply that the moral worldview we shared was actually a manipulation by a foreign government.

00:56:52.000 And as soon as he lost, they dropped it, walked away and said, eh, we're done.

00:56:56.000 Well, there's currently still charges against the two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT.

00:57:02.000 So it's not totally dropped.

00:57:05.000 So here's informally, they dropped it because it's, I guess you'd argue that's a cold case now that they have no interest in pursuing it.

00:57:14.000 Why would they do that?

00:57:15.000 Why would they launch a press conference?

00:57:17.000 Look, I talked to my lawyers about it.

00:57:18.000 They said it makes no sense for the AG to launch to have a press conference on an unprosecutable case.

00:57:25.000 Right, but it hasn't been dropped.

00:57:26.000 I mean, it's there.

00:57:27.000 Now maybe it's dormant because you have a new DOJ.

00:57:30.000 You have new people.

00:57:30.000 No, they dropped it in December.

00:57:31.000 They told my lawyers it was over and go away.

00:57:34.000 But not against those two individuals, right?

00:57:36.000 No, no, no.

00:57:36.000 Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

00:57:41.000 I contracted two different legal firms because their case, pursuing these two individuals in Europe, needed our assistance to prove the communications, money laundering, or otherwise.

00:57:54.000 But there isn't any and there never was.

00:57:57.000 And so my lawyers told me, Tim, you need to understand there is no reason that an AG would launch a criminal indictment against two people they cannot prosecute.

00:58:07.000 These men are not in the United States.

00:58:09.000 They don't know where they are.

00:58:11.000 They don't know what they look like and they will never be found.

00:58:14.000 The only reason you have a press conference about two people you can't even begin to prosecute is for political reasons.

00:58:21.000 And you will likely get nothing from this.

00:58:24.000 And then sure enough, in December, they said, your final invoice is in.

00:58:27.000 We've been instructed.

00:58:28.000 It's done.

00:58:28.000 And I said, are they closing it?

00:58:31.000 No, but they're done.

00:58:32.000 I was like, what does that mean?

00:58:34.000 It means there is no case.

00:58:35.000 They were never going to prosecute these guys.

00:58:37.000 They can't prosecute them and they won't be pursuing it further.

00:58:40.000 Well, but they've done this before.

00:58:41.000 So the reason why they prosecuted these RT employees is because of election influence operations.

00:58:46.000 But also in 2022, you know, they also, the DOJ also charged Russians for infrastructure, energy grid meddling, trying to target them.

00:58:55.000 This is some of the GRU people.

00:58:56.000 And yet it can't hold the predicate of their case against these two individuals is that I, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin, spread Russian propaganda.

00:59:05.000 No, no, he's not claiming we did something wrong.

00:59:08.000 If Tim Poole, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin did not spread Russian propaganda, then there is no influence operation.

00:59:16.000 I think that Merrick Garland wanted to make sure that you were not being targeted by it as far as that.

00:59:22.000 I was the only one.

00:59:23.000 Well, the three of us were the only ones targeted.

00:59:25.000 Right, but no, he wanted to.

00:59:26.000 No one's going to go try and send death threats to two random Russians numbers.

00:59:28.000 That's the problem.

00:59:29.000 He wanted to make sure that you were not brought into this, that you were not intentionally trying to do anything.

00:59:34.000 And I know what you're saying, but you didn't do it anyways.

00:59:37.000 How could there be a Russian influence operation if the individuals in question who are unwitting never actually shared Russian propaganda?

00:59:46.000 As far as Russian propaganda, I don't know what was shared or what was not.

00:59:51.000 As far as like, but Dave Rubin was accused of a lot of this stuff and whether or not the show that was licensed and produced through Tennant for Dave Rubin was funny viral videos.

01:00:01.000 That's it.

01:00:04.000 This is the absurdity.

01:00:05.000 And look, again, you are blindly just believing that the DOJ did something right for no reason.

01:00:10.000 I don't live in that world.

01:00:11.000 I live in a world where we didn't spread Russian propaganda.

01:00:14.000 I've never accepted money from a foreign government.

01:00:16.000 We don't even have investors.

01:00:17.000 We licensed a show that we owned wholly, that we produced internally to a third-party company out of Tennessee for live streaming rights. 0.99

01:00:26.000 And then he claimed that we were being paid to spread Russian propaganda because he's a sick, twisted, evil man. 0.99

01:00:32.000 That's why. 0.98

01:00:34.000 There was no Russian propaganda.

01:00:36.000 No one ever told me what to say.

01:00:37.000 Still to this day, no one tells me what to say. 0.94

01:00:39.000 I can say, screw Israel. 0.96

01:00:40.000 I can say, screw Russia. 0.98

01:00:42.000 I can say Putin should be removed from power all day and all night. 0.97

01:00:45.000 I can say Slavo Ukraini.

01:00:46.000 So why is he claiming there was Russian influence and propaganda being spread by me, Benny, and Dave when it never happened?

01:00:53.000 But I don't need to keep saying it over and again because I think you understand.

01:00:56.000 We should talk about Snapocalypse.

01:00:57.000 I don't know if, but I'll give you the final word on that if you did want to have it.

01:01:00.000 No, you went through hell and back.

01:01:02.000 And I'm sorry you got death threats and had to spend all this money on something where, you know, that's why I'm trying to say that.

01:01:08.000 The one difference you and I have is this: it is not unusual for DOJ to held press conferences where they announce indictments, and that's what they did here.

01:01:15.000 Also, Merrick Garland, I just don't think he came out of it, came into this with a nefarious motive.

01:01:21.000 I think he came into this saying that we have identified $9.7 million of money that was funneled here to try to influence an election, and we're going to call these RT guys out for it.

01:01:33.000 You got to say it right before they announced the indictment, the tenant media, tenant YouTube gained 200,000 subscribers just seemingly over a day.

01:01:44.000 So how does that happen?

01:01:46.000 Right before they initiated the indictment.

01:01:46.000 I don't know.

01:01:48.000 Well, nobody knows for sure, but it certainly sounds like a psyop.

01:01:53.000 A channel with 80,000 subscribers that gets no views, that has a variety of random shows about this, that, or otherwise, some on-the-ground interviews, cultural issues, viral, funny videos.

01:02:06.000 And then all of a sudden, overnight, it jumps to 300,000.

01:02:09.000 And the staff go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on right now?

01:02:12.000 And then as soon as it hits 300, he comes out and says, look at this major influence operation.

01:02:16.000 It's clearly to those of us affected.

01:02:20.000 How about this?

01:02:21.000 When I told my lawyers, guys, will they issue a statement?

01:02:24.000 Can we ask them to issue?

01:02:24.000 No.

01:02:26.000 No, they won't do it.

01:02:27.000 Why would they do this right before an election?

01:02:29.000 It is the utmost naivete to assume this was anything other than a political move to help Biden win an election and malign opposition media.

01:02:35.000 Well, Joe Biden didn't like Merrick Garland.

01:02:37.000 So if Merrick Garland was using his story to help Joe Biden, that would be news to Joe Biden.

01:02:41.000 I mean, Merrick Garland didn't try to help Biden.

01:02:43.000 Merritt Garland tried to help Joe Biden or Kamala Harris win an election by appointing a special prosecutor who then embarrassed Joe Biden, Robert Hurr, by saying that he didn't have the mental faculties.

01:02:52.000 By the way, that didn't have to be put out there.

01:02:54.000 Merrick Garland made the decision to allow that report to be public, and that was very damaging to Joe Biden.

01:02:59.000 That's why I don't think that Merrick Garland came into this thinking that he's going to help a Democrat get elected.

01:03:05.000 Merrick Garland takes great pains to try to be apolitical.

01:03:08.000 He is disliked by the left.

01:03:10.000 These are all like personal, non-fact-based statements.

01:03:13.000 I can't, there's no debate on how you feel about what Merritt Garland does.

01:03:16.000 I can only talk about what he did.

01:03:17.000 Yeah, but he prosecuted the president's son.

01:03:20.000 Who got pardoned, though?

01:03:22.000 But the fact they prosecuted, you wouldn't see this DOJ prosecute Donald Trump's kids.

01:03:27.000 Criminals and ne'er due wells often go through circuitous means to cover up their crimes.

01:03:35.000 It's politics.

01:03:36.000 You want to win points.

01:03:38.000 You say, no one's above the law, Hunter.

01:03:40.000 And then Joe's like, look, we'll do this.

01:03:42.000 Just pardon him later.

01:03:43.000 And then Joe said he wouldn't.

01:03:44.000 We all knew it was going to happen.

01:03:44.000 And he did.

01:03:45.000 Nobody was blind to this.

01:03:46.000 Look, we live in a world where everybody but seemingly people in the corporate press and Democrats knew Joe Biden's brain was cooked.

01:03:52.000 The first time he said bad a calf care, Trinidad of pressure, most of us were just like, okay, this guy ain't all with it.

01:03:57.000 Yet they kept going on TV being like, no, no, everything's fine.

01:04:00.000 So at a certain point.

01:04:00.000 Sharp as attack.

01:04:01.000 Yeah, indeed.

01:04:03.000 At a certain point, I'm just going to be like, these people are lying, and there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

01:04:09.000 But we should talk about Snapocalypse.

01:04:11.000 And I'm sure it'll be just as fun.

01:04:12.000 So we've got this from CNBC.

01:04:15.000 States sue Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits during government shutdown.

01:04:19.000 A group of states sued Trump admin in an effort to maintain funding.

01:04:23.000 The U.S. Agricultural Department has suspended SNAP benefits as of November 4th, the lawsuit noted.

01:04:29.000 The suit was filed four days after the Trump admin said it would not use $6 billion in congressionally appropriated emergency funding to maintain benefits during the shutdown for SNAP, which provides food stamps to more than 40 million people.

01:04:41.000 So we have that from NPR.

01:04:44.000 Okay.

01:04:45.000 This is why I hate the corporate press.

01:04:47.000 So this article earlier today was titled, Trump Says Emergency Funds Will Not Be Used for SNAP benefits.

01:04:53.000 But because the corporate press has no journalistic ethics, they do what's called stealth editing, where I refreshed the article and they rewrote it.

01:05:01.000 So bravo, NPR, on being unethical in journalism.

01:05:06.000 But there we go.

01:05:08.000 So the question, I suppose, is what authority would any court have to make the Trump administration release money for SNAP?

01:05:16.000 Is that possible?

01:05:17.000 They do have standing.

01:05:18.000 The states have the standing to sue.

01:05:20.000 Now, whether the courts will go along with it, I don't know.

01:05:23.000 Is remedy possible?

01:05:25.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:05:26.000 States have sued the federal government for SNAP before.

01:05:29.000 It's just this is different because this is during a shutdown, and this is a choice by the federal government to say, all right, while we're shut down, we're not giving you the money.

01:05:37.000 And aside from the political unpopularity of it, I think the states can sue.

01:05:42.000 I just don't know which way the courts are going to go on it.

01:05:44.000 I recognize standing makes a lot of sense, right?

01:05:47.000 Do the states have a right to sue over this?

01:05:49.000 It seems the answer is yes.

01:05:50.000 The question is, would a judge have the authority to make a political move like that?

01:05:54.000 Oh, yeah.

01:05:55.000 Oh, yeah.

01:05:57.000 Why not?

01:05:58.000 I mean, the courts do have oversight over it.

01:06:01.000 I mean, you're talking about technical rules of funding and states' rights and federalism and all these things that come into play.

01:06:08.000 But that's why it's tough because I'm not aware of this happening ever before in a shutdown where the administration says that we're not going to release the funds for food.

01:06:17.000 You would think if anything is emergency funding, it would be this.

01:06:19.000 But again, with that said, there's no guarantee which way it would go.

01:06:22.000 I mean, the Supreme Court has given a lot of deference to executive power.

01:06:26.000 So I can see the Supreme Court siding with the president on this.

01:06:29.000 Is it how long would you think?

01:06:32.000 I don't know if you would know, but how long do you think a court case would take for something like this, right?

01:06:36.000 Because the reality is we have three days.

01:06:38.000 What we found is generally the lower courts, the district courts, will be more favorable to the plaintiffs against the White House.

01:06:45.000 But then as you get higher up towards a Supreme Court, they have a greater sense of deference towards executive authority.

01:06:52.000 We saw this with the National Guard in the streets, that even the once liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has been ruling for the president and deferring to his authority.

01:07:01.000 So I think initially you'll see a court perhaps saying, no, you got to release it.

01:07:04.000 And then it'll get stayed on appeal by the appellate court and eventually get up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

01:07:09.000 And by the end, this shutdown should be over, and then this thing will be moot.

01:07:14.000 So I guess my question is, it's just, it looks like they're going to file.

01:07:19.000 There may be an emergency injunction of some sort.

01:07:22.000 Trump's going to file for appeal.

01:07:24.000 And in the meantime, he's not going to move these funds.

01:07:27.000 And there's no way it's happening in three days.

01:07:29.000 Agree.

01:07:30.000 Yeah.

01:07:31.000 Yeah, you and I are in agreement on this.

01:07:33.000 Question is, where does this play politically?

01:07:34.000 Is this caused people to start getting the pitchforks out and saying, hey, let's fix this problem?

01:07:40.000 I mean, both sides are getting what they want out of this shutdown.

01:07:43.000 Yeah.

01:07:44.000 And I just think I would hope that government is not as dysfunctional as it appears to be, that they can actually open the doors and turn on the lights again.

01:07:51.000 I think that the political divisions in this country are so pronounced that it's just, it doesn't matter what either side wants from either side.

01:08:00.000 Go ahead, go.

01:08:01.000 I've been talking too much.

01:08:02.000 No, I just think that what we can all agree on is we have the liberty to drink Coca-Cola.

01:08:07.000 Not paid to say this whatsoever, but these brave Democrat states are standing up for our rights to drink Coca-Cola.

01:08:16.000 Like on SNAP benefits, yeah, yeah, because I mean, I've been under good authority that it's a huge limit on our liberty if they cut off our access to Coca-Cola with government money.

01:08:26.000 Man, I think they should.

01:08:26.000 But I saw a clip earlier of Mike Johnson, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of we don't want anything.

01:08:39.000 There's nothing that we want from Democrats.

01:08:41.000 We've proposed this to them.

01:08:42.000 They can vote yes.

01:08:43.000 So there's no reason to negotiate.

01:08:46.000 And that right away, I'm like, well, there is.

01:08:50.000 Democrats want something.

01:08:52.000 Mike Johnson's effectively saying we're happy with the government shutdown.

01:08:56.000 So why would we bother doing any deals?

01:08:58.000 Like it's a win-win for them.

01:08:59.000 Yeah.

01:09:00.000 And he doesn't have to seat the member of Congress from Arizona and then vote to release the FC.

01:09:05.000 Yeah, I mean, that's how government shutdowns have always worked: the party demanding something is always really blamed for it.

01:09:11.000 I mean, going back to the previous shutdown, I mean, The contest is over border wall funding, et cetera, and people blame the Republican Party.

01:09:18.000 But this is what's so fascinating is this is unprecedented where the media is still siding with the Democrats, even in spite of the fact that they're the ones demanding something in this instance.

01:09:28.000 Yeah, why do you think that is that the public seems to be supporting for the first time the party out of power when it comes to shutdown?

01:09:36.000 Is it because of the health care issue that that's an issue that resonates?

01:09:38.000 I don't know if that's true, though.

01:09:40.000 As far as the polling?

01:09:42.000 Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, I, polling's impossible right now, right?

01:09:48.000 I mean, we're, we're, it's wild swings.

01:09:50.000 You know, I'm looking at Real Clear Politics average.

01:09:52.000 I try to use aggregates because individual polls are going to have their bias or whatever there, but it's nuts.

01:09:56.000 I mean, one poll's like Trump plus eight, and then a day later, another poll's Trump minus eight.

01:10:00.000 Yeah.

01:10:00.000 So I don't know which one's right and which one's wrong.

01:10:03.000 You go to like Real Clear Politics and they show all the different polls and they're all over the place.

01:10:07.000 There's like a 20-point spread between the polling.

01:10:09.000 It's like, how I can't determine.

01:10:10.000 I can't parse information.

01:10:11.000 They have the ratings of certain polls, like the letter grades for the certain polls.

01:10:14.000 Why even give the F polls or the bad polls?

01:10:16.000 Why show them?

01:10:17.000 Like RMG two weeks ago had Trump at up four and then for the same time period, relatively the same time period, it was minus 14 with Knipiak.

01:10:27.000 Well, this is 16 to 20 and 15 to 22.

01:10:29.000 That's his approval rating.

01:10:30.000 What about who's winning the shutdown?

01:10:33.000 Like, who's right?

01:10:35.000 My point was like, this is the easiest way to look at in aggregate because they poll so often that polls are effectively meaningless for the most part.

01:10:44.000 I used to do segments all the time on my morning show where I'm like, look at the poll's current trend and here's what people are thinking.

01:10:49.000 But now I've stopped because it's nuts.

01:10:51.000 Minus 14, minus four in the same time period is meaningless.

01:10:56.000 So when I look at one poll from, say, it's like Gallup or something, or Quinnipiac being a better example for more current polling, I can't believe if it's like, yeah, Democrats are winning this one.

01:11:09.000 I'm like, are they?

01:11:10.000 Well, I also think it's really difficult to poll on who's to blame for the shutdown because this story is like, I think a lot of people don't even realize the government's shutdown.

01:11:18.000 I mean, the news cycle's been so insane that I don't even think the press has much appetite to like cover this in depth.

01:11:24.000 I mean, like when NPR reports on it on their daily podcast, they're just like, oh, yeah, okay, we have to talk about this, I guess, because it seems important.

01:11:32.000 But I think the American people are just the news cycle's been so cooked that there's just not even really that much interest in the drama over the shutdown.

01:11:39.000 So it's really hard to determine polling.

01:11:41.000 It's really determined to gauge interest.

01:11:42.000 Here's Quinnipiak from a week ago.

01:11:45.000 Who is more responsible for the government shutdown?

01:11:46.000 Voters blame Republicans slightly more than Democrats.

01:11:49.000 They say 45% of registered voters think Republicans in Congress are more responsible for the government shutdown, while 39% think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 11% volunteer.

01:11:58.000 They think both parties are equally responsible.

01:11:59.000 However, at the same time, Quinnipiak had Trump at minus 14 for a similar time period.

01:12:07.000 I don't believe Trump is at minus 14 in the polls.

01:12:09.000 I don't necessarily believe that he's at plus 4 either.

01:12:13.000 I certainly know a lot of people don't like Trump, but minus 14 is very heavy.

01:12:16.000 In aggregate, he's at 44.9 approval to 51.9 disapproval.

01:12:22.000 Minus seven seems relatively plausible, but Quinnipiak seems to be heavily biased.

01:12:27.000 So this is why it's hard to track.

01:12:29.000 I've read a handful of polls showing that Democrats are largely winning this, but I don't, the reason why I find it hard to believe is that Republicans would not keep up a fight that risked their success in the midterms.

01:12:45.000 So there's a few ways to look at it.

01:12:47.000 They don't think this will matter in the midterms because a year is an eternity in politics.

01:12:52.000 They don't care about political blowback because the rewards they're getting from it are massive and they'd rather have political victories, which I don't think so because I think the blowback from loss of snap is going to hurt them politically.

01:13:03.000 They must genuinely believe they're winning politically, that the perception is beneficial to them.

01:13:07.000 And Democrats must agree.

01:13:09.000 So what I think is the polls are so divergent.

01:13:12.000 Republicans are probably going, guys, we're winning.

01:13:14.000 And Democrats are going, guys, we're winning.

01:13:16.000 Yeah.

01:13:16.000 Well, yeah, I think like both parties are galvanizing their bases right now as well.

01:13:20.000 And that's primarily what's driving like both sides not really interested in negotiating here.

01:13:24.000 I think that's right.

01:13:25.000 I think the Republicans are taking the long game thinking they can just wait out the Democrats that people will start to really feel the pain and start to blame the Democrats.

01:13:33.000 So we'll see.

01:13:34.000 But also, if the Republicans thought they were looking good going into the midterms, they wouldn't be trying so hard to gerrymander some of these districts.

01:13:40.000 I do think they see the trends as far as history, the historical trends that the party out of power generally picks up seats in the House, and they want to stem that.

01:13:49.000 But, you know, we'll see.

01:13:50.000 We're an uncharted territory here, and I hope they can open it up.

01:13:54.000 But the longer this goes, will the trends change?

01:13:56.000 Will the Democrats start getting blamed for it?

01:13:59.000 I don't know.

01:13:59.000 People are worried that their health care premiums are going to double if this bill, a clean bill, goes through.

01:14:06.000 I kind of just think we're well beyond the political argument phase of what's going on in this country politically.

01:14:12.000 Well, I mean, you look at the celebrations for Charlie Kirk's assassination.

01:14:15.000 Obviously, we can say, you know, like the Clintons, Obama, high-level Democrats and liberals said this is wrong and this is bad, and my heart goes out.

01:14:15.000 Yeah.

01:14:23.000 And you can see that trend actually in the polls on political violence where the older generations are averse and say, no, we can't do this.

01:14:31.000 The younger generations are like ready and waiting, locked and loaded.

01:14:35.000 So when you see these younger liberals and leftists coming out on social media, dancing, celebrating, mocking, I mean, even 40-year-old liberals, like that woman who was like pointing in her neck, there's one young guy, Gen Z, with the guy, his Halloween costume, was a dead Charlie Kirk.

01:14:50.000 That's where I'm just like, I hear you on the premiums and medical and all those things and SNAP benefits, but I really don't think that if you're 45 and under, you care about this in the majority, or I would say the majority cares about it.

01:15:06.000 So I would estimate that there's many people who are in their 40s, younger 40s, older millennials, who are concerned about the cost of medical because they have kids.

01:15:15.000 However, millennials largely didn't have kids.

01:15:17.000 So they don't care.

01:15:20.000 The issue of medical costs are largely for the older generation.

01:15:24.000 And as you get to the younger generation, you're less and less likely to find someone who has a family or even believes they would get medical care in the first place.

01:15:30.000 Well, and on top of that, right, part of what Obamacare does is because it limits the amount that you can increase premiums based on age, it redistributes money away from those younger people to older people so they actually benefit financially from those measures being withdrawn.

01:15:44.000 Young people are ready for this whole thing to go belly up. 1.00

01:15:47.000 Yeah.

01:15:48.000 Telling young people to pay taxes to boomers for Social Security, and they're going to be like, revolution win? 0.90

01:15:48.000 Right? 0.90

01:15:54.000 Like they literally are.

01:15:56.000 Yeah.

01:15:56.000 Well, and yeah, the fact that like social media now drives information, the polemics are driven by young people, and most young people have given up on institutions across the board.

01:16:05.000 And so it's like really tough to really, you know, drive up a lot of interest in a government shutdown.

01:16:08.000 And a lot of people have just tapped out anyway, or they just don't think that this is an institution they can put faith or trust in whatsoever.

01:16:14.000 Let's jump to the story from the New York Post.

01:16:16.000 Fuming SNAP recipients threaten to loot if food stamps are cut November 1st.

01:16:21.000 Stay the F out of my way.

01:16:23.000 Quote, I'm going to tell y'all straight up like this.

01:16:26.000 I just got that text that the link is definitely cut the F off for November.

01:16:30.000 Y'all better stay the F out of my way in these stores because I'm walking out with carts and I'm not paying for ish.

01:16:36.000 Another added, you know what? 0.96

01:16:37.000 Since they want to take food stamps away, I'm going to go to effing Walmart, grab anything I damn want, put that ish right in the basket, and walk right up out that B. I'm not paying for a damn thing, said another. 0.89

01:16:50.000 42 million people, and you don't need 42 million people for instability. 0.73

01:16:55.000 So they're saying straight up, I don't know, man.

01:16:58.000 I mean, is this what's going to like come November 1st?

01:17:00.000 This is literally no benefits for anybody.

01:17:03.000 And so they're just.

01:17:04.000 It's time to deputize the Walmart greeters.

01:17:06.000 I think it's the way out of this.

01:17:10.000 Imagine this.

01:17:12.000 Imagine if the Republicans, let me first say, I have no idea the political play here for Democrats or for Republicans.

01:17:20.000 Democrats could certainly come out and vote yes in the Senate.

01:17:22.000 Seven votes.

01:17:24.000 They turn it, they speak it back on.

01:17:25.000 Actually, I think they need, yeah, right.

01:17:27.000 I think one Democrat defected, one Republican defected.

01:17:29.000 Seven votes, and SNAP is back.

01:17:32.000 But Democrats must believe that whatever they're doing is going to benefit them.

01:17:37.000 Republicans must believe the same thing.

01:17:40.000 So I'd have to assume the Republican play is: let's piss off as many SAP recipients as possible and blame the Democrats for why they didn't get their food stamps.

01:17:48.000 Yeah, I mean, that's a very important voting block for the Democrats.

01:17:48.000 Yeah.

01:17:50.000 Historically, people have always seen this as the Democratic Party being the party that's going to promise benefits to people that's going to essentially allow them to buy gifts from the Treasury with their vote.

01:17:59.000 And so this has always been something people have been aware of.

01:18:02.000 And Democrats cannot afford to upset that particular demographic in the same way that Republicans can.

01:18:09.000 Though that's probably changing.

01:18:11.000 I think the last two elections have shown us that higher-income people are starting to vote Democrat more often and lower income people are starting to vote Republican more often.

01:18:21.000 But I think the stereotype generally still exists.

01:18:23.000 And I still think there is some truth to it.

01:18:25.000 So the Republicans know this is going to hurt the Democrats way more than it's going to hurt us.

01:18:29.000 Yeah.

01:18:30.000 And kind of like what you're saying, where we are really in uncharted territory, I think that's what's driving a lot of this is a lot of these consulting groups, a lot of these policy institutes, they don't really know what to do.

01:18:42.000 They don't know what's so the only message they can really signal to their to the parties is just like, I don't know, just dig your heels and like hopefully the country just blames the other side because they don't know what to do.

01:18:52.000 These are, these are the class of people that usually are calling shots here and they say, okay, it's very clear if you do this, you're going to get this outcome.

01:18:59.000 I think people are scrambling in these in these, yeah, like these consultancy groups and policy institutes.

01:19:04.000 Food riots?

01:19:04.000 They don't know what to do.

01:19:06.000 Oh, man.

01:19:07.000 Like what's a, it's a dystopian, one of those movies that you see.

01:19:11.000 It's like a, I'm a robocop.

01:19:12.000 Am I dating myself with RoboCops?

01:19:14.000 I had pretty much the same type of thing.

01:19:15.000 When was Rotocap?

01:19:16.000 Like RoboCop?

01:19:17.000 Late 80s?

01:19:18.000 Yeah, I am dating myself.

01:19:18.000 80s, I think.

01:19:20.000 Wow.

01:19:21.000 I used to be the youngest person in every room.

01:19:22.000 Now I'm the oldest.

01:19:23.000 That's what happens.

01:19:24.000 I mean, hey, hey, I mean, look, they're all younger than me.

01:19:27.000 Exactly.

01:19:28.000 You guys are now.

01:19:30.000 I've never seen RoboCops.

01:19:31.000 I'm going to fire everyone younger than me and hire only old people. 1.00

01:19:31.000 I'm going to start. 1.00

01:19:34.000 Thank you.

01:19:34.000 Well, good.

01:19:36.000 Consider me, I hear the cost of living is low here in West Virginia.

01:19:39.000 Oh, dude, it's not anymore.

01:19:40.000 It's getting nuts.

01:19:41.000 It's funny because I had someone, I can't remember browsing an interview or something, and they were like, how do you think the economy is doing?

01:19:46.000 I was like, it's bad.

01:19:47.000 And they're like, oh, you like Trump.

01:19:48.000 I thought you'd say it was a good one.

01:19:49.000 I was like, nuts?

01:19:51.000 Bro, the cost of houses is skyrocketing out here.

01:19:54.000 It's insane.

01:19:55.000 There was a property out here three years ago that was like 200, and it's like 550 now.

01:20:00.000 And it's a bungalow.

01:20:01.000 And I was like, how the what is it's crazy, not to mention gold and silver through the roof.

01:20:07.000 Yeah.

01:20:07.000 It's not, that's not because good things are happening.

01:20:09.000 Yeah, exactly.

01:20:10.000 No, it's true.

01:20:11.000 Now, what people need to understand about Snap, and again, I'll say this: I'm for just cutting it off.

01:20:18.000 It's not the preferable system.

01:20:19.000 And I wouldn't even argue that I'm largely for it.

01:20:22.000 It's like a 50.1%.

01:20:24.000 Let it happen, I guess.

01:20:26.000 But this is going to impact not just the recipients, but all of the stores.

01:20:30.000 There's going to be areas of cities.

01:20:32.000 People need to understand this.

01:20:33.000 It's going to be geographic.

01:20:34.000 There are areas in cities that have high-density welfare recipients.

01:20:39.000 And the stores there probably can't exist without these food benefits going to the area.

01:20:44.000 So the government basically says, we're going to distribute these resources in this way to these people, however it's done, whether it's legit or not, otherwise, whether people are fraudulent or otherwise, they do.

01:20:52.000 And then there are impoverished neighborhoods that get a large, a lion's share of these benefits.

01:20:56.000 Wealthy areas don't.

01:20:58.000 The stores there disproportionately rely on people with EBT cards buying goods.

01:21:04.000 So when this cuts off, you're going to see a bunch of bodegas vanish overnight.

01:21:08.000 They're going to be like, we're cooked.

01:21:11.000 We can't sell products.

01:21:12.000 And then what's going to happen is there's going to be a ripple effect where these small stores, if they shut, so you're going to see a variety of things.

01:21:18.000 Supermarkets in general will see a margin drop, which will result in every distributor that supplies them seeing a margin drop.

01:21:27.000 It's going to result in a ripple effect.

01:21:28.000 I mean, it is a freight train slamming into a brick wall, stopping at once.

01:21:32.000 And you know what it's like?

01:21:32.000 You guys ever see the movie Hancock?

01:21:34.000 Yeah.

01:21:35.000 Remember when he stops the train?

01:21:35.000 Will Smith.

01:21:37.000 Can't believe it didn't get the Oscar that year.

01:21:38.000 That one.

01:21:38.000 I know.

01:21:39.000 That's really amazing.

01:21:39.000 Yeah.

01:21:40.000 Superhero, a train's coming to save the person.

01:21:43.000 He just stands there and he's like, Superman, the train hits him, and the whole thing just flips over because that energy's got to go somewhere.

01:21:49.000 So bodega's shut down, corner stores shut down for those who know what a bodega is.

01:21:53.000 And all of a sudden, the local distributors are like the money that we're receiving was largely coming from, you know, 15, 20% was EBT.

01:22:01.000 So now we just lost 12 of the stores we supply.

01:22:05.000 What people need to understand about margin collapse from something like this: supermarkets operate on a 3% margin typically, which means if they lose 3%, they go to business.

01:22:17.000 When they're negative, I mean, they've probably got emergency coffers.

01:22:21.000 They'll probably stay afloat for a little while.

01:22:23.000 But we saw this during COVID when they shut down restaurants.

01:22:26.000 The restaurants, like, we've got $20,000 worth of perishable goods.

01:22:30.000 When they shut us down, even for a week, we lose $20,000.

01:22:34.000 We will never get back.

01:22:35.000 Well, yeah, the other thing to consider, too, is my understanding is: yes, grocery stores have around a 3% profit margin, but it's even lower in low-income areas where more people are likely to lose SNAP, which means, I mean, you could be talking closer to like a 1% to 2% profit margin, which really exacerbates the problem.

01:22:54.000 So, Snap Okalypse. 0.76

01:22:56.000 That's why I'm looking at this like there's no way they actually let this happen.

01:23:00.000 But at this point, we're three days out.

01:23:02.000 Is it, I suppose the only remedy at this point would be for Trump to release the $6 billion?

01:23:07.000 Was that the only?

01:23:07.000 Because I don't think they could reopen it and pass this fast enough, could they?

01:23:10.000 Not this Congress.

01:23:12.000 Right.

01:23:13.000 Indeed.

01:23:14.000 You know, it used to be, and Seamus, you said this, that this was a Democratic constituency.

01:23:18.000 But we saw things turn on its head in this last election where generally lower income voters have flocked towards Republicans.

01:23:27.000 And so I think maybe this is something the Democrats say, all right, you're going to take food out of the hands of the poorest.

01:23:32.000 Well, it's going to affect your voters as much or more than ours.

01:23:36.000 And let's see who they blame.

01:23:39.000 So that's the question.

01:23:41.000 Who will they blame?

01:23:42.000 I was thinking this, that, look, Stephen Miller is a very smart man.

01:23:49.000 You have to like him or agree with him, but underestimate him at your own peril.

01:23:53.000 And I have to imagine he's sitting there in the room with Trump and he's like, let Snap expire.

01:23:58.000 Because what's going to happen is the people, the principal recipients of this are not Republican Trump voters.

01:24:03.000 And so it is not going to be your base that is hurt by it largely.

01:24:07.000 The Democrats will see a backlash because people don't know or care why the system doesn't work.

01:24:13.000 They blame the politicians.

01:24:15.000 So, what happens?

01:24:16.000 In Democrat areas, there is outrage over the failures of their member of Congress.

01:24:22.000 It will disproportionately impact Democrat congressional districts going into a midterm election.

01:24:28.000 And that's all they need.

01:24:30.000 Whether that's true or not, we don't know.

01:24:30.000 That's a big question.

01:24:32.000 Well, I'll put it like this.

01:24:37.000 EBT benefits are disproportionately, 40% go to white.

01:24:41.000 The rest are non-white. 0.85

01:24:43.000 25.6, I think, go to black.

01:24:46.000 Their attitude is like: look, if it's even 2% detriment to the Democrats, it's worth doing.

01:24:53.000 So I think the general common sense approach is going to be: yet it's urban areas with high densities of EBT recipients, less likely to be in rural areas, more likely to be minorities.

01:25:07.000 Meaning, when you look at the math, Democrats, it's not about who's right or wrong.

01:25:12.000 It's about how many angry people per district.

01:25:16.000 And so the Republicans are going to say, we are going to increase the amount of angry people in every Republican district by 7%.

01:25:22.000 Democrats will increase the amount of angry people by 13%.

01:25:25.000 That's good for us.

01:25:26.000 It destabilizes their elections.

01:25:28.000 But that's why they're suing.

01:25:29.000 Right.

01:25:30.000 Sue.

01:25:30.000 Now they take the initiative saying, see, we're trying.

01:25:32.000 We want the speaker to be turned back on.

01:25:34.000 Blame the Republicans.

01:25:35.000 But it doesn't matter because the voters don't know or care.

01:25:40.000 They only want no results.

01:25:41.000 You go to the average person and ask them about the granular policy implications, actions, otherwise, they're just like, huh?

01:25:51.000 All I know is my card's turned off.

01:25:52.000 But they know who's in power.

01:25:53.000 And who's in power is their member of Congress and their senators.

01:25:57.000 I don't know if most people even know who their member of Congress is.

01:25:59.000 Trump's not up for election.

01:26:00.000 Trump's not up for election.

01:26:01.000 And that's the point.

01:26:03.000 When they go to vote next year, Trump's not on the ballot.

01:26:06.000 So in Democrat districts, you're going to have more anger than in Republican districts.

01:26:09.000 And it's going to be bad for Democrats running for election, particularly in swing areas.

01:26:13.000 The Democrats are counting that Trump will be on the ballot, not his name, but his presence.

01:26:19.000 He sucks all the oxygen out of every room.

01:26:21.000 And they're going to think that, hey, this is a referendum on Trump.

01:26:25.000 And so that's why the party in power often loses seats in an off-term election.

01:26:29.000 It's true, but let me pull this one up.

01:26:32.000 I love this.

01:26:34.000 Let's see, which one is it?

01:26:35.000 Which party will win the U.S. House?

01:26:38.000 Caul Shi's prediction market has it near toss-up territory.

01:26:41.000 So shout out to Caul Shi for sponsoring the show. 0.95

01:26:44.000 Wait a second.

01:26:45.000 It looks 58% to 42.

01:26:45.000 Is that a toss-up?

01:26:48.000 Uh-huh.

01:26:49.000 Prediction market, not polls, have the Democrats at 58% likelihood to win control of the House.

01:26:57.000 Republicans with 42%.

01:26:59.000 Now, considering the historical trend of opposition parties winning, this was actually in May 82.5 to 17.5.

01:27:06.000 No one thought it possible Democrats would lose.

01:27:09.000 And then a variety of things happened.

01:27:11.000 And now it's, that's why I say near toss-up territory.

01:27:14.000 I mean, 58 to 42, it was briefly 55 to 45.

01:27:21.000 This is, what, a week ago?

01:27:22.000 So Democrats improved a little bit, dipped down a little bit.

01:27:25.000 It should not be anywhere this close.

01:27:28.000 So I'm making the bet the Republicans' attitude is: listen, when SNAP benefits go up, a lot of rural working class poor people are going to be celebrating. 0.94

01:27:38.000 The Republican message is going to be: those people that are mad were stealing from you.

01:27:44.000 And I think a lot of conservative people are going to be like, yep.

01:27:47.000 And then a lot of people in the urban environments are going to be like, I don't know what happened.

01:27:52.000 All I know is you're supposed to have fixed this.

01:27:55.000 And so even if, I'll put it this way, in New York, in a D plus 30, is Trump really worried about losing voters?

01:28:06.000 But it's going to hurt Democrats.

01:28:09.000 In a swing district, maybe, but Trump may be betting.

01:28:13.000 In a swing district where a Democrat is currently in office for Congress, people are going to say, I'm voting for the other guy, regardless of which party it is.

01:28:23.000 I'm voting for the other guy because what's happening is bad.

01:28:25.000 And I think that bump for the Republicans there, I believe that's because of the SCOTUS looking like they're going to take on the Voting Rights Act.

01:28:31.000 The initial decline appears to be, like you can see over the past several months, generally related to the public sentiment, the working class, et cetera.

01:28:41.000 And then this bump that happened right here is when news broke that SCOTUS was likely going to overturn the voting, was it the Voter Rights Act?

01:28:48.000 Voting Rights Act?

01:28:49.000 Voting Rights Act.

01:28:50.000 Yeah.

01:28:51.000 They were going to overturn that one.

01:28:52.000 And that's allegedly going to give Republicans 20 more districts.

01:28:57.000 I'll put it like this.

01:29:01.000 When you're at the point in politics where in order to win, you're just blatantly redistricting, we are well past the point of arguments.

01:29:10.000 I'm looking at it like the Republicans.

01:29:12.000 I agree with that.

01:29:13.000 The Republicans' attitude right now, like even with going back to the DOJ stuff with the pardons and voiding them, they're going to do it.

01:29:20.000 Like, maybe I'm wrong, but I think Trump's attitude is all that matters is you win.

01:29:26.000 As we had on Arn McIntyre last week, and he said, I forgot whose quote this is, the sovereign is he who makes the exceptions or the exemptions, whichever.

01:29:35.000 And so right now, I'm assuming that the Republican Party's attitude is, who cares?

01:29:42.000 You can just do things.

01:29:44.000 That's it.

01:29:45.000 Yeah.

01:29:45.000 Probably.

01:29:47.000 Nobody, like, there was a period maybe 30 years ago where the conversation was, let's figure out where we meet, compromise, and then work together.

01:29:55.000 We're way past that.

01:29:56.000 There's no accuse Trump of being a Russian spy.

01:29:56.000 Yeah.

01:30:02.000 You know, impeach whatever by any means necessary.

01:30:06.000 Get him out and launch investigations.

01:30:09.000 And then with Trump, you get the election is fake.

01:30:13.000 You get January 6th riots.

01:30:14.000 Nobody, this is why I said this in 2020, that people were going to, I said people are going to storm the White House.

01:30:20.000 Not exactly correct, but close.

01:30:22.000 Because the arguments every year, the argument, you know what it is?

01:30:25.000 It's actually really simple.

01:30:26.000 Let me say it like this.

01:30:27.000 The argument only matters to the older crowd.

01:30:30.000 The older you are, the more you're concerned about winning an argument.

01:30:33.000 The younger you are, the more you're just like, crush them.

01:30:36.000 And we see that with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death.

01:30:39.000 You see it with, I mean, Nick Fuentes getting more and more popular among younger generation, going viral on social media among these younger Gen Z guys, Gen Z skewing right.

01:30:49.000 I don't see a remedy to the track we're on.

01:30:51.000 I think it goes in one direction.

01:30:52.000 Y'all know that.

01:30:53.000 Well, you have the ability.

01:30:54.000 You have millions of listeners and followers, and you have the ability to help shape the debate.

01:30:58.000 That's why I'm here is because you'll have someone like me on it, Tim.

01:31:02.000 And that's something where you're not on the extreme where you're generating hatred.

01:31:07.000 And there are people who, you know who they are, who that's how they make their money in doing that.

01:31:11.000 But that's not who you are.

01:31:13.000 And that's why I think maybe there's some hope if we can have this type of debate, this type of dialogue.

01:31:20.000 I agree with you.

01:31:21.000 And I think it's been Graham.

01:31:22.000 I'm really glad that you came and I hope you come back.

01:31:24.000 It was fun.

01:31:24.000 Even though I just got really heated and started yelling.

01:31:26.000 But I would go back to that, what got me so heated, and then say to the millions of people who follow me, who trust me, what do you think they think?

01:31:36.000 How do you think they feel about what Merrick Garland did to me?

01:31:40.000 I think they hate it.

01:31:42.000 And that's why I understand your indignation about it.

01:31:46.000 I understand why you're upset about it because you had to hire lawyers.

01:31:48.000 You've had death threats.

01:31:49.000 You still have death threats, I'm sure.

01:31:51.000 But because it was fake.

01:31:52.000 It's a lie.

01:31:54.000 The difference that we have on this is not that I think you shouldn't be upset about it.

01:31:59.000 I think the difference is that I don't think Merrick Garland went in there thinking, I'm going to screw over these right-wing influencers and I'm going to help the Democrat win the election.

01:32:07.000 Just Merrick Garland is not like that.

01:32:10.000 He's got his faults.

01:32:11.000 And the people on the left, they are really down on him because they think he dragged his feet after January 6th, didn't want to get involved in going after Trump.

01:32:19.000 Didn't even put a special prosecutor into place until it was too late.

01:32:23.000 He went out of his way to make sure Biden's son got prosecuted.

01:32:27.000 Biden was embarrassed by Robert Hurr.

01:32:29.000 He dropped the case against Matt Gates.

01:32:31.000 This is Merrick Garland in the Democrats' mind.

01:32:33.000 So where I'm coming from is that I don't think he came in there thinking, I'm going to screw over Tim Poole and the Republicans.

01:32:40.000 He may have made mistakes, but I don't think it's because he intentionally tried to hurt you or the Republicans.

01:32:46.000 Why didn't he then reconcile the mistake he made?

01:32:50.000 As far as the case, remember, you said that you heard from your lawyers that they dropped the case in December.

01:32:57.000 Informally.

01:32:58.000 Informally, right?

01:32:59.000 But I haven't seen that.

01:33:00.000 Like, it's not reported.

01:33:01.000 No, no, no, but it's informal.

01:33:03.000 And that's the point.

01:33:03.000 The case or against the case against the RT people.

01:33:06.000 So here's the timeline.

01:33:09.000 Press conference.

01:33:10.000 This thing happened.

01:33:12.000 Tim Poole, Benny, Dave did nothing wrong.

01:33:16.000 Immediately, we were attacked by every political actor imaginable, threatening our sponsors, trying to get us banned, death threats.

01:33:24.000 There's no way Merrick Garland was unaware that would be the case.

01:33:26.000 The argument made by Merrick Garland was that we disseminated Russian propaganda.

01:33:30.000 That's factually incorrect.

01:33:32.000 The shows that were licensed were not in any meaningful way Russian propaganda.

01:33:37.000 People tried claiming that because of comments I made about a German indictment of a Ukrainian cut out of context, that was Russian propaganda.

01:33:44.000 Germany indicted a Ukrainian guy for bombing Nord Street 2.

01:33:48.000 I said, if a Ukrainian bombed Nord Stream 2, they are an enemy of this Ukraine sanctioning this would make them an enemy of our country, trying to drag us into war. 0.77

01:33:57.000 So then they say, aha.

01:33:58.000 So a totally different company, a different show.

01:34:00.000 And then they try to make some circuitous argument.

01:34:02.000 But the point is, Merrick Garland had no evidence, issued an indictment against two individuals that could never be prosecuted, falsely claiming that the prominent key players were unwittingly disseminating Russian propaganda, which is false, never apologized for his error.

01:34:16.000 And then in December, the feds, the DOJ, instructed my lawyers that they would be informally closing the case.

01:34:23.000 That is, it will remain open.

01:34:24.000 We will not tell anybody, but we will no longer pursue it, and we no longer need your correspondence.

01:34:30.000 And I rejected that and said, absolutely not.

01:34:32.000 What do I have to do?

01:34:34.000 And that's when I was instructed.

01:34:35.000 Tim, this was for the election.

01:34:38.000 There's nothing you can do.

01:34:41.000 The DOJ never had any intention to prosecute two men from a faraway land they can't prosecute.

01:34:46.000 Well, they've done that before, though.

01:34:48.000 Sure.

01:34:49.000 There are several.

01:34:50.000 And they did it right before the election.

01:34:51.000 And so my point is this.

01:34:52.000 Not to rehash that whole argument.

01:34:54.000 My point is to the millions of people who do watch this show, who know that I've disparaged Russia, but I've also disparaged Ukraine and don't rightly care about either because they're not America. 0.68

01:35:03.000 They know Merrick Garland lied.

01:35:05.000 They know that it caused us damage.

01:35:06.000 They know that it put us at tremendous risk politically, financially, and safety.

01:35:12.000 And the view is Merrick Garland is a portent of what's to come.

01:35:19.000 This is what you get from the boomer class trying to destroy you. 1.00

01:35:23.000 He didn't mean to try and destroy my family's life and put us at risk and have every political actor and faction trying to dish rip us to shreds.

01:35:32.000 He didn't mean for that to happen.

01:35:34.000 He just did it on accident. 0.98

01:35:35.000 So the response is: okay, these people are either so brazenly inept, they're dangerous, or they're malicious. 0.76

01:35:42.000 And now the presumption is wholly it's malicious, considering Jenna Ellis being prosecuted.

01:35:47.000 I mean, whatever your argument over what you think Jenna Ellis did, it is bold to criminally charge a person's lawyer.

01:35:53.000 Local prosecutor did that, right?

01:35:55.000 But it doesn't matter.

01:35:56.000 The Democratic Party is not a separate entity.

01:35:59.000 The Democrats work at the state and federal level all the same.

01:36:02.000 And the prosecutors are once again aligned with these political parties, federal or otherwise.

01:36:07.000 The fact that she pled guilty to a much lower charge means that they threatened her life and she begged them to leave her alone.

01:36:15.000 But also, now it's getting there where the initial charge of RICO seems to be an overcharged.

01:36:19.000 When you charge someone with such a serious crime as RICO, and then a few weeks later, they plead guilty to almost nothing.

01:36:27.000 That to me is a problem.

01:36:28.000 Then it does seem like an overcharge.

01:36:30.000 But, you know, you talk about Merrick Garland, who comes out before an election and has his press conference.

01:36:36.000 But don't you think that James Comey deserves the same thing when he violated FBI policy to announce that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation just days before the election.

01:36:48.000 And that, then he closed it right before with very little standfare, right?

01:36:52.000 It was obviously political.

01:36:54.000 And I think Hillary Clinton should have been criminally charged for the destruction of public records. 1.00

01:36:59.000 But the Comey part, right?

01:37:00.000 The fact that we have an overtly political DOJ and always have.

01:37:06.000 Whose side was he on then?

01:37:07.000 He was hurting Hillary Clinton.

01:37:09.000 Indeed.

01:37:10.000 Yeah, indeed.

01:37:12.000 I can't speak to the motivations of James Comey.

01:37:16.000 I don't like the guy, nor do I trust him.

01:37:18.000 And there's a million and one reasons we can assume, but I can say I don't care if it's Comey or Garland or anybody.

01:37:23.000 An October surprise is an obvious October surprise.

01:37:26.000 You're playing games.

01:37:27.000 We get it.

01:37:28.000 Now, the issue with Hillary Clinton is that she should have been charged over the emails thing a long time ago. 1.00

01:37:33.000 But if the president is, we're not going to do that, we're not going to play that game, they shouldn't have gone after Trump.

01:37:37.000 They shouldn't have gone after Trump for documents at Mar-a-Lau.

01:37:40.000 Those are, I mean, apples and oranges, the documents.

01:37:43.000 I think that is legit because, again, well, we already talked about that.

01:37:46.000 Right.

01:37:47.000 So, so to the Comey issue, the apples is that it is dangerous for parties to swap targeting each other when they switch power.

01:37:58.000 So, for Trump to be targeted by Obama and Yates and Comey and whoever else, Biden, with being a Russian spy as he entered office, is terrifying, right?

01:38:09.000 As Trump is campaigning, they accuse him of being a traitor.

01:38:12.000 He enters office with this weight over him.

01:38:14.000 And then, for a variety of reasons, which I believe are largely Trump's fault, not so much that he did it to himself, but that he didn't know what he was getting into. 0.52

01:38:23.000 He ends up with the Mueller investigation and all this ridiculous nonsense.

01:38:27.000 Then you end up with these individuals, these holdovers in the FBI, the DOJ, putting pressure on social media organizations to censor people, which is a fact.

01:38:38.000 And let me just succinctly wrap this up.

01:38:42.000 I accurately reported a long time ago that social media companies were censoring conservative voices and pro-Trump voices.

01:38:49.000 And every Wahoo in the corporate press said I was lying.

01:38:53.000 I'm a conspiracy.

01:38:53.000 It's admitted up.

01:38:55.000 Gizmodo was the organization that initially reported this.

01:38:58.000 I cited them, and then I get accused of lying.

01:39:00.000 We now know that all that was true.

01:39:01.000 We now know that Biden's DOJ was sending letters, had illicit access to big tech platforms through back doors, through threats against these companies.

01:39:11.000 Zuckerberg came out and said, we resisted, but they forced us to do it.

01:39:14.000 I mean, what Biden did is evil.

01:39:16.000 Now, maybe Trump did evil stuff too.

01:39:18.000 But to the main point before we go to our super chats, is that nobody should want conflict or crisis.

01:39:24.000 Nobody should want war.

01:39:25.000 It will be the worst thing you ever see come to pass.

01:39:28.000 And these young people, largely these urban lefty antifatypes that are celebrating violence and revolution, they are going to be the first to weep if it ever actually happens because they're going to be like, why can't I eat food anymore?

01:39:41.000 I think conservatives are largely going to be like, we mostly live in the middle of nowhere and we have chickens in our backyard.

01:39:46.000 So it will predominantly impact urban individuals who lose access to these resources, but everybody will be lesser because of it.

01:39:53.000 Unfortunately, neither side will back down.

01:39:56.000 There are two distinct moral worldviews that have been described as the multicultural democracy of America, the Democrats, the liberals, the left, and the Constitutional Republic of America, the right, the conservatives, et cetera.

01:40:07.000 Neither of them will accept the proposition of the other.

01:40:10.000 That is, Democrats have proposed abortion up to nine months.

01:40:14.000 States like Colorado, it happens.

01:40:16.000 Unrestricted.

01:40:17.000 Well, you're from.

01:40:18.000 Yeah, but does that really happen?

01:40:19.000 Yes.

01:40:20.000 It does.

01:40:20.000 It doesn't literally happen.

01:40:22.000 But you can't let nine-month abortion happen unless there's a threat to the health of the mother.

01:40:27.000 It does happen.

01:40:27.000 Well, no, no, no, but this is actually to call that an abortion.

01:40:30.000 Here's why this is complicated: because when the woman is nine months pregnant and there is a medical reason why the baby needs to come out, you just induce labor and she gives birth early.

01:40:40.000 To perform an abortion on top of that is never a medical necessity.

01:40:44.000 But let's put that aside because that actually doesn't, that argument is not to the point I'm making.

01:40:49.000 And if, you know, by all means, Seamus can argue with you and show you the facts on this and we can disagree.

01:40:53.000 My point is, neither will accept the proposition of the other.

01:40:57.000 So in Colorado, when they said we would like to legalize abortion unrestricted up to nine months, conservatives and moderate liberals even said, why?

01:41:08.000 And they said, well, it doesn't happen anyway.

01:41:10.000 I don't care what you think happens or doesn't happen.

01:41:12.000 Don't legalize it.

01:41:13.000 They've also proposed child sex changes.

01:41:17.000 Put these people on TV.

01:41:19.000 There is no reality where a conservative accepts that proposition.

01:41:22.000 The conservative argument is drag shows for children are felonious and should be shut down immediately.

01:41:28.000 And Democrats say we should have drag shows for children.

01:41:30.000 What's the problem?

01:41:31.000 Both sides saying that is an existential threat to my moral worldview.

01:41:36.000 There's no reality where the Democrats and Republicans come to compromise on when children can get sex changes.

01:41:42.000 It's an absolute, there's no middle ground.

01:41:44.000 It's either you allow it or you don't.

01:41:46.000 So I don't see a reality where moving forward, either side will negotiate a middle ground between the two.

01:41:54.000 It's just not going to happen.

01:41:56.000 I do worry that we're so dug in and people are not talking to each other.

01:42:02.000 Now we have different social media sites.

01:42:04.000 I mean, you have Blue Sky and Twitter separate, and you have podcasts, and people have all this confirmation bias.

01:42:10.000 That's why I come on shows like yours, and I've been on Megan Kelly and other shows because I just think you're one of the few who does allow for that dialogue.

01:42:19.000 You think Nick Fuentes does?

01:42:20.000 That's not the same.

01:42:21.000 No, he tries.

01:42:22.000 Yeah, but that's. 0.80

01:42:23.000 He does.

01:42:24.000 He would love to go on liberal shows.

01:42:26.000 Oh, my God.

01:42:27.000 So I respect it.

01:42:27.000 But here's the thing.

01:42:29.000 I appreciate it.

01:42:29.000 We're glad to have you.

01:42:30.000 Liberals don't do these shows. 0.68

01:42:32.000 That's a problem.

01:42:33.000 Charge money.

01:42:34.000 Don Lemon said $50,000.

01:42:37.000 Wow.

01:42:38.000 He's worth every penny.

01:42:40.000 I know, Don.

01:42:41.000 Don, the good guy.

01:42:43.000 That's surprising because shows do not pay.

01:42:46.000 That's the thing.

01:42:47.000 No, shows don't pay.

01:42:48.000 So it's not like it's just you.

01:42:49.000 No shows pay.

01:42:52.000 I shouldn't say every, but 80% of the liberals we ask come back with a fee.

01:42:55.000 Really?

01:42:56.000 Well, you know, Bill Maher, who I like, he says the same thing you do.

01:43:00.000 He says that I invite the Clintons and liberals on the show.

01:43:03.000 They don't come.

01:43:04.000 Only the Republicans seem to come.

01:43:05.000 Bill Maher's right-wing.

01:43:07.000 Well, he's considered right-wing.

01:43:09.000 He's actually considers himself old school liberal.

01:43:11.000 But Bill Maher and I largely agree on a lot of things.

01:43:15.000 And I had a great time.

01:43:17.000 I grew up watching his show when I was a kid.

01:43:19.000 And the problem is, what largely divides Bill Maher and I, and I told him this, and with all due respect, is that he doesn't know what's going on.

01:43:28.000 Were you on a show?

01:43:29.000 Oh, on Club Random.

01:43:29.000 Yes.

01:43:30.000 Oh, that's cool.

01:43:31.000 I've not gone on real time.

01:43:31.000 You got a drink with him on a show?

01:43:33.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:43:33.000 And I don't really drink, so I had some tequila because I'm not like alcohol bad.

01:43:37.000 I just don't do it for health reasons because I just try to eat healthy, right?

01:43:41.000 I got a good BPM, all that good stuff.

01:43:43.000 I try to get caffeine, like a caffeinated beverage here.

01:43:45.000 You don't even have that.

01:43:46.000 I'm impressed.

01:43:47.000 We do.

01:43:47.000 We have Yerba.

01:43:48.000 We have Tonzi Verba.

01:43:50.000 Yeah, it's downstairs.

01:43:50.000 No, I didn't see it.

01:43:51.000 Oh, man.

01:43:52.000 No, I didn't.

01:43:53.000 I'm here without any caffeine.

01:43:55.000 So here's the example of Bill Maher because Bill Maher is right-wing.

01:44:00.000 Several years ago, he had on Dennis Prager.

01:44:03.000 And Prager mentioned that in bathrooms, they're putting tampons in the boys' bathroom because they're claiming that men can menstruate.

01:44:11.000 And everyone on real time laughed at him.

01:44:13.000 And Bill said, no, they're not.

01:44:14.000 They put him in there for their girlfriends.

01:44:17.000 However, the interesting thing, the story cited by Dennis Prager, and this is, I think, 2018, was actually a three-year-old story.

01:44:25.000 So various college publications and blogs had already written about, yes, men can menstruate.

01:44:32.000 And yes, colleges are putting tampons in men's room. 0.99

01:44:36.000 Three years after that story breaks, and we are all discussing it, Prager on real time says it is a lie to claim men can menstruate.

01:44:43.000 And Bill Maher laughed and said, Dennis, what are you talking about?

01:44:46.000 This is crazy.

01:44:47.000 I've never heard this.

01:44:49.000 So I believe that Bill Maher, you know, he's almost 70, and I'm a fan.

01:44:55.000 He gets his news probably from corporate cable TV.

01:44:58.000 So he's not going to be apprised to everything that those of us who are reading the news all day every day are.

01:45:04.000 So what happens is he's three or four years late to the conversation.

01:45:09.000 And if you were able to sit down with Bill and show him a piece of media, for instance, I won't play because I do all the time, but the video from I Am Jazz, are you familiar with the show?

01:45:22.000 I don't think so.

01:45:22.000 Jazz Jennings was seven, socially transitioned at 11, got surgeries, and puberty blockers or whatever, not surgery, just prebioty blockers, has a show, and I think it's TLC.

01:45:32.000 And there's a viral clip where Jazz Jennings' mother says that Jez, a biological male who is trans, doesn't use the dilator. 0.98

01:45:41.000 So she will wake Jazz up in the middle of the night, take the dilator, lubricate it, and say, you stick this in your vagina, or if you don't, I will. 1.00

01:45:47.000 And that if Jazz leaves and doesn't do this, I will wring her neck. 0.99

01:45:52.000 You show that to a conservative and they are going to scream bloody marketing. 0.97

01:45:56.000 Child abuse.

01:45:56.000 You show that to Bill Maher.

01:45:58.000 Like one of the most horrific incidents I've ever heard of. 0.96

01:46:01.000 You took a prebubescent child, surgically removed his genitals. 0.98

01:46:03.000 Dude, I can't even hear about it. 0.97

01:46:04.000 And then when the child is an adult and says, I don't want to do this anymore, you say, if you don't do this, I'll wring your neck.

01:46:09.000 You show that to Bill Maher and he's going to go, this is abhorrent and shouldn't be allowed.

01:46:13.000 And the question then is, why are you voting for the party that is making it possible and putting it on TV? 0.87

01:46:19.000 And he's not, I don't know, because Trump is bad, because Trump's lewd and lascivious and self-interested and enriching his family.

01:46:30.000 And I'm like, dude, make every political argument in the world that you want. 0.90

01:46:33.000 Fine. 0.71

01:46:34.000 If you come to me and say, you can have the mafioso who's going to get rich off crypto schemes and build golf courses and golden ballrooms, or you can have the guy who's going to surgically amputate a child's testicles and then put on TV a woman threatening to jam a foreign object up inside of him if he refuses. 0.87

01:46:53.000 And I'm going to be like, ah, give me the mafia guy. 0.71

01:46:57.000 And that's where we're at.

01:46:58.000 We got to go to chats.

01:46:59.000 We got to go to chats.

01:47:00.000 So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.

01:47:02.000 You can follow me on next Instagram at Tim Cast.

01:47:04.000 We got a great sponsor because we got to read a sponsor post.

01:47:06.000 Guys, TaxNetworkUSA, T-N-U-S-A.com/slash Tim.

01:47:12.000 Check it out.

01:47:13.000 Do you owe back taxes?

01:47:14.000 Are your tax returns still unfiled?

01:47:16.000 Did you forget to file for an extension?

01:47:18.000 Time's running out.

01:47:19.000 You haven't gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments.

01:47:22.000 You can still be targeted by the IRS and they can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property.

01:47:28.000 And rest assured, my friends, even though the government is currently shut down, all of those IRS agents are sitting there rubbing their hands, looking through the files.

01:47:36.000 The moment they come back, they're jumping on those backlogs.

01:47:38.000 So there is hub available.

01:47:39.000 Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save over $1 billion in tax debt.

01:47:45.000 They filed hundreds of thousands of tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens.

01:47:50.000 And they can help you too.

01:47:51.000 Don't wait.

01:47:52.000 Visit tnusa.com/slash Tim or call 1-800-958-1000 for a 100% free consultation.

01:47:59.000 In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA will guide you through some simple questions to determine how much you can save.

01:48:06.000 Take action now before it's too late.

01:48:07.000 Visit tnusa.com/slash Tim.

01:48:11.000 And now we're going to read your chats, which should just make it more of a debate.

01:48:17.000 Kid Funky says, if Trump says after the fact that he did unclassify the documents, were they unclassified?

01:48:23.000 That was his argument.

01:48:25.000 But it's.

01:48:25.000 If Biden says after the fact that they were pardoned, does that make them pardoned?

01:48:29.000 Yeah, I mean, it means that he didn't do any wrong for both plenary powers of the president.

01:48:34.000 No, no, these are two different things.

01:48:35.000 If Biden afterwards affirms the pardons, said, Yeah, I pardoned them.

01:48:39.000 That's what happened.

01:48:40.000 Then there's no problem here.

01:48:40.000 I proved this.

01:48:42.000 If Trump, after the fact, says, oh, these, now I unclassify them, well, no, deeds already done.

01:48:48.000 What's the process by which a president unclassifies something?

01:48:51.000 That's actually a good question because remember Cash Patel was saying, yes, I was there when Trump said, I declassify.

01:48:58.000 It's like Michael Scott in the office.

01:49:00.000 Can I use that reference when he says, I declare bankruptcy?

01:49:04.000 It doesn't work like that.

01:49:05.000 There's a process.

01:49:07.000 Exactly.

01:49:08.000 Especially for nuclear secrets, there's a process.

01:49:10.000 So I appreciate the argument.

01:49:11.000 That person who wrote in would be a good lawyer, but there's apples and oranges as we if executive privilege exists for the president.

01:49:19.000 Isn't that a red tape argument at that point?

01:49:21.000 You're not actually talking about him doing something nefarious.

01:49:24.000 You're just saying he didn't go through the proper procedure.

01:49:26.000 Right.

01:49:27.000 Well, but there is a statutory procedure, especially for nuclear secrets.

01:49:30.000 You just can't say, I declassify.

01:49:32.000 Trump was actually saying, in my mind, I declassify it, which is not a thing.

01:49:38.000 Seignich says, respectfully, I'd rather have Chet GPT be my lawyer than this guy.

01:49:43.000 But I read that because I want to push back.

01:49:44.000 This guy's doing great. 1.00

01:49:44.000 Are you nuts? 1.00

01:49:46.000 He's arguing his positions very well. 0.99

01:49:48.000 I think that's the best chat I saw.

01:49:49.000 That's why it took 40 minutes to get through the first segment because you do a good, great, good job, Article.

01:49:49.000 I know.

01:49:54.000 And I must say, I would like ChatGBT to be my lawyer, too.

01:49:54.000 Thank you.

01:49:58.000 I mean, that, right?

01:49:59.000 You can't get better than artificial intelligence.

01:50:02.000 Well, what's happening is that they're degrading.

01:50:05.000 Yeah, because they're consuming their own refuse.

01:50:08.000 So what's happening is the way they learn is they read the internet, but the internet is now half AI-generated content.

01:50:16.000 So they're reabsorbing it and going insane.

01:50:19.000 Chat GPT has gotten particularly bad, like really bad.

01:50:22.000 I'm a Gemini guy personally.

01:50:25.000 You know, I didn't like Grok for a while, even though Elon's raving about it and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:50:31.000 I try it.

01:50:32.000 As of right now, I give Grok the lead.

01:50:34.000 Grok Grok watched my podcasts.

01:50:38.000 Like, I was, I opened Grok and I was like, give me the timestamp for this in the podcast.

01:50:43.000 And it just like, it knew instantly on a two-hour podcast what I was looking for.

01:50:48.000 Very great.

01:50:49.000 Chat GPT couldn't function because I had a typo in a sentence.

01:50:53.000 That's great.

01:50:54.000 So see, Grok is doing a competitor to Wikipedia?

01:50:57.000 They did.

01:50:57.000 Grock a pediatric.

01:50:58.000 I think that's great.

01:50:59.000 Oh, yeah.

01:51:00.000 Wikipedia is just totally defunct.

01:51:02.000 Totally.

01:51:02.000 And full of Jew Israel haters.

01:51:07.000 So Wikipedia says of me that it insinuates I pretend to be a liberal to feign authenticity.

01:51:14.000 And I'm like, that's an opinion statement.

01:51:16.000 Why is that in an encyclopedia?

01:51:18.000 It's not.

01:51:18.000 Wikipedia is just crazy.

01:51:20.000 And to be fair, my Wikipedia entry is not that bad.

01:51:22.000 But for like RFK Jr., it says an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist.

01:51:26.000 And it's like, those are just insults.

01:51:29.000 You know, like, why is that in there?

01:51:29.000 Yeah.

01:51:31.000 You don't have to do it.

01:51:32.000 Every prominent conservative commentator is just pejorative, pejorative, pejorative.

01:51:36.000 And then like, then they give his resume.

01:51:38.000 It's like, what are we doing here?

01:51:40.000 I still think he would make a good lawyer, ChatGPT.

01:51:43.000 Well, actually, there's been a bunch of cases where ChatGPT has cited false precedents.

01:51:48.000 It manufactures precedents.

01:51:49.000 That's true.

01:51:49.000 And then they get caught.

01:51:50.000 All right.

01:51:51.000 Spork Witch says they didn't even have to agree on the alleged crime.

01:51:51.000 Good point.

01:51:54.000 What crime was covered up?

01:51:56.000 Why do we think something was covered up?

01:51:58.000 If you can't agree on the alleged other crime, you've got nothing.

01:52:00.000 It was bunk.

01:52:03.000 So another person pointed out that they never actually brought up the underlying crime until jury deliberations.

01:52:10.000 So there was actually no burden of proof on intent either.

01:52:14.000 The writer is right that they don't have to agree.

01:52:16.000 The jury could choose any of the three secondary crimes, and they don't even have to agree on it.

01:52:23.000 It just has to be any of the three.

01:52:24.000 They did mention those three during the trial.

01:52:28.000 But so that is just a circuitous way of saying the government can punish you without proving a crime.

01:52:33.000 No, they proved the underlying crime, which is the misdemeanor crime.

01:52:35.000 No, no, they didn't prove the underlying crime.

01:52:38.000 The underlying crime was the three, you know, choose your own adventure.

01:52:41.000 No, the underlying crime was the falsification of business records.

01:52:44.000 No, no, no.

01:52:44.000 Falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime implies as an underlying crime for which they were intending to commit.

01:52:51.000 It was semantics.

01:52:52.000 Okay, maybe it's semantics, but.

01:52:53.000 So the argument is falsification of business records in furtherance of a crime.

01:52:58.000 Furtherance of a crime implies there's an underlying crime crime.

01:53:01.000 Right.

01:53:02.000 And so the government never proved it.

01:53:04.000 So the argument is if the government can imprison you based on the presumption of an underlying crime, but they've never proven what that underlying crime was, they have imprisoned you in violation of your due process.

01:53:16.000 But that's not what the courts say.

01:53:18.000 The court says it's okay.

01:53:20.000 So this is the fascinating thing about, it's a good lesson for people, and it's about the exertion of power.

01:53:20.000 Right.

01:53:25.000 You can just do whatever you want.

01:53:27.000 No, it's just not an element of the crime.

01:53:29.000 So that means we can make a law where we say you're being criminally charged for gloating over a crime you committed, and it's the gloating for which we are charging you because, or it's like attaching to any crime, like, I guess my point is Jay Walking in furtherance of another crime, 25 years in prison.

01:53:50.000 Whoa, whoa, whoa, jaywalking's not a felony charge, but you were jaywalking because you were intending to do something bad.

01:53:55.000 Prove it.

01:53:56.000 I don't have to.

01:53:57.000 I don't.

01:53:58.000 I can just make up a charge and claim you were doing something evil that I don't have to prove or that you wanted to do evil.

01:54:04.000 I mean, this is pre-crime.

01:54:06.000 It's literal pre-crime.

01:54:07.000 Jaywalking in furtherance of a crime.

01:54:09.000 He's going to go to prison now for 34 felonies because he jaywalked back and forth 34 times.

01:54:13.000 But hold on, jaywalking is a petty crime.

01:54:15.000 You get a ticket for it.

01:54:15.000 It's a petty offense.

01:54:16.000 Not went in furtherance of another crime.

01:54:18.000 What crime was that?

01:54:19.000 Doesn't matter, does it?

01:54:21.000 If that's the country we're going to live in, then I am ready.

01:54:26.000 Because I say Trump should just start locking everybody up he doesn't like because he can just do whatever he wants.

01:54:32.000 We don't got to prove it anymore.

01:54:35.000 Campaigning in furtherance of a crime.

01:54:37.000 Campaigning is not illegal.

01:54:38.000 Oh, but in furtherance of a crime, it is.

01:54:40.000 You're going to prison.

01:54:41.000 But what's the underlying crime I committed?

01:54:43.000 Nothing, but you were campaigning in furtherance of one.

01:54:45.000 I don't have to.

01:54:45.000 Prove it.

01:54:46.000 I don't have to prove there was anything other than at some point you wanted to do wrong.

01:54:52.000 You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

01:54:54.000 That's right.

01:54:54.000 Indeed.

01:54:55.000 Right.

01:54:55.000 But you have to show that there was intent.

01:54:58.000 You have to prove there was intent, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

01:55:00.000 No one in the jury agreed on what the intent was.

01:55:02.000 As long as they agreed there was another crime.

01:55:05.000 They don't have to be on the same one.

01:55:07.000 So that means I can say in the process of campaigning, Seamus Coughlin approached a street.

01:55:12.000 He didn't look both ways.

01:55:13.000 He raised up a foot and we arrested him.

01:55:16.000 I do not recall furtherance of a crime, jaywalking.

01:55:20.000 Jaywalking is a crime.

01:55:22.000 And I can prove to a jury, right, that he intended to jaywalk.

01:55:26.000 Or at least the intent was there to jaywalk.

01:55:28.000 He said, I'm going to jaywalk.

01:55:29.000 So we arrested him and charged him with falsifying documents in furtherance of another crime.

01:55:33.000 And it's a felony now.

01:55:35.000 This is the craziest thing.

01:55:36.000 Like, if we're going to live in that world, I also want to give a shout out to Kanye West because he criticized the 13th Amendment specifically because it legalized, it codified slavery.

01:55:47.000 People who don't, and this is, it's funny because the poor man, you know, for all of his faults, criticize him.

01:55:52.000 But for the poor man, this all started when he said we need to repeal the 13th Amendment. 0.95

01:55:57.000 And the left and the corporate press, not actually reading it, said, Holy crap, Ye wants to bring back slavery. 0.98

01:56:02.000 Ye got pissed because he was like, What? 0.96

01:56:05.000 The 13th Amendment says if you commit any crime, you can be made a slave.

01:56:10.000 Any crime.

01:56:12.000 We can't have that.

01:56:13.000 And he's correct.

01:56:14.000 Literally, according to the Constitution, you could jaywalk and then they enslave you.

01:56:18.000 It doesn't say slavery is banned.

01:56:20.000 It says only upon conviction of a crime.

01:56:23.000 So that's what our country does.

01:56:24.000 Now, however, we being sane rational people are like, no, we're not going to enslave people, right?

01:56:28.000 But if the argument is we can put someone in prison for a thing that is not a crime, so long as it's just so wild to claim.

01:56:37.000 It's just, I'm ready.

01:56:38.000 If that's the game we're playing, just as long as everybody knows, okay?

01:56:42.000 Jaywalking in furtherance of a felony.

01:56:44.000 Can you prove they committed a felony?

01:56:45.000 I don't have to.

01:56:47.000 I don't.

01:56:48.000 I'm just going to say the guy had a knife on him.

01:56:50.000 Seems like he wanted to stab somebody, right?

01:56:52.000 Who carries a knife around?

01:56:54.000 Well, we agree.

01:56:56.000 Okay.

01:56:57.000 Your jaywalking charge is now a 20-year felony.

01:56:59.000 That's just nuts.

01:57:01.000 Well, remember, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the intent to conceal the violation of a secondary crime.

01:57:08.000 That's it.

01:57:09.000 So you do have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

01:57:11.000 What is that secondary crime?

01:57:12.000 It's up to the jury.

01:57:13.000 Right.

01:57:13.000 So, but you can prove concealment of an unknown crime very easily.

01:57:17.000 I saw Seamus shove a book under his coat and run off.

01:57:20.000 It's got to be a crime.

01:57:21.000 I don't recall it.

01:57:22.000 Which crime?

01:57:23.000 Well, they gave him three options.

01:57:25.000 And so I can be like, oh, Seamus, listen.

01:57:28.000 Like, bro, come on.

01:57:29.000 Are you hearing yourself?

01:57:30.000 Let's try this argument.

01:57:31.000 I see Seamus in a trench coat grab a book and shove it under his jacket and then run away.

01:57:38.000 You know me, you know I would never do that.

01:57:39.000 He's now concealed a book, right?

01:57:42.000 In this book are financial transactions.

01:57:45.000 I then say I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he concealed this book of financial transactions.

01:57:50.000 Here's a video of him doing it.

01:57:52.000 So he concealed these records in furtherance of another crime.

01:57:55.000 What was the crime?

01:57:56.000 Well, honestly, I can't prove he committed the crime, but it's possible that those documents were him laundering money.

01:58:05.000 And so it was either money laundering, he was defrauding an old lady, or he was stealing lottery numbers.

01:58:11.000 You pick.

01:58:12.000 But you saw him conceal it and he was looking pretty suspicious as he exited the building, hiding that booklet.

01:58:12.000 You know me.

01:58:19.000 So I can prove he was up to something.

01:58:21.000 I would never do that.

01:58:22.000 He was up to something.

01:58:23.000 You know I would never do something like that.

01:58:23.000 You know me.

01:58:25.000 You know me.

01:58:27.000 I think to me and to everybody else, the statement here is just literally, you can just do things.

01:58:31.000 Well, I'll give you this.

01:58:33.000 It is a matter of debate.

01:58:35.000 You're not the first to bring this up.

01:58:36.000 And this is a New York thing that allows them to do this.

01:58:40.000 Well, it's never been done before.

01:58:42.000 Well, the courts have upheld it.

01:58:43.000 Well, actually, it's a.

01:58:44.000 The Supreme Court could overturn it if it wasn't.

01:58:47.000 The appellate court has not issued their ruling.

01:58:48.000 They've held it for a year.

01:58:49.000 But as far as the ability to have a statute like this where all you have to do is prove that I could be wrong because I don't think I know everything.

01:58:59.000 I'm not a genius.

01:59:00.000 But my understanding is this is the first time it has ever happened.

01:59:04.000 This is unprecedented.

01:59:06.000 I would disagree, but I don't have that pressing on me.

01:59:09.000 But this is not the first time that statute has been used.

01:59:12.000 And no, but used underlying crime.

01:59:15.000 So the statute's been used as an addition to other crimes, saying the guy laundered money and he falsified business records.

01:59:22.000 This is the first time there's been nothing else other than he falsified business records in furtherance of other crime that we've not proven.

01:59:29.000 That's why it's controversial.

01:59:31.000 Yeah, I think that this has been used as a felony statute in the past, and that's why.

01:59:35.000 With other crimes.

01:59:36.000 Well, yeah, but there's the first time it doesn't have another crime.

01:59:36.000 Right.

01:59:39.000 No, there are other charges.

01:59:41.000 There are three possible other crimes.

01:59:42.000 He's never been convicted of.

01:59:44.000 So this is the first time this has been used as a standalone charge.

01:59:48.000 We'll have to look that up because I thought it has been used like that, but we can look that up.

01:59:53.000 And by all means, I'm open to being wrong about this.

01:59:56.000 Has there ever been a case in Illinois where I'm typing this in?

02:00:06.000 It's hard to type in.

02:00:08.000 It's going to be hard to get a quick answer on that one.

02:00:13.000 Hey, you said you wanted AI as a lawyer.

02:00:16.000 Now you've got your wish, buddy.

02:00:19.000 Fair enough.

02:00:20.000 I'm asking Grok.

02:00:21.000 So Grok has the ability to do these really long answers, which are really impressive.

02:00:24.000 So I'll let it cook and I'll grab some of your super chats.

02:00:28.000 But we're having fun.

02:00:30.000 All right, let's go.

02:00:31.000 Brian Dayton says, this guy's gerrymander comment just proves he's a political hack.

02:00:35.000 Like, dude, Democrats have consistently only gerrymandered for decades after panic-firing excuses for Garland in the face of personal experience.

02:00:43.000 Well, he's allowed to disagree, but I would more politely assert the point being made.

02:00:49.000 Blue states are insanely gerrymandered.

02:00:51.000 Illinois is a joke how badly gerrymandered it is.

02:00:54.000 No debate there.

02:00:55.000 And thank you to the fan, my new fan.

02:01:00.000 I'll put him down as undecided as far as I'm concerned.

02:01:03.000 Swing voter.

02:01:06.000 Here's the difference.

02:01:06.000 Depends on how you redistrict him.

02:01:10.000 Has there ever been a time when the party in power has intentionally redrawn the lines in the middle of the decade solely to gain a political advantage?

02:01:19.000 I don't know.

02:01:20.000 To the point where, do both sides gerrymander?

02:01:22.000 Of course, but has there ever been none like this?

02:01:24.000 I don't recall that.

02:01:25.000 I think this is a first.

02:01:26.000 I agree.

02:01:27.000 I think that's true.

02:01:28.000 And I think what we are seeing is both sides just saying, I'm going to win.

02:01:34.000 I don't care.

02:01:35.000 I haven't read this.

02:01:36.000 Grok just spat it out.

02:01:38.000 Quote: Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard.

02:01:43.000 My question: Is it unprecedented that Trump was convicted without proving an underlying crime?

02:01:49.000 Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard by legal critics and by Trump's legal team as the prosecution elevated the charges of two felonies under New York Penal Law 175.10 without proving a specific underlying crime, such as a federal campaign, finance violation, or tax fraud, as a standalone offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:02:04.000 Instead, they relied on proving Trump's intent to conceal another crime framed as a violation of New York election law, through a scheme involving the payment with multiple possible unlawful means, blah, blah, blah.

02:02:17.000 Presented to the jury without requiring unanimity on any one theory.

02:02:20.000 Jury instructions allowed conviction if jurors agreed on the falsification and the broader intent to violate election law, but not on the exact secondary violation, which defense appeals argue dilutes proof requirements and introduces legal error.

02:02:34.000 While 17510 has been applied in hundreds of prior cases, those typically feature clearer, directly evidenced underlying offensive.

02:02:41.000 None match this novel bootstrapping of the state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context, leading to appeals, leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime.

02:02:55.000 The May 2024 verdict stands pending appeal, but the lack of an explicit underlying conviction has fueled claims of a zombie case revived unconventionally.

02:03:03.000 So that was my point.

02:03:05.000 I believe I'm correct.

02:03:06.000 They have never before used this aggravating charge without any other crime.

02:03:11.000 There was one sentence in it that I think they make the distinction that never before when it comes to a federal election offense.

02:03:17.000 Is that what they said?

02:03:20.000 None matched this novel bootstrapping of state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context.

02:03:27.000 Right, right.

02:03:28.000 See, that's limited.

02:03:29.000 Comma.

02:03:29.000 Right.

02:03:30.000 Leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime.

02:03:34.000 But what they're saying is they've never seen a state law that's been elevated to a felony based on a federal election violation.

02:03:34.000 Right.

02:03:42.000 But what about if they decided that the state election violation law was violated?

02:03:42.000 Right.

02:03:48.000 Excuse me, that the state law was violated.

02:03:52.000 And if they did, by the way, that would mean two misdemeanors equal one felony, which is weird, but it happens.

02:03:58.000 Right.

02:03:58.000 Or theoretically, if the underlying crime, I think under this charge, you could have the felony falsification of records attached to a misdemeanor.

02:04:06.000 So if you committed a misdemeanor and falsified records, you now have a felony.

02:04:09.000 Which is weird because if the underlying offense is also a misdemeanor, since when does two misdemeanors equal one felony?

02:04:16.000 in new york they allow that uh they i am incorrect uh Charges in New York, falsifying business records to the first.

02:04:29.000 Okay, no, no, no.

02:04:29.000 Okay, this is incorrect.

02:04:30.000 No.

02:04:32.000 I knew that what it wrote didn't apply.

02:04:32.000 I knew that.

02:04:34.000 We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show so I can write this again.

02:04:38.000 I thought I think I may be incorrect.

02:04:40.000 I'm not entirely sure, but I'm going to have to ask Grock again because it's talking about the underlying misdemeanor and it says misdemeanor.

02:04:45.000 I'm talking about the felony, so I have to ask it again.

02:04:47.000 My friend, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.

02:04:50.000 The uncensored portion of the show is coming up at rumble.com/slash Timcast.

02:04:50.000 Stay tuned.

02:04:54.000 IRL.

02:04:55.000 You don't want to miss it.

02:04:56.000 It's always fun, not so family friendly.

02:04:59.000 Did I say you can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast?

02:05:02.000 Dave, you want to shout anything out?

02:05:02.000 Sure.

02:05:03.000 Yeah, thanks.

02:05:04.000 I'm on Substack now.

02:05:05.000 So all my fans out there, or I should say fan, you can find me at Dave Aaronberg, D-A-V-E-A-R-O-N-B-E-R-G.

02:05:12.000 Please, I'd love to hear from you, even if you disagree with me.

02:05:14.000 I'm also on X at Aaronberg.

02:05:17.000 And you can find me also and LegalAF on YouTube.

02:05:19.000 Thanks for having me.

02:05:21.000 Follow me on X and Instagram at Realtate Brown.

02:05:24.000 Deputize the Walmart Greeters.

02:05:25.000 We're ready.

02:05:27.000 I'm Seamus Coughlin.

02:05:28.000 I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes.

02:05:30.000 The left has dominated entertainment in this country for decades.

02:05:33.000 They've slowly chipped away at your culture through propaganda.

02:05:37.000 Myself and my team are fighting back because you cannot win a culture war without making culture.

02:05:42.000 We're working on producing a full-length animated show.

02:05:45.000 We already have the 25-minute pilot done.

02:05:47.000 You can watch it by going to twistedplots.com and supporting our cause.

02:05:52.000 I've got the team, I've got the experience, and I've got the track record.

02:05:55.000 Give me your support, and I will be unstoppable.

02:05:58.000 Help us to create the future of entertainment.

02:06:00.000 Twistedplots.com.

02:06:02.000 We need your help.

02:06:04.000 Oh, Grock, you're giving me the business.

02:06:06.000 It keeps giving me, well, what can you blame AI? 0.99

02:06:09.000 How can you not blame AI for being dumb? 0.99

02:06:12.000 What am I trying to say? 0.98

02:06:12.000 Guys, we'll see you over at rumble.com/slash Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds. 0.98

02:06:17.000 Thanks for hanging out.

02:07:42.000 All right.

02:07:43.000 Well, obviously, I'm mostly questioning, why is Grok giving me the business? 1.00

02:07:52.000 Oh, shit. 0.99

02:07:53.000 Okay. 1.00

02:07:54.000 I think I'm right.

02:07:55.000 Let me say this.

02:07:57.000 I don't know everything.

02:07:58.000 I read the news a lot.

02:08:00.000 I read a whole bunch of legal analysis on the case, and I read probably 17 articles where they were all saying, like, never before has New York brought this felony charge without also charging an underlying crime.

02:08:13.000 Because the claim of falsifying business records in furtherance under the crime is an attachment.

02:08:17.000 It's an add-on.

02:08:20.000 Grock has given me the business, and I may have to ask it again.

02:08:26.000 New York prosecutors have never brought a charge under penal law 17510 without alleging another crime element in the indictment or charging instrument, because failing to do so would render the felony allegation facially insufficient as it omits a core statutory requirement.

02:08:40.000 It explicitly demands the falsification occur with the intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit.

02:08:46.000 Indictments must plead all elements under New York criminal procedure.

02:08:49.000 I don't think it's answering the question I'm asking.

02:08:51.000 I think.

02:08:53.000 Okay, I'm going to try this again.

02:08:54.000 Hey, you guys talk about that while I type this in.

02:08:57.000 Yeah, yeah.

02:08:58.000 Poll reveals warning signs for Democrats ahead of the midterms.

02:09:01.000 Uh-oh.

02:09:02.000 Democrats polling lead ahead of the 2026 midterm elections is showing warning signs in their efforts to reclaim the majority in the House next November.

02:09:11.000 Well, look at that.

02:09:13.000 What specifically are the polls showing, though?

02:09:16.000 That's what I would like to know.

02:09:17.000 Yeah, I mean, are these factoring in the redistricting and the Supreme Court case?

02:09:22.000 Yeah, exactly.

02:09:23.000 There's a lot.

02:09:25.000 A lot here.

02:09:26.000 I mean, yeah.

02:09:29.000 We've gone through the whole podcast without talking about Mondami.

02:09:32.000 I got to believe our best friend.

02:09:34.000 Yeah, you're for him, right?

02:09:35.000 You're a big fan.

02:09:38.000 I mean, I think this.

02:09:39.000 You're right-wing then.

02:09:40.000 Yeah, that makes him right-wing.

02:09:42.000 My gosh, I was not just right-wing, dude. 0.99

02:09:44.000 You're a fascist, actually. 0.97

02:09:46.000 He's great for Florida. 1.00

02:09:47.000 He is good for Florida.

02:09:48.000 He's helped the property values in Palm Beach County.

02:09:51.000 I think that has something to do with it.

02:09:53.000 In November, that people see him and he will be made the titular head of the Democratic Party once he's elected.

02:10:00.000 And it's not good for the Democrats.

02:10:02.000 He doesn't sell outside of New York City.

02:10:05.000 Yeah.

02:10:06.000 Yep.

02:10:07.000 I mean, listen, one thing people have been saying, and it drives me crazy, is, well, you know, if he just wins, then people will finally learn their lesson about socialism.

02:10:07.000 Yep.

02:10:17.000 It's like, yes, this time, this will be the one that does it for sure.

02:10:20.000 Not the hundreds of millions of people who died in the 20th century.

02:10:23.000 It's like, it's going to be New York.

02:10:25.000 Yeah, like the rating the treasury is the point.

02:10:28.000 That's what they're voting for.

02:10:30.000 They're conscious of what the outcome will be.

02:10:32.000 It's about vindictiveness.

02:10:34.000 It's about.

02:10:35.000 Yes.

02:10:35.000 Yeah.

02:10:36.000 Exactly.

02:10:37.000 I mean, the economic policy is all window dressing, as they say.

02:10:37.000 Yeah.

02:10:40.000 Yeah, because pathological.

02:10:42.000 I say it a lot, but it's just true.

02:10:43.000 It's like, you know, everyone's combing through his website, Zoran, for New York, and they're just like, none of these policies make any sense.

02:10:50.000 There's no cohesiveness.

02:10:51.000 And it's like, because that's not what's on the ballot.

02:10:53.000 What's on the ballot is retribution against the American people where all these new arrivals in New York feel like they've been wronged for a variety of reasons.

02:11:01.000 And so this is like an anti-vote.

02:11:02.000 And it's, yeah, exactly.

02:11:03.000 It's resentment.

02:11:04.000 That's all it is.

02:11:05.000 I hate the system. 0.96

02:11:06.000 I hate the people who made it. 1.00

02:11:07.000 I hate the white man. 1.00

02:11:08.000 I hate my dad. 1.00

02:11:09.000 Honestly, it's like, I hate my dad. 0.98

02:11:10.000 That's what all of it is.

02:11:12.000 You can't really reduce a lot of modern leftism down to I hate my dad.

02:11:16.000 So like, I hate my dad or women rejected me, something like that.

02:11:19.000 Well, I said on the show, you actually both.

02:11:19.000 Yeah.

02:11:21.000 We are, we are both simultaneously wrong.

02:11:21.000 Yeah.

02:11:24.000 I was more right.

02:11:28.000 It's a very strange thing to ask this question.

02:11:31.000 The question is, has New York State – so first of all, we know they have never charged someone under this falsification of business records as a felony while the intended crime was federal jurisdiction.

02:11:46.000 That's never happened before.

02:11:47.000 That's the immediate unprecedented.

02:11:49.000 However, there have been many people who have been criminally charged solely under this one criminal statute.

02:11:57.000 That is, in one case, a guy was committing tax fraud, but they never proved the tax fraud.

02:12:02.000 They proved falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime as a standalone charge.

02:12:09.000 However, this case with Trump is the first time ever they have charged someone with falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime without alleging the further crime in any way.

02:12:26.000 And in the deliberations, it is additionally the only time they've ever given a menu option of potential crimes he may have intended to commit.

02:12:35.000 Yeah, well, yeah, because I remember that was the commentary at the time: if they're so confident on the conspiracy, why wouldn't they bring it forth as a charge and let the jury decide for themselves?

02:12:44.000 I have asked it a litany of questions so it could break this down for me.

02:12:48.000 It gave me several examples of cases, such as let me pull one up.

02:12:51.000 It's, where is it?

02:12:52.000 It's right.

02:12:53.000 Where'd it go?

02:12:56.000 People versus people v.

02:12:58.000 Jason Hawley, people v.

02:13:01.000 Jose Aguilar.

02:13:03.000 So I was partially wrong, but I was more right than you.

02:13:06.000 How so?

02:13:07.000 That's kind of partially wrong to be.

02:13:09.000 Yeah.

02:13:10.000 So New York has charged people solely under 1750.10 falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.

02:13:20.000 However, in every instance, they've alleged explicitly a crime that they were accusing the individual of in the indictment.

02:13:27.000 There's two unprecedented cases.

02:13:29.000 One, where the underlying crime was a federal jurisdiction.

02:13:31.000 And two, it's the first time they gave the jury a choice of potential crimes he may have intended to commit.

02:13:36.000 So in every other circumstances, of which I think there's five, unanimity was required.

02:13:44.000 Okay, so, okay, here we go.

02:13:46.000 Where it's unprecedented specifically is that every other case where they've tried this, unanimity on the underlying crime was a requirement, but not necessarily a required charge.

02:13:56.000 So I was call it 99% wrong.

02:13:59.000 I don't care.

02:14:00.000 I was largely wrong.

02:14:01.000 I thought they had never solely charged one person under this.

02:14:07.000 I am mistaken.

02:14:08.000 And I'm glad for the fact check.

02:14:09.000 They have never charged someone under this without requiring unanimity and alleging the underlying crime.

02:14:16.000 So Trump is the first time, just to clarify, the first time they have brought this charge with no direct underlying crime asserted and no unanimity requirement on the charge.

02:14:27.000 Not asserted in the indictment.

02:14:29.000 The indictment was very vague.

02:14:29.000 Yes.

02:14:29.000 Right.

02:14:31.000 I read that indictment.

02:14:32.000 It didn't give a lot of meat.

02:14:33.000 But in the trial, they did mention the three underlying crimes.

02:14:37.000 Unprecedented.

02:14:39.000 Never.

02:14:40.000 Where it was never mentioned in the indictment?

02:14:41.000 Yes.

02:14:42.000 So in all instances, okay, according to Grok, and I've asked like five different ways to make sure it's right.

02:14:48.000 Every time, so you've got Medicaid fraud, concealing drug proceeds, tax evasion, food stamp fraud, insurance fraud.

02:14:54.000 In every circumstance, the 17510 felony charge asserted in the indictment specifically the crime they were trying to conceal and required the jury to agree that that was the crime.

02:15:07.000 There was an individual specific crime they were trying to conceal, which I would argue is due process.

02:15:13.000 You are asking a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, were they concealing this crime?

02:15:18.000 With Trump, the issue is they said, you choose.

02:15:22.000 We don't know which crime.

02:15:23.000 We've not proven those crimes.

02:15:24.000 It's the first time it's ever happened.

02:15:26.000 And then additionally, it's unprecedented that the state ever tried to elevate a charge with a federal jury with a federal crime that they don't have jurisdiction over.

02:15:32.000 I thought our debate was whether the intent, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, would be enough or do you have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

02:15:43.000 And what they're saying is you don't have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have to identify.

02:15:48.000 No, no, no, they do.

02:15:51.000 I would argue that if you say Seamus jaywalked to hire a prostitute and we're charging him with elevated felony jaywalking, I'm being kind of facetious.

02:16:02.000 You know me, you know I'm going to do that.

02:16:04.000 It is unanimity on the intended concealment is a requirement, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt. 0.87

02:16:10.000 So if the jury is shown evidence and the jury all agrees, that boy was trying to get a prostitute.

02:16:15.000 You have proven proof of it. 0.72

02:16:16.000 And they don't know me. 0.86

02:16:17.000 If you say, look, maybe it was for a prostitute, maybe it was to buy drugs, maybe it was to buy a gun, you pick.

02:16:24.000 You've not proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was intending to commit a crime.

02:16:28.000 But remember, our dispute was about whether you could piggyback in that way, whether you had to prove the other crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:16:36.000 And what Grok is saying is that it's never before happened where the jury isn't told specifically which crime it is.

02:16:45.000 And here in some point, there are three choices.

02:16:48.000 It's unprecedented.

02:16:49.000 They never have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:16:51.000 That's even in other cases.

02:16:52.000 That's what I'm saying.

02:16:53.000 So I'm actually making the argument that you do.

02:16:57.000 And my point is in all other cases, they required unanimity.

02:17:02.000 That means the jury all agreed beyond a reasonable doubt, this individual was intending to conceal this crime.

02:17:10.000 And that's because they listed the one crime.

02:17:13.000 They mentioned this here.

02:17:14.000 It's a requirement.

02:17:15.000 But here, the statute says you only have to prove intent to commit another crime.

02:17:15.000 Right.

02:17:22.000 And if, and so.

02:17:23.000 I'm going to tell you what your argument really is.

02:17:25.000 I'm going to tell you. 0.99

02:17:27.000 To all the Gen Z people listening, you may as well be saying go buy a gun and shoot your political opponent because we will make up any justification to use the monopoly of violence against you. 0.99

02:17:40.000 If the argument is never before has a person been convicted of a felony in this way without proving beyond a reasonable doubt the intended crime, you're basically saying, I will make up an argument to destroy you and then I will levy the state power against you. 0.95

02:18:00.000 Look, it's already bad enough for young people, I'd argue.

02:18:04.000 Like I've certainly got my grievances that I've told.

02:18:09.000 So I'm driving out of Chicago.

02:18:12.000 I get pulled over.

02:18:13.000 I get a speeding ticket.

02:18:14.000 I wasn't speeding. 1.00

02:18:14.000 It's bullshit. 1.00

02:18:16.000 What the fuck am I supposed to do? 1.00

02:18:17.000 If I take off work, I'm going to lose, I'll get fired. 0.98

02:18:20.000 So I got to pay the 75 bucks or take off work.

02:18:22.000 I lose a day of work regardless of what I do. 0.99

02:18:24.000 The system's fucked. 0.98

02:18:25.000 So anyway, I end up going to visit my sister and I have the tickets got to be paid in three months. 0.99

02:18:29.000 And I said, I can go back to Chicago.

02:18:32.000 She was in Colorado.

02:18:33.000 I can pay the ticket off.

02:18:34.000 I'll just pay the ticket off.

02:18:35.000 My sister said, don't even worry about it. 0.96

02:18:37.000 I'll pay the 75 bucks.

02:18:38.000 Little did I know that was an admission of guilt, which suspended my license because I was 20 years old.

02:18:38.000 I'll pay it for you.

02:18:43.000 And if you get two moving violations under the age of 21, they suspend your license.

02:18:48.000 They never tell you that.

02:18:49.000 They don't make you sign an agreement saying that.

02:18:51.000 They passed a law and then said ignorance of the crime is not a problem.

02:18:55.000 So I wasn't speeding and I was going to fight it. 1.00

02:18:58.000 But I said, hey, fuck it. 1.00

02:18:59.000 What's $75? 1.00

02:19:00.000 I'm driving back to Chicago.

02:19:02.000 I get pulled over, arrested as soon as I, a mile from my mom's house. 0.98

02:19:08.000 And I'm like, this is fucking insane. 0.93

02:19:10.000 I don't understand. 0.97

02:19:11.000 Like, I didn't do anything wrong.

02:19:12.000 I never got a notice.

02:19:13.000 I was visiting my sister because her brother-in-law was in Iraq in combat.

02:19:18.000 Why am I being targeted this way? 0.99

02:19:20.000 When I went to court, the prosecutor told me to fuck myself and he would put me in prison. 0.99

02:19:25.000 He'd put me in jail for a year on a Class A misdemeanor unless I'd plead guilty. 0.99

02:19:29.000 And I'm like, why are you doing this to me?

02:19:31.000 Why are you treating me this way?

02:19:34.000 So that's what it was like 20 years ago for me.

02:19:36.000 This is, you know, about 20 years ago.

02:19:39.000 And that's how all of my friends grew up in this system being like, I think the reason why we are where we are, where people are looting stores, stealing whatever they want, is because they're like, bro. 1.00

02:19:49.000 You walk into that courtroom and they say, go fuck yourself every fucking time. 0.99

02:19:54.000 And I show up wearing a suit with glasses on, no hat, by the way. 1.00

02:19:58.000 And he said, you have a lawyer?

02:20:02.000 And I was like, I can't afford one.

02:20:03.000 I made $10 an hour at the airport.

02:20:05.000 I'm taking off work to come here.

02:20:07.000 I wasn't a dick. 0.87

02:20:07.000 I was like, no, I can't afford a lawyer. 0.87

02:20:09.000 And he said, okay, well, tell me what happened.

02:20:12.000 And then I said, I just got home from visiting my sister because her husband's in Iraq serving in combat and she was distraught.

02:20:19.000 And I paid off a parking ticket, which I got suspended my license.

02:20:22.000 I didn't know.

02:20:23.000 And so when I got home, before I even got to my house, I got pulled over.

02:20:26.000 I didn't even have a chance to go in the mail.

02:20:27.000 And he went, okay.

02:20:29.000 So you've admitted guilt.

02:20:30.000 That's one year in jail, $2,500 fine.

02:20:34.000 And I'm going to pursue it.

02:20:36.000 I'll tell you what.

02:20:37.000 If you plead guilty, pay $150 and tell the judge you were wrong.

02:20:42.000 And he's like, and I was like, okay.

02:20:44.000 And I went to the judge and the judge said, your name, you're pleading guilty.

02:20:49.000 He says, has anyone coerced you into making this plea?

02:20:51.000 And I said, yes, Your Honor.

02:20:52.000 And he went, what?

02:20:53.000 I said, yes, Your Honor.

02:20:55.000 And then I told him the story.

02:20:57.000 And he said, go to a lawyer and come back. 1.00

02:20:59.000 And then my lawyer said, you're fucked. 1.00

02:21:01.000 And the lawyer costs $800. 1.00

02:21:03.000 And that's the shit that people go through. 0.99

02:21:04.000 So side quests out of the way, the point is this. 0.99

02:21:08.000 People already feel like the system's fucked and that you get bunk-ass tickets.

02:21:14.000 They do sobriety checkpoints out here, which I believe are unconstitutional because it's a fourth and fifth amendment violation. 0.96

02:21:22.000 They demand you answer questions.

02:21:23.000 And if you don't, they'll penalize you.

02:21:26.000 And taking from what you're saying to the extreme end, I'm making a huge leap 20 years in the future.

02:21:32.000 To the young people who are hearing what you're saying, never before has the government been able to criminally charge someone without proving that there was a specific crime being committed.

02:21:43.000 This is the first time.

02:21:44.000 They argue there's some intent, but we don't know what he did wrong.

02:21:47.000 It must be something.

02:21:49.000 Never happened before. 1.00

02:21:51.000 All I hear is: if we want to fuck you, we'll make up why we can fuck you. 1.00

02:21:56.000 And so the end result is going to be young people saying, burn it down. 1.00

02:21:59.000 And I think that's what we're seeing.

02:22:00.000 But the underlying crime was committed, which is the falsification of business records.

02:22:04.000 And you have to have the intent to commit a second crime.

02:22:07.000 And then the principal charge, falsification of business records in furtherance of a crime.

02:22:13.000 Well, no, falsification of business record.

02:22:14.000 That's a misdependent.

02:22:15.000 That's a misdemeanor.

02:22:16.000 Right.

02:22:16.000 To elevate it to a felony.

02:22:18.000 Indeed.

02:22:19.000 You have to show that it was intended to commit another crime.

02:22:21.000 And in every single circumstance, unanimity on that crime was required, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury has asserted that crime was intending to be covered up.

02:22:32.000 And if that's what Grok said, then I defer to Grok.

02:22:35.000 And maybe it's wrong.

02:22:36.000 But remember, when you, and that's what makes this different.

02:22:41.000 I guess the argument that we had, I thought, was whether you can elevate it to a secondary crime unless you prove that secondary crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:22:50.000 I'm saying in every instance.

02:22:52.000 Right.

02:22:52.000 I understand what you're saying.

02:22:53.000 Right.

02:22:54.000 This thing is.

02:22:56.000 The one thing that I do, I'm sympathetic to is that I do think that the prosecutors should at least identify the crime.

02:23:05.000 Whereas in the indictment, they didn't identify the crime and they left up to the jury.

02:23:09.000 Well, they have to prove intent.

02:23:10.000 They have to prove intent and they left up to the jury with that other crime.

02:23:13.000 It was impossible to prove Trump intended to commit any one of these crimes.

02:23:18.000 They could not get a jury to agree on any singular charge.

02:23:22.000 So they went with the menu option.

02:23:25.000 And then when the jury, without unanimity, said this, that, or otherwise, it shows they could not agree that Trump was intending to cover up a specific crime.

02:23:35.000 Even in all those other cases, never had to prove that the defendant actually committed that second crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:23:43.000 Indeed, they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a specific action the man had taken.

02:23:49.000 And the point.

02:23:51.000 So, so, so he falsified records, and there was for some specific reason he did.

02:23:57.000 Correct.

02:23:58.000 Correct.

02:23:58.000 In the Trump case, there is no specific reason he did.

02:24:00.000 No, they said there are three possible reasons.

02:24:03.000 Well, I could argue three, I could argue 15.

02:24:05.000 What's the point?

02:24:06.000 If there's no singular thing that Trump did, the point is this: the moment you go from one to two, you are telling me, I believe if I asked a jury, if I asked 12 people, did Trump cross the road to get to the other side?

02:24:23.000 You would say, I don't know.

02:24:25.000 So, what if I said this?

02:24:27.000 Trump crossed the road maybe to get to the other side.

02:24:30.000 Some of you believe that.

02:24:31.000 Maybe it was because he dropped his car keys.

02:24:33.000 Some of you believe that.

02:24:34.000 Okay, now we got him.

02:24:36.000 Now we got him.

02:24:37.000 That's not. 0.94

02:24:39.000 That's a psychotic government out of control. 0.73

02:24:43.000 If you and the guys here conspired and agreed to shoplift and to commit a murder, even though you didn't actually accomplish it, the intent that you had would get you busted.

02:24:58.000 The point is this.

02:24:59.000 Not a murder.

02:25:00.000 A murder, a robbery, or a car theft.

02:25:02.000 We don't know which one.

02:25:04.000 We can't prove which one you were going to do.

02:25:07.000 And we normally require that you were in the process of committing that crime.

02:25:12.000 What they are telling us with this: if Bragg went to the jury and said, did Donald Trump falsify these records in furtherance of federal election violations?

02:25:23.000 He would have been acquitted.

02:25:24.000 Or a mistrial at least, because the jury couldn't agree on that specific intent.

02:25:29.000 Well, we don't know because they weren't asked that question.

02:25:31.000 So the issue.

02:25:32.000 So my point is, Bragg was telling us he does not believe a jury would agree that Trump intended to commit a crime.

02:25:41.000 The point is, you've proven intent.

02:25:43.000 You're arguing he's proven intent.

02:25:45.000 Right, which is all the statute requires.

02:25:47.000 But he's not.

02:25:48.000 He's not proven intent.

02:25:49.000 He's not to commit another crime.

02:25:50.000 Which crime?

02:25:51.000 Well, but remember, the statute says intent to commit another crime.

02:25:54.000 And what you're saying is you've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what that other crime is, identify it and prove it.

02:26:01.000 And so my point beyond this is: I understand what you're saying.

02:26:05.000 The message taken by Gen Z will be: strap up, lock, and load. 0.99

02:26:09.000 It's time to start killing. 0.97

02:26:10.000 Because the argument is, we will write the words in any circuitous legal jargon we can to justify why we're destroying you. 0.99

02:26:20.000 It doesn't matter if you actually were committing this crime, that crime, or otherwise.

02:26:24.000 And it doesn't matter if we can prove it.

02:26:26.000 The point is, you've got four jurors who thought Trump intended to commit this crime, four who thought that crime, and four who thought that crime.

02:26:36.000 Which means if you asked 12 people, did Trump intend to commit election fraud?

02:26:42.000 Acquitted.

02:26:43.000 Did Trump intend to commit tax evasion?

02:26:45.000 Acquitted.

02:26:46.000 Did Trump intend to commit state election violations?

02:26:49.000 Acquitted.

02:26:50.000 But.

02:26:51.000 Well, we don't know what they found.

02:26:52.000 We don't know.

02:26:53.000 I'm saying that Bragg is basically saying this.

02:26:55.000 He's saying that you can choose, you have a choice A, choice B, choice C, and you can choose.

02:27:00.000 By the way, I think you have a legitimate point.

02:27:03.000 And I think on appeal, I think that is going to be a legitimate argument for Trump, saying that you can't do it this way.

02:27:10.000 Right.

02:27:10.000 My point is.

02:27:11.000 Which is why people are freaked out.

02:27:12.000 Right.

02:27:13.000 And so I think you made a valid point on that.

02:27:17.000 I think that the argument I'm making is that the intent, that's all you need, the intent to commit another crime.

02:27:23.000 But should the prosecutors have detailed that crime more specifically?

02:27:27.000 Would that be fair to the defendant, right, to a fair trial, due process?

02:27:32.000 Yes, that would have been better.

02:27:34.000 Do the courts allow this type of thing to happen? 0.99

02:27:37.000 I thought that it's pretty clear in New York courts that they did, but what you're saying on Grok is that that's never been done before.

02:27:42.000 And if that's all documented cases of 17510 all require unanimity.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - October 29, 2025

GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation | Timcast IRL

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript