On today's show, we have a special guest, Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and legal analyst, who joins us to talk about the ongoing auto pardoning scandal, food riots in the streets, and more.
00:02:02.000The Republican Party has released their investigation into the Auto Penn scandal, and they are formally requesting the DOJ void or at least investigate.
00:02:11.000They're declaring void, and they're asking for the DOJ to invalidate pardons and executive orders from Joe Biden.
00:02:16.000Pam Bondi has tweeted, actually, they're already investigating it, and this information is great for them.
00:02:23.000So we'll see if this actually manifests in anything because the response from many Republicans is, call me when you've actually indicted someone.
00:02:31.000I think it's fair to say that Letitia James and others are currently facing indictment.
00:02:45.000Food benefits set to expire in just three more days.
00:02:49.000And there's fears of food riots and what might happen.
00:02:52.000Now, states have filed suit against the federal government saying you need to release or disagree with Snap benefits.
00:02:58.000But this makes literally no sense because who are you suing?
00:03:00.000If 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.
00:03:09.000Now, the Trump administration says they will not pull emergency funds as videos go viral of people threatening to loot supermarkets and steal your groceries.
00:03:38.000It'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.
00:05:42.000We're three weeks in and we've got three weeks left.
00:05:44.000We're over 50% funded, but I need you to help us get funded.
00:05:49.000If 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.
00:06:01.000You'll get access to the pilot and you'll be helping us build the future of entertainment.
00:06:10.000I don't know why I chose Baltimore as the source, but interesting nonetheless.
00:06:13.000GOP asks DOJ to invalidate some pardons and executive orders signed with Biden Autopen.
00:06:19.000The pardon of Hunter Biden by his father, former President Joe Biden, has appeared to get under Trump's skins that happened.
00:06:24.000But 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.
00:06:39.000During 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.
00:06:47.000Trump even released a presidential portrait of his predecessor depicting an auto pen instead of Biden's face.
00:06:54.000They just released a report entitled, The Biden Autopen Presidency Declined, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.
00:07:00.000In 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.
00:07:06.000In one video, Connor is asked, quote, were you ever told to lie about the president's health?
00:07:11.000In response, O'Connor pleads the fifth.
00:07:13.000On the advice of counsel, I must respectfully, respectfully decline to answer.
00:07:18.000At the center of the investigation are questions about who was actually making key policy decisions, including executive orders and pardons.
00:07:24.000Republican 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.
00:07:36.000Now, we have this post from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
00:07:39.000She says, my team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's reported use of the auto pen for pardons.
00:07:45.000James Comer's new information is extremely helpful, and his leadership on this issue is invaluable.
00:07:50.000We'll continue working with GOP Oversight to deliver accountability for the American people.
00:07:55.000Suffice it to say, this is unprecedented, right?
00:08:45.000But 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.
00:08:53.000It seems like at the very least, a moral gray area.
00:08:56.000Now, 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.
00:09:03.000We have no paperwork documenting that he was, and this was done again by the AutoPen.
00:09:06.000That is, you know, I respect what you're saying, Chambers, about not having the expertise, the legal knowledge.
00:09:11.000Now, I also lack the legal knowledge to argue through, but I certainly have a ton of arrogance.
00:09:30.000And 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.
00:09:40.000It 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.
00:10:22.000And it keeps us from talking about other things he doesn't want us to mention.
00:10:26.000Well, 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?
00:10:36.000I mean, couldn't it potentially uncover that they stated an intention to do something even though the president never consented?
00:10:50.000But don't we actually, we don't have a smoking gun, but I think we certainly have probable cause.
00:10:53.000Wasn'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?
00:11:02.000There 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.
00:11:31.000If what Tim's saying is correct, or let's create a completely hypothetical scenario.
00:11:35.000Like 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.
00:11:52.000Let'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.
00:13:00.000Jeff Zeins authorized the auto pens used for documents, particularly on the night of January 19th, 2025, less than 14 hours before Biden left office.
00:13:07.000Emails show a late evening process after a meeting with aides ending around 10 p.m.
00:13:11.000An aide summarized Biden's decision and sought approvals.
00:13:14.000Zeins 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.
00:13:26.000I think the ultimate question is: right, is it legal for the Biden to say after the fact, yeah, it was fine?
00:13:35.000Does that make it an executive action?
00:14:07.000Plus, there's no requirement you need to sign anything for a pardon.
00:14:10.000The person just has to accept a pardon and it's done.
00:14:13.000That's why I think this is much to do about nothing.
00:14:15.000You 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.
00:14:22.000I think the bigger question is just who has the willpower to enact their willpower.
00:14:26.000Who has the willpower to enact their willpower?
00:14:28.000Yeah, 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.
00:14:41.000And as long as you're willing to tell men with guns to do it, it'll get done.
00:14:45.000So 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.
00:14:58.000So we can make the argument that arresting Jenna Ellis and charging under RICO is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and downright insane.
00:15:07.000We could argue that charging Donald Trump with 34 felonies without any underlying crime proven by the government is unprecedented and insane.
00:15:15.000But 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?
00:15:24.000And I honestly think you don't even need the argument at this point.
00:15:48.000What are you proving that his brain didn't work?
00:15:49.000Well, you know, maybe, but what's the argument?
00:15:52.000The ultimate argument is going to be, we've now decided and we will ask the courts to assert that is not acceptable.
00:15:59.000And 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.
00:16:08.000Well, also, it's a little bit unprecedented as far as legal territory goes.
00:16:11.000Again, my understanding is a non-lawyer to have somebody in office who's so clearly steeped in cognitive decline.
00:16:17.000This 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.
00:16:24.000But 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.
00:17:10.000Yeah, Jack Smith was in the Trump case.
00:17:12.000And many people pointed this out that it was hypocrisy within the DOJ.
00:17:18.000But 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?
00:17:30.000I 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.
00:17:39.000I think the play Trump is going to make is the courts should rule that it is.
00:17:44.000Right, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.
00:17:46.000I mean, are you expecting when you say the courts should rule?
00:18:11.000And 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.
00:18:20.000So that's why I think like a lot of this stuff's just spinning our wheels.
00:18:24.000And it's fair to talk about cognitive decline.
00:18:26.000I mean, Democrats would talk about that after the fact.
00:18:29.000It's fair to talk about Robert Hurr because Robert Hurr did come out and say that.
00:18:32.000And it's a fair comment to say, well, how does he say that here?
00:19:31.000I mean, the government has to prove a crime against someone if they're going to accuse them of it, right?
00:19:35.000It didn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they had to at least show the theory, and they did show the theory.
00:19:43.000And then the jury, the judge allowed it, and the jury found unanimously that he had.
00:19:47.000I 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?
00:19:57.000I don't know about in history, I don't know all that, but I think it's a big ask, right?
00:20:03.000I have to be a historian for that rather than a legal guy.
00:20:05.000My 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.
00:20:16.000And so obviously the falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, which was beyond its statute of limitations.
00:20:23.000However, they upgraded to a felony arguing that there was falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.
00:20:30.000The implication being that's an add-on charge when you have an underlying crime.
00:20:35.000Like a mafioso is going to murder somebody and then falsifies records after the fact.
00:20:39.000They say we're adding this onto that charge of that crime you did.
00:20:42.000You have felonies that couldn't have happened unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the first crime actually happened.
00:20:50.000So 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.
00:21:18.000So they had to show that why did you conceal those documents, the business records?
00:21:24.000And the reason is to hide campaign finance violations or whatever they decided.
00:21:29.000They're going to have to prove that crime.
00:21:32.000You 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.
00:22:13.000So attempted robbery, attempted murder are also charges.
00:22:18.000if 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.
00:22:38.000And 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.
00:23:02.000What 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.
00:23:48.000But the courts have found that that is allowed.
00:23:50.000So 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.
00:24:03.000Now, maybe first time in history is a bold claim.
00:24:06.000But 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.
00:25:23.000If 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.
00:25:37.000They can bust you for the conspiracy, even though they never proved that you robbed the bank, you completed it.
00:26:10.000So my point would be the unprecedented case where they upgraded a misdemeanor to a felony to use against Trump.
00:26:17.000And just moving beyond this, we will also face the unprecedented nature of Trump, Trump's DOJ, attempting to go after in any way possible.
00:26:27.000Maybe even it's just to jam up the people who receive these pardons, Fauci being the principal example.
00:26:34.000They will use, let's just, I don't know, circuitous legal means to go after him in some way.
00:26:42.000There 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.
00:27:04.000There 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.
00:27:14.000Well, it would be like saying the government charged someone with money laundering, but never proved money laundering.
00:27:18.000They said he had a meeting where he talked about money laundering.
00:27:21.000We could never prove the money laundering happened, charged him, and convicted him.
00:27:25.000Well, there are, when it comes to money laundering, if you're not reporting things properly, you can get hit with a lower level crime.
00:27:31.000But 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.
00:27:39.000I suppose the issue with this is the upgraded charge requires the underlying crime as opposed to conspiracy, which is the intent.
00:27:47.000Well, the intent is all you need in the upgraded crime.
00:27:50.000You don't need to show they actually committed the election violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:27:56.000You 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.
00:28:05.000I suppose we'll see because it's been floating appeal for over a year now, right?
00:28:11.000I think, and then we'll jump to the next story, Snapocalypse.
00:28:14.000My view of this whole thing, and the reason why I brought it up was because everything we're seeing is unprecedented.
00:28:21.000The Democrats going after the political opponents is unprecedented.
00:28:24.000The arrest of Trump's lawyers is unprecedented.
00:28:26.000RICO charges for soliciting legal services unprecedented.
00:28:29.000I think Trump had, it might have been like three or four lawyers who were arrested.
00:28:33.000And we've never seen anything like, look, I can't speak for the entire country for the entire history of the country.
00:28:38.000So it is a bit hyperbotic to say never.
00:28:41.000I would say in my lifetime, it is shocking and terrifying when the Democrat DOJ starts arresting the lawyers of their political opposition.
00:30:22.000There'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.
00:30:34.000So she cowardly bent the knee and cried on TV and admitted to things when all she did was draft a letter.
00:31:11.000You'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.
00:31:19.000And so if you lie, if you commit perjury, you know, you're going to get bit for it.
00:31:46.000So your political opponent, he's the frontrunner.
00:31:50.000Whatever the argument is, it is insane that they went after all of Trump's confidants, his staffers.
00:31:57.000And 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.
00:32:11.000Well, that's where the conspiracy comes in.
00:32:13.000We talked about that, seditious conspiracy.
00:32:14.000You didn't have to be there to be part of the conspiracy.
00:32:17.000I think you're talking about like Enrique Tario and people who weren't there on the scene.
00:32:24.000And so I suppose the issue is we have a lot of laws on the books.
00:32:27.000And 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.
00:32:35.000I 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.
00:32:52.000She didn't move forward on that because she's an experienced prosecutor.
00:32:55.000But 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.
00:33:04.000So then he appointed Lindsey Halligan for the sole purpose of prosecuting his enemies, James Comey and Letitia James.
00:33:13.000And so now you have the prospect of these cases being thrown out because of vindictive prosecution.
00:33:17.000And 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.
00:33:54.000And 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.
00:34:01.000And 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.
00:34:11.000The American people aren't going to tolerate it.
00:34:13.000Whatever 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.
00:34:26.000The 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.
00:34:53.000Bolton, I actually do think they have legitimate facts there.
00:34:56.000That's going to be tainted by the politicized prosecutions, Letitia James, and James Comey, though.
00:35:00.000It feeds into that, even though Bolton looks like that may be a legitimate case.
00:35:04.000As 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.
00:35:19.000They gave Secret Service a call in advance.
00:35:21.000They 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.
00:35:31.000James, 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.
00:35:42.000You have the judges who are a lot more favorable.
00:35:44.000But 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.
00:35:53.000And that was the beginning of the end for him.
00:35:55.000It seems like there's always some unfortunate legal reason why they're not going to go after the Democrats on these issues.
00:36:04.000Well, like the Biden being the most, the easiest example.
00:36:08.000We 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.
00:36:26.000Or 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.
00:36:43.000The numbers may be inaccurate, as all financial paperwork does.
00:36:46.000And Deutsche Bank even said we weren't defrauded.
00:36:48.000So 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.
00:36:57.000I want to give you credit for the New York case.
00:37:01.000I want to say that that one is something that I think a lot of people are now saying that was unduly politicized.
00:37:30.000And 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.
00:37:42.000And that was the first case against Donald Trump.
00:37:44.000That was not the Biden Justice Department, but that was Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, making that decision.
00:37:49.000And 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.
00:37:56.000Because if you had, if that happened, I would have gotten calls because I had Mar-a-Lago in my jurisdiction.
00:38:02.000I never got a call from them and never even got invited to a Hanukkah party.
00:38:06.000But as far as the Egyptian Carroll case, that law that was passed in New York was not for Trump.
00:38:32.000Well, to be fair, he said he's seen an episode of it or something like that.
00:38:35.000And they tried claiming that he was a fan, but he just saw an episode one time or something.
00:38:38.000The lawyers for Egypt Carroll said, you must remove this person from the jury because he watches Tim Poole podcast.
00:38:45.000And Tim Poole had talked about how bogus these cases were.
00:38:49.000And so the judge said, no, we're going to keep him on the jury.
00:38:52.000And then he ruled away with the rest of the report.
00:38:54.000Because he wasn't really a viewer of the show, right?
00:38:56.000When 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.
00:39:06.000I 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.
00:39:16.000I 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.
00:39:28.000The 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.
00:39:40.000And 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.
00:39:46.000Not to mention, Trump owned the hotel across the street.
00:40:36.000And 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.
00:40:45.000Well, so the challenge for me is that the Trump circle, his employees, they refute those claims.
00:40:52.000They argue they didn't try to withhold documents.
00:42:02.000I mean, you're asserting his fact without proof.
00:42:04.000Well, no, the proof is that they found all those documents at Mar-a-Lago.
00:42:07.000It doesn't prove that Trump knew they were there.
00:42:08.000It doesn't prove the lawyers intentionally withheld them, or Trump did either.
00:42:11.000So when you have a staff of people— Trump said they're his documents.
00:42:14.000Remember 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.
00:42:24.000So I use this example pretty often for the people who believe the moon landing was fake.
00:42:28.000They say, how did we lose the technology to pass the Van Allen radiation bill?
00:42:32.000And I said, because it was in an office in 1970, the administration changed and people moved boxes around.
00:42:37.000The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly.
00:42:43.000So when the DOJ goes or the Biden admin says, we want these documents and his lawyers say, here's what we have.
00:42:48.000And then Trump's like, I don't know, whatever.
00:42:49.000Trump's not monitoring that day-to-day operation.
00:42:52.000Like, I got a company here with 40 employees.
00:42:54.000And 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?
00:43:02.000So 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.
00:43:18.000Right off the bat, I'm going to say, by all means, maybe Trump did intentionally withhold these things.
00:43:23.000Biden did intentionally withhold them, and we know it's a fact.
00:43:49.000They 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.
00:43:54.000And Trump says, hey, well, I'm the president.
00:44:37.000What is the lie that the Biden DOJ said?
00:44:41.000Well, Trump's team has refuted they intentionally withheld from the DOJ.
00:44:44.000They said they showed him where everything was, let him come in.
00:44:47.000And 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.
00:44:55.000Well, even if I did have these documents as president, I have plenary declassification powers anyway.
00:45:00.000And you're using that to imply he intentionally withheld from the government.
00:45:03.000Oh, I wish that they could have argued that in court.
00:45:07.000I wish that this could have been tried in court where both sides could have made their arguments so we can decided who to believe.
00:45:14.000But 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.
00:45:24.000And then when Trump won, he then dismissed the cases permanently.
00:45:28.000I would argue that if they're not going to go after Joe Biden for a comparable case, both, it's moot.
00:45:33.000And so, like, we had, it was Joe Biden's ghostwriter who actually, I believe, didn't he destroy evidence as well?
00:45:40.000Was 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.
00:45:51.000He wanted to sell, he wanted to make money.
00:45:53.000He didn't say he could supposedly make money, but he wanted to write a book.
00:45:55.000So we know he had the intent to do it.
00:45:57.000And I believe the reporting was that the ghost record quickly destroyed the evidence of Biden having admitted to this crime.
00:46:03.000And so when I see that story, they're not going to go after him.
00:46:08.000It's like, you know, why would I believe someone at that point?
00:46:12.000But we should talk about Snap Occultus, but I do want to add one more thing to this.
00:46:16.000You 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.
00:46:37.000He claimed that Dave Rubin was part of a Russian influence operation without any evidence because Dave Rubin commented on funny viral videos.
00:46:52.000He used it to smear me, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others.
00:46:56.000The 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.
00:47:04.000These 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.
00:47:19.000And 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.
00:47:39.000And then I've got sponsors calling me up.
00:47:42.000I'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.
00:48:04.000Now, 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.
00:48:18.000And Merrick Garland publicly and personally came out and said this was spreading Russian propaganda.
00:48:23.000So 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.
00:48:33.000And worse still, I had to hire two legal teams because of this.
00:48:37.000And 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.
00:48:56.000So in December of last year, and they have never come out and done anything about it.
00:49:00.000Now, I'm not about to call the DOJ and say, guys, can we finally wrap this up?
00:49:04.000However, 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.
00:49:14.000And that was the Biden DOJ that did it.
00:49:25.000Mike 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.
00:49:38.000And then I said the strategy used by Democrats in 2020 to win was ballot harvesting, which is legal.
00:49:44.000And that was the key to them collecting these votes.
00:49:46.000And 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.
00:50:02.000YouTube came down on us with the hammer, banned a bunch of episodes, and suppressed my accounts and channels.
00:50:07.000The Biden DOJ personally went to various outlets and threatened to suspend and censor people.
00:50:13.000So we can have a debate on the merits of various legal cases.
00:50:16.000And 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.
00:50:22.000And that's not saying anything about the Trump administration.
00:50:24.000It'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.
00:50:50.000They described you as an unwitting victim of it.
00:50:52.000In 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.
00:51:06.000So the only thing I'd say is that I know they never released any evidence.
00:51:10.000They dropped the case two months later.
00:51:14.000They did a press conference for what reason?
00:51:17.000For what reason to a press conference and then dropped the case a month later, a month and a half later.
00:51:21.000I think the press conference was to call out the Russian actors for infiltrating and trying to influence the election, but they used unwitting influencers.
00:51:31.000And I think that I understand why you're so pissed off at it.
00:51:33.000Well, let me ask you a question in response to that.
00:51:35.000What about a debate on modern dating in the United States as Russian propaganda?
00:51:49.000And 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.
00:51:58.000But 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.
00:52:09.000I don't understand how this is Russian propaganda.
00:52:12.000Why did the AG go on TV and claim that I was doing that, unwittingly or otherwise?
00:52:18.000And you've had people on here who talk about Ukraine on the Ukrainian side against Russia.
00:52:22.000Tim Casty RL never had a license agreement with Tennant Media.
00:52:34.000But 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.
00:52:51.000Well, also, Matt Gates, who was investigated under the Bill Barr Department of Justice, Merrick Garland took that investigation over and then dropped the investigation.
00:53:34.000The point is he claimed that I'm an idiot who was sharing Russian propaganda through Russian propaganda through a show that is largely apolitical.
00:53:43.000And 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.
00:53:50.000Maybe 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.
00:54:18.000Is it common for the AG to do a press conference maligning individuals like that?
00:54:22.000The only time that they speak is at the four corners of the indictment.
00:54:25.000They announce the indictment and then the stuff goes away.
00:54:29.000And that is something that in the prosecutorial profession, when people are investigated, they often don't even tell them that the investigation is over.
00:54:34.000So 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.
00:54:42.000And so for him, he's thinking, that's all I need to do.
00:54:44.000But that's why I don't know what was the crime.
00:54:48.000The crime was the use of dollars to infiltrate the to meddle, essentially, by the Russians.
00:54:56.000The Russians had this influence operation and it was undisclosed and it was through RT.
00:55:36.000It's unethical if they announce an investigation like James Comey did right before the 2016 election.
00:55:40.000So, 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.
00:55:52.000I 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.
00:56:00.000And 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.
00:56:07.000We've done feminism and politics, modern dating.
00:56:13.000We had one guy in talking about MH370.
00:56:16.000Usually, like last Friday, we had a political debate, but it's, you know, 80-20 if that.
00:56:22.000And 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.
00:56:28.000And I said, I'm not worried about them not pursuing it.
00:56:32.000I said, I'm not worried about them pursuing it.
00:56:33.000I'm worried about them dropping it after accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda.
00:56:37.000And they said, you know, you know what the assessment is?
00:56:40.000The real intent of Merritt Gollin's press conference was an October surprise.
00:56:43.000It 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.
00:56:52.000And as soon as he lost, they dropped it, walked away and said, eh, we're done.
00:56:56.000Well, there's currently still charges against the two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT.
00:57:41.000I 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.
00:57:54.000But there isn't any and there never was.
00:57:57.000And 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.
00:58:07.000These men are not in the United States.
00:58:56.000And 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.
00:59:05.000No, no, he's not claiming we did something wrong.
00:59:08.000If Tim Poole, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin did not spread Russian propaganda, then there is no influence operation.
00:59:16.000I think that Merrick Garland wanted to make sure that you were not being targeted by it as far as that.
00:59:29.000He wanted to make sure that you were not brought into this, that you were not intentionally trying to do anything.
00:59:34.000And I know what you're saying, but you didn't do it anyways.
00:59:37.000How could there be a Russian influence operation if the individuals in question who are unwitting never actually shared Russian propaganda?
00:59:46.000As far as Russian propaganda, I don't know what was shared or what was not.
00:59:51.000As 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.
01:01:02.000And 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.
01:01:08.000The 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.
01:01:15.000Also, Merrick Garland, I just don't think he came out of it, came into this with a nefarious motive.
01:01:21.000I 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.
01:01:33.000You got to say it right before they announced the indictment, the tenant media, tenant YouTube gained 200,000 subscribers just seemingly over a day.
01:01:48.000Well, nobody knows for sure, but it certainly sounds like a psyop.
01:01:53.000A 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.
01:02:06.000And then all of a sudden, overnight, it jumps to 300,000.
01:02:09.000And the staff go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on right now?
01:02:12.000And then as soon as it hits 300, he comes out and says, look at this major influence operation.
01:02:27.000Why would they do this right before an election?
01:02:29.000It is the utmost naivete to assume this was anything other than a political move to help Biden win an election and malign opposition media.
01:02:35.000Well, Joe Biden didn't like Merrick Garland.
01:02:37.000So if Merrick Garland was using his story to help Joe Biden, that would be news to Joe Biden.
01:02:41.000I mean, Merrick Garland didn't try to help Biden.
01:02:43.000Merritt 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.
01:02:52.000By the way, that didn't have to be put out there.
01:02:54.000Merrick Garland made the decision to allow that report to be public, and that was very damaging to Joe Biden.
01:02:59.000That's why I don't think that Merrick Garland came into this thinking that he's going to help a Democrat get elected.
01:03:05.000Merrick Garland takes great pains to try to be apolitical.
01:04:15.000States sue Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits during government shutdown.
01:04:19.000A group of states sued Trump admin in an effort to maintain funding.
01:04:23.000The U.S. Agricultural Department has suspended SNAP benefits as of November 4th, the lawsuit noted.
01:04:29.000The 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.
01:04:45.000This is why I hate the corporate press.
01:04:47.000So this article earlier today was titled, Trump Says Emergency Funds Will Not Be Used for SNAP benefits.
01:04:53.000But because the corporate press has no journalistic ethics, they do what's called stealth editing, where I refreshed the article and they rewrote it.
01:05:01.000So bravo, NPR, on being unethical in journalism.
01:05:26.000States have sued the federal government for SNAP before.
01:05:29.000It'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.
01:05:37.000And aside from the political unpopularity of it, I think the states can sue.
01:05:42.000I just don't know which way the courts are going to go on it.
01:05:44.000I recognize standing makes a lot of sense, right?
01:05:47.000Do the states have a right to sue over this?
01:05:58.000I mean, the courts do have oversight over it.
01:06:01.000I mean, you're talking about technical rules of funding and states' rights and federalism and all these things that come into play.
01:06:08.000But 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.
01:06:17.000You would think if anything is emergency funding, it would be this.
01:06:19.000But again, with that said, there's no guarantee which way it would go.
01:06:22.000I mean, the Supreme Court has given a lot of deference to executive power.
01:06:26.000So I can see the Supreme Court siding with the president on this.
01:06:32.000I don't know if you would know, but how long do you think a court case would take for something like this, right?
01:06:36.000Because the reality is we have three days.
01:06:38.000What we found is generally the lower courts, the district courts, will be more favorable to the plaintiffs against the White House.
01:06:45.000But then as you get higher up towards a Supreme Court, they have a greater sense of deference towards executive authority.
01:06:52.000We 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.
01:07:01.000So I think initially you'll see a court perhaps saying, no, you got to release it.
01:07:04.000And then it'll get stayed on appeal by the appellate court and eventually get up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
01:07:09.000And by the end, this shutdown should be over, and then this thing will be moot.
01:07:14.000So I guess my question is, it's just, it looks like they're going to file.
01:07:19.000There may be an emergency injunction of some sort.
01:07:44.000And 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.
01:07:51.000I 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.
01:08:02.000No, I just think that what we can all agree on is we have the liberty to drink Coca-Cola.
01:08:07.000Not paid to say this whatsoever, but these brave Democrat states are standing up for our rights to drink Coca-Cola.
01:08:16.000Like 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.
01:08:26.000But 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.
01:08:39.000There's nothing that we want from Democrats.
01:09:00.000And he doesn't have to seat the member of Congress from Arizona and then vote to release the FC.
01:09:05.000Yeah, I mean, that's how government shutdowns have always worked: the party demanding something is always really blamed for it.
01:09:11.000I mean, going back to the previous shutdown, I mean, The contest is over border wall funding, et cetera, and people blame the Republican Party.
01:09:18.000But 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.
01:09:28.000Yeah, 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?
01:09:36.000Is it because of the health care issue that that's an issue that resonates?
01:10:17.000Like 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.
01:10:35.000My 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.
01:10:44.000I 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.
01:10:49.000But now I've stopped because it's nuts.
01:10:51.000Minus 14, minus four in the same time period is meaningless.
01:10:56.000So 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.
01:11:10.000Well, 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.
01:11:18.000I 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.
01:11:24.000I 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.
01:11:32.000But 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.
01:11:39.000So it's really hard to determine polling.
01:11:41.000It's really determined to gauge interest.
01:11:45.000Who is more responsible for the government shutdown?
01:11:46.000Voters blame Republicans slightly more than Democrats.
01:11:49.000They 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.
01:11:58.000They think both parties are equally responsible.
01:11:59.000However, at the same time, Quinnipiak had Trump at minus 14 for a similar time period.
01:12:07.000I don't believe Trump is at minus 14 in the polls.
01:12:09.000I don't necessarily believe that he's at plus 4 either.
01:12:13.000I certainly know a lot of people don't like Trump, but minus 14 is very heavy.
01:12:16.000In aggregate, he's at 44.9 approval to 51.9 disapproval.
01:12:22.000Minus seven seems relatively plausible, but Quinnipiak seems to be heavily biased.
01:12:29.000I'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.
01:12:47.000They don't think this will matter in the midterms because a year is an eternity in politics.
01:12:52.000They 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.
01:13:03.000They must genuinely believe they're winning politically, that the perception is beneficial to them.
01:13:25.000I 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.
01:13:34.000But 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.
01:13:40.000I 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.
01:13:59.000People are worried that their health care premiums are going to double if this bill, a clean bill, goes through.
01:14:06.000I kind of just think we're well beyond the political argument phase of what's going on in this country politically.
01:14:12.000Well, I mean, you look at the celebrations for Charlie Kirk's assassination.
01:14:15.000Obviously, 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.
01:14:23.000And 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.
01:14:31.000The younger generations are like ready and waiting, locked and loaded.
01:14:35.000So 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.
01:14:50.000That'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.
01:15:06.000So 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.
01:15:15.000However, millennials largely didn't have kids.
01:15:20.000The issue of medical costs are largely for the older generation.
01:15:24.000And 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.
01:15:30.000Well, 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.
01:15:44.000Young people are ready for this whole thing to go belly up.
01:15:56.000Well, 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.
01:16:05.000And so it's like really tough to really, you know, drive up a lot of interest in a government shutdown.
01:16:08.000And 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.
01:16:14.000Let's jump to the story from the New York Post.
01:16:16.000Fuming SNAP recipients threaten to loot if food stamps are cut November 1st.
01:16:37.000Since 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.
01:16:50.00042 million people, and you don't need 42 million people for instability.
01:16:55.000So they're saying straight up, I don't know, man.
01:16:58.000I mean, is this what's going to like come November 1st?
01:17:00.000This is literally no benefits for anybody.
01:17:32.000But Democrats must believe that whatever they're doing is going to benefit them.
01:17:37.000Republicans must believe the same thing.
01:17:40.000So 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.
01:17:48.000Yeah, I mean, that's a very important voting block for the Democrats.
01:17:50.000Historically, 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.
01:17:59.000And so this has always been something people have been aware of.
01:18:02.000And Democrats cannot afford to upset that particular demographic in the same way that Republicans can.
01:18:11.000I 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.
01:18:21.000But I think the stereotype generally still exists.
01:18:23.000And I still think there is some truth to it.
01:18:25.000So the Republicans know this is going to hurt the Democrats way more than it's going to hurt us.
01:18:30.000And 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.
01:18:42.000They 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.
01:18:52.000These 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.
01:18:59.000I think people are scrambling in these in these, yeah, like these consultancy groups and policy institutes.
01:19:41.000It'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?
01:20:34.000There are areas in cities that have high-density welfare recipients.
01:20:39.000And the stores there probably can't exist without these food benefits going to the area.
01:20:44.000So 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.
01:20:52.000And then there are impoverished neighborhoods that get a large, a lion's share of these benefits.
01:21:12.000And 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.
01:21:18.000Supermarkets in general will see a margin drop, which will result in every distributor that supplies them seeing a margin drop.
01:21:27.000It's going to result in a ripple effect.
01:21:28.000I mean, it is a freight train slamming into a brick wall, stopping at once.
01:21:40.000Superhero, a train's coming to save the person.
01:21:43.000He 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.
01:21:49.000So bodega's shut down, corner stores shut down for those who know what a bodega is.
01:21:53.000And 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.
01:22:01.000So now we just lost 12 of the stores we supply.
01:22:05.000What 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.
01:22:17.000When they're negative, I mean, they've probably got emergency coffers.
01:22:21.000They'll probably stay afloat for a little while.
01:22:23.000But we saw this during COVID when they shut down restaurants.
01:22:26.000The restaurants, like, we've got $20,000 worth of perishable goods.
01:22:30.000When they shut us down, even for a week, we lose $20,000.
01:22:35.000Well, 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.
01:24:46.000Their attitude is like: look, if it's even 2% detriment to the Democrats, it's worth doing.
01:24:53.000So 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.
01:25:07.000Meaning, when you look at the math, Democrats, it's not about who's right or wrong.
01:25:12.000It's about how many angry people per district.
01:25:16.000And so the Republicans are going to say, we are going to increase the amount of angry people in every Republican district by 7%.
01:25:22.000Democrats will increase the amount of angry people by 13%.
01:27:28.000So 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.
01:27:38.000The Republican message is going to be: those people that are mad were stealing from you.
01:27:44.000And I think a lot of conservative people are going to be like, yep.
01:27:47.000And then a lot of people in the urban environments are going to be like, I don't know what happened.
01:27:52.000All I know is you're supposed to have fixed this.
01:27:55.000And so even if, I'll put it this way, in New York, in a D plus 30, is Trump really worried about losing voters?
01:28:09.000In a swing district, maybe, but Trump may be betting.
01:28:13.000In 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.
01:28:23.000I'm voting for the other guy because what's happening is bad.
01:28:25.000And 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.
01:28:31.000The 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.
01:28:41.000And 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?
01:29:13.000The 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.
01:29:20.000Like, maybe I'm wrong, but I think Trump's attitude is all that matters is you win.
01:29:26.000As 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.
01:29:35.000And so right now, I'm assuming that the Republican Party's attitude is, who cares?
01:29:47.000Nobody, 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.
01:30:27.000The argument only matters to the older crowd.
01:30:30.000The older you are, the more you're concerned about winning an argument.
01:30:33.000The younger you are, the more you're just like, crush them.
01:30:36.000And we see that with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death.
01:30:39.000You 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.
01:30:49.000I don't see a remedy to the track we're on.
01:31:24.000Even though I just got really heated and started yelling.
01:31:26.000But 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?
01:31:36.000How do you think they feel about what Merrick Garland did to me?
01:31:54.000The difference that we have on this is not that I think you shouldn't be upset about it.
01:31:59.000I 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.
01:32:07.000Just Merrick Garland is not like that.
01:32:11.000And 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.
01:32:19.000Didn't even put a special prosecutor into place until it was too late.
01:32:23.000He went out of his way to make sure Biden's son got prosecuted.
01:33:32.000The shows that were licensed were not in any meaningful way Russian propaganda.
01:33:37.000People tried claiming that because of comments I made about a German indictment of a Ukrainian cut out of context, that was Russian propaganda.
01:33:44.000Germany indicted a Ukrainian guy for bombing Nord Street 2.
01:33:48.000I 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.
01:33:58.000So a totally different company, a different show.
01:34:00.000And then they try to make some circuitous argument.
01:34:02.000But 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.
01:34:16.000And then in December, the feds, the DOJ, instructed my lawyers that they would be informally closing the case.
01:34:54.000My 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.
01:35:06.000They know that it put us at tremendous risk politically, financially, and safety.
01:35:12.000And the view is Merrick Garland is a portent of what's to come.
01:35:19.000This is what you get from the boomer class trying to destroy you.
01:35:23.000He 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.
01:36:30.000But, you know, you talk about Merrick Garland, who comes out before an election and has his press conference.
01:36:36.000But 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.
01:36:48.000And that, then he closed it right before with very little standfare, right?
01:37:47.000So, so to the Comey issue, the apples is that it is dangerous for parties to swap targeting each other when they switch power.
01:37:58.000So, 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?
01:38:09.000As Trump is campaigning, they accuse him of being a traitor.
01:38:12.000He enters office with this weight over him.
01:38:14.000And 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.
01:38:23.000He ends up with the Mueller investigation and all this ridiculous nonsense.
01:38:27.000Then 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.
01:38:38.000And let me just succinctly wrap this up.
01:38:42.000I accurately reported a long time ago that social media companies were censoring conservative voices and pro-Trump voices.
01:38:49.000And every Wahoo in the corporate press said I was lying.
01:39:01.000We now know that Biden's DOJ was sending letters, had illicit access to big tech platforms through back doors, through threats against these companies.
01:39:11.000Zuckerberg came out and said, we resisted, but they forced us to do it.
01:39:25.000It will be the worst thing you ever see come to pass.
01:39:28.000And 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?
01:39:41.000I think conservatives are largely going to be like, we mostly live in the middle of nowhere and we have chickens in our backyard.
01:39:46.000So it will predominantly impact urban individuals who lose access to these resources, but everybody will be lesser because of it.
01:39:53.000Unfortunately, neither side will back down.
01:39:56.000There 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.
01:40:07.000Neither of them will accept the proposition of the other.
01:40:10.000That is, Democrats have proposed abortion up to nine months.
01:40:27.000Well, no, no, no, but this is actually to call that an abortion.
01:40:30.000Here'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.
01:40:40.000To perform an abortion on top of that is never a medical necessity.
01:40:44.000But let's put that aside because that actually doesn't, that argument is not to the point I'm making.
01:40:49.000And if, you know, by all means, Seamus can argue with you and show you the facts on this and we can disagree.
01:40:53.000My point is, neither will accept the proposition of the other.
01:40:57.000So in Colorado, when they said we would like to legalize abortion unrestricted up to nine months, conservatives and moderate liberals even said, why?
01:41:08.000And they said, well, it doesn't happen anyway.
01:41:10.000I don't care what you think happens or doesn't happen.
01:41:56.000I do worry that we're so dug in and people are not talking to each other.
01:42:02.000Now we have different social media sites.
01:42:04.000I mean, you have Blue Sky and Twitter separate, and you have podcasts, and people have all this confirmation bias.
01:42:10.000That'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.
01:43:17.000I grew up watching his show when I was a kid.
01:43:19.000And 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.
01:44:49.000So I believe that Bill Maher, you know, he's almost 70, and I'm a fan.
01:44:55.000He gets his news probably from corporate cable TV.
01:44:58.000So he's not going to be apprised to everything that those of us who are reading the news all day every day are.
01:45:04.000So what happens is he's three or four years late to the conversation.
01:45:09.000And 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?
01:45:22.000Jazz 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.
01:45:32.000And there's a viral clip where Jazz Jennings' mother says that Jez, a biological male who is trans, doesn't use the dilator.
01:45:41.000So 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.
01:45:47.000And that if Jazz leaves and doesn't do this, I will wring her neck.
01:45:52.000You show that to a conservative and they are going to scream bloody marketing.
01:46:34.000If 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.
01:46:53.000And I'm going to be like, ah, give me the mafia guy.
01:47:19.000You haven't gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments.
01:47:22.000You can still be targeted by the IRS and they can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property.
01:47:28.000And 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.
01:47:36.000The moment they come back, they're jumping on those backlogs.
01:53:02.000And so the government never proved it.
01:53:04.000So 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.
01:53:27.000No, it's just not an element of the crime.
01:53:29.000So 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.
01:53:50.000Whoa, whoa, whoa, jaywalking's not a felony charge, but you were jaywalking because you were intending to do something bad.
01:55:36.000Like, 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.
01:55:47.000People who don't, and this is, it's funny because the poor man, you know, for all of his faults, criticize him.
01:55:52.000But for the poor man, this all started when he said we need to repeal the 13th Amendment.
01:55:57.000And the left and the corporate press, not actually reading it, said, Holy crap, Ye wants to bring back slavery.
01:56:02.000Ye got pissed because he was like, What?
01:56:05.000The 13th Amendment says if you commit any crime, you can be made a slave.
01:58:49.000But 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.
01:59:15.000So the statute's been used as an addition to other crimes, saying the guy laundered money and he falsified business records.
01:59:22.000This 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.
02:00:31.000Brian Dayton says, this guy's gerrymander comment just proves he's a political hack.
02:00:35.000Like, dude, Democrats have consistently only gerrymandered for decades after panic-firing excuses for Garland in the face of personal experience.
02:00:43.000Well, he's allowed to disagree, but I would more politely assert the point being made.
02:00:49.000Blue states are insanely gerrymandered.
02:00:51.000Illinois is a joke how badly gerrymandered it is.
02:01:10.000Has 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?
02:01:38.000Quote: Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard.
02:01:43.000My question: Is it unprecedented that Trump was convicted without proving an underlying crime?
02:01:49.000Yes, 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.
02:02:04.000Instead, 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.
02:02:17.000Presented to the jury without requiring unanimity on any one theory.
02:02:20.000Jury 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.
02:02:34.000While 17510 has been applied in hundreds of prior cases, those typically feature clearer, directly evidenced underlying offensive.
02:02:41.000None 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.
02:02:55.000The May 2024 verdict stands pending appeal, but the lack of an explicit underlying conviction has fueled claims of a zombie case revived unconventionally.
02:03:58.000Or theoretically, if the underlying crime, I think under this charge, you could have the felony falsification of records attached to a misdemeanor.
02:04:06.000So if you committed a misdemeanor and falsified records, you now have a felony.
02:04:09.000Which is weird because if the underlying offense is also a misdemeanor, since when does two misdemeanors equal one felony?
02:04:16.000in new york they allow that uh they i am incorrect uh Charges in New York, falsifying business records to the first.
02:04:40.000I'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.
02:04:45.000I'm talking about the felony, so I have to ask it again.
02:04:47.000My friend, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
02:04:50.000The uncensored portion of the show is coming up at rumble.com/slash Timcast.
02:08:00.000I 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.
02:08:13.000Because the claim of falsifying business records in furtherance under the crime is an attachment.
02:08:20.000Grock has given me the business, and I may have to ask it again.
02:08:26.000New 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.
02:08:40.000It explicitly demands the falsification occur with the intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit.
02:08:46.000Indictments must plead all elements under New York criminal procedure.
02:08:49.000I don't think it's answering the question I'm asking.
02:09:02.000Democrats polling lead ahead of the 2026 midterm elections is showing warning signs in their efforts to reclaim the majority in the House next November.
02:10:07.000I 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.
02:10:43.000It'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.
02:10:51.000And it's like, because that's not what's on the ballot.
02:10:53.000What'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.
02:11:28.000It's a very strange thing to ask this question.
02:11:31.000The 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.
02:11:49.000However, there have been many people who have been criminally charged solely under this one criminal statute.
02:11:57.000That is, in one case, a guy was committing tax fraud, but they never proved the tax fraud.
02:12:02.000They proved falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime as a standalone charge.
02:12:09.000However, 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.
02:12:26.000And 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.
02:12:35.000Yeah, 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?
02:12:44.000I have asked it a litany of questions so it could break this down for me.
02:12:48.000It gave me several examples of cases, such as let me pull one up.
02:13:46.000Where 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.
02:14:09.000They have never charged someone under this without requiring unanimity and alleging the underlying crime.
02:14:16.000So 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.
02:14:42.000So in all instances, okay, according to Grok, and I've asked like five different ways to make sure it's right.
02:14:48.000Every time, so you've got Medicaid fraud, concealing drug proceeds, tax evasion, food stamp fraud, insurance fraud.
02:14:54.000In 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.
02:15:07.000There was an individual specific crime they were trying to conceal, which I would argue is due process.
02:15:13.000You are asking a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, were they concealing this crime?
02:15:18.000With Trump, the issue is they said, you choose.
02:15:24.000It's the first time it's ever happened.
02:15:26.000And 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.
02:15:32.000I 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?
02:15:43.000And what they're saying is you don't have to prove the second crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have to identify.
02:15:51.000I 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.
02:16:02.000You know me, you know I'm going to do that.
02:16:04.000It is unanimity on the intended concealment is a requirement, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
02:16:10.000So if the jury is shown evidence and the jury all agrees, that boy was trying to get a prostitute.
02:16:17.000If you say, look, maybe it was for a prostitute, maybe it was to buy drugs, maybe it was to buy a gun, you pick.
02:16:24.000You've not proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was intending to commit a crime.
02:16:28.000But remember, our dispute was about whether you could piggyback in that way, whether you had to prove the other crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
02:16:36.000And what Grok is saying is that it's never before happened where the jury isn't told specifically which crime it is.
02:16:45.000And here in some point, there are three choices.
02:17:27.000To 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.
02:17:40.000If 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.
02:18:00.000Look, it's already bad enough for young people, I'd argue.
02:18:04.000Like I've certainly got my grievances that I've told.
02:19:34.000So that's what it was like 20 years ago for me.
02:19:36.000This is, you know, about 20 years ago.
02:19:39.000And 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.
02:19:49.000You walk into that courtroom and they say, go fuck yourself every fucking time.
02:19:54.000And I show up wearing a suit with glasses on, no hat, by the way.
02:21:23.000And if you don't, they'll penalize you.
02:21:26.000And taking from what you're saying to the extreme end, I'm making a huge leap 20 years in the future.
02:21:32.000To 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.
02:22:19.000You have to show that it was intended to commit another crime.
02:22:21.000And 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.
02:22:32.000And if that's what Grok said, then I defer to Grok.
02:22:36.000But remember, when you, and that's what makes this different.
02:22:41.000I 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.
02:23:25.000And 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.
02:23:35.000Even in all those other cases, never had to prove that the defendant actually committed that second crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
02:23:43.000Indeed, they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a specific action the man had taken.
02:24:06.000If 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?
02:24:39.000That's a psychotic government out of control.
02:24:43.000If 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.
02:25:04.000We can't prove which one you were going to do.
02:25:07.000And we normally require that you were in the process of committing that crime.
02:25:12.000What 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?
02:26:10.000Because the argument is, we will write the words in any circuitous legal jargon we can to justify why we're destroying you.
02:26:20.000It doesn't matter if you actually were committing this crime, that crime, or otherwise.
02:26:24.000And it doesn't matter if we can prove it.
02:26:26.000The 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.
02:26:36.000Which means if you asked 12 people, did Trump intend to commit election fraud?