GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation w/ Dave Aronberg

Summary

---

Timcast IRL – October 29, 2025

Episode: GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation w/ Dave Aronberg
Host: Tim Pool
Guests: Dave Aronberg (former State Attorney, Palm Beach County), Tate Brown, Seamus Coughlin

---

Overview: Main Theme and Purpose

This episode dives into the escalating political and legal battles surrounding President Joe Biden's use of an autopen for granting pardons, alleged cognitive decline, and associated GOP investigations. The show also dissects the DOJ’s public communications and investigations into media influencers (including Tim Pool himself) over supposed Russian propaganda, and finally, the looming "Snapocalypse" — the possible expiry of SNAP food benefits during a government shutdown. It’s an episode centering on the breakdown of precedent, rampant partisanship, and the legal arms race between US political parties.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. GOP Pushes to Invalidate Biden Pardons (05:14–17:31)

• Main Story: The GOP is demanding that the DOJ invalidate or review certain executive orders and pardons signed by President Biden via autopen, citing his alleged cognitive decline.
• Legal Analysis (Dave Aronberg):
  • No explicit law requires pardons to be hand-signed by the sitting president.
  • Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President broad clemency powers — once a pardon is accepted, there's no mechanism for reversal.
  • Even if the president approved after-the-fact, it’s still valid. “If he validates it even after the fact, then it’s a done deal.” (11:11)
  • The actual legal issue would require clear proof that Biden never authorized a pardon and didn’t approve it later — nearly impossible.

Notable Quote

“So how would you now show that he wasn’t aware of it?... This is the smoke President Trump wants. He wants us to be talking about it.” – Dave Aronberg (08:56)

---

2. Politics of Precedent and Will to Power (14:00–15:45)

• The show pivots to a broader discussion about precedents being smashed on both sides, using examples like RICO charges against Trump’s lawyers, and the broad targeting of political opponents.
• Tim Pool asserts that arguments and even constitutionality seem increasingly irrelevant — political will is all that matters:

“Can you make an argument justifying your actions to enough people to get it done? ...I honestly think you don’t even need the argument at this point.” (14:04)

---

3. Trump Indictments and the Expansion of Legal Theory (18:31–29:10)

• Trump’s 34 Felony Charges in NY:
  • Tim Pool’s position: The charges (falsifying business records "in furtherance of another crime") are unprecedented without proof of the underlying primary crime.
  • Aronberg’s rebuttal: Statutes in NY only require that intent to further/conceal another crime be proven, not the actual crime itself. “You don’t have to prove the commission of another crime, just that it was intended.” (20:46)
  • Pool pushes the philosophical and due process question: “...if the government can impose a penalty on an individual at any point without proving they committed a crime?” (22:49)
  • Aronberg compares this to conspiracy laws, emphasizing that intent is enough for certain charges.

Notable Quote

“This is unprecedented. The idea that the state is going to say… we can create crimes and charge you with them… your penalty is upgraded because we implied without proof another crime happened…” – Tim Pool (21:07)

---

4. Prosecutions of Trump’s Legal Team (29:10–32:01)

• Focus on Jenna Ellis and other Trump lawyers being criminally charged for actions like writing legal letters.
• Tim Pool contends: This is the criminalization of legal representation:
  • “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime… The bigger picture… is, they went after all of Trump’s confidants, his staffers.” (30:00)
• Aronberg replies: Participation in perjury or other crimes by lawyers isn’t immunity; “Just because you have a bar card doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card.” (29:41)

---

5. The DOJ, Media Influence, and Pool’s Personal Experience (44:25–63:18)

• Tim Pool recounts being publicly named by the DOJ (via a Merrick Garland press conference) in the context of Russian propaganda — without evidence and no follow-up apology once the case was dropped.
  • He views this as a weaponization of federal power for partisan gain ahead of the election and cites personal and financial fallout.
  • Aronberg’s defense: Indictment press conferences are standard on major cases, and Garland clarified Pool was an “unwitting victim” (50:57), not a perpetrator.
  • Pool maintains: “It was political. The only reason they did it.” (57:04)
• General distrust expressed in DOJ’s handling of both the Trump and Biden classified documents cases. Pool argues unequal application (Trump raided, Biden let off).

Memorable Exchange

“You will never convince me of the credibility of Merrick Garland or the Biden administration because Merrick Garland did something truly unprecedented.” – Tim Pool (45:11)
“I’m aware of what you went through, Tim… but in the press conference, Merrick Garland did say… the company never disclosed to the influencers… its ties to RT… They described you as an unwitting victim of it.” – Dave Aronberg (50:55)

---

6. The “Snapocalypse” – SNAP Food Benefits at Risk (65:25–86:21)

• As SNAP benefits are on the brink of expiring (three days from air date), states are suing the Trump administration to force release of funds.
• Debate over the legal authority for courts to intervene and whether any judge could actually compel the executive to act.
  • Aronberg: “States have sued the federal government for SNAP before... But this is different because this is during a shutdown.” (65:33)
• Predictions of mass instability, food riots, and ripple effects on low-margin grocers if benefits stop.
• Disagreement over which political party stands to lose more — pool and others suggest Republicans believe the fallout will hit Democratic districts hardest; Aronberg questions if this is a sound bet.
  • “It will disproportionately impact Democrat Congressional districts going into a midterm election and that’s all they need.” – Tim Pool (84:37)

Notable Quote

“If the government basically says we’re going to distribute these resources… when this cuts off you’re going to see a bunch of bodegas vanish overnight.” – Tim Pool (80:18)

---

7. The Death of Compromise and the Future of U.S. Politics (89:15–end)

• Broad consensus that U.S. politics is beyond compromise, with both sides simply seeking victory however possible — from gerrymandering to legal warfare.
• Pool: “There was a period maybe 30 years ago where the conversation was let’s figure out where we meet, compromise and then work together. We’re way past that.” (90:02)
• Growing divide over cultural issues (abortion, child sex changes, drag shows), with Pool asserting: “There is no reality where a conservative accepts that proposition… There’s no middle ground.” (101:35–102:04)
• Pool and Aronberg close on the importance of dialogue, frustration that liberals are reluctant to debate on such platforms, and reflections on media bias and generational divides.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (w/ Timestamps)

• “If he validates it even after the fact, then it’s a done deal. You’d have to show that he was totally in the dark…it went against his will…” – Dave Aronberg (11:11)
• “No one should want conflict or crisis. Nobody should want war. It’ll be the worst thing you ever see come to pass.” – Tim Pool (97:54)
• “It seems like the only thing that’s going to matter in this is the willingness to use power in a way to benefit your side.” – Tim Pool (08:14)
• “This is the smoke President Trump wants. He wants us to be talking about it. It makes him look better, makes Biden look bad, and it keeps us from talking about other things…” – Dave Aronberg (08:56)
• “Can you make an argument justifying your actions to enough people to get it done? ...I honestly think you don’t even need the argument at this point.” – Tim Pool (14:04)
• “You just need to show the intent…to conceal it.” – Dave Aronberg (21:37)
• “Nobody should want conflict or crisis. Nobody should want war.” – Tim Pool (97:54)
• “We’re in uncharted territory here and I hope they can open it up. But the longer this goes, will the trends change?” – Dave Aronberg (73:32)
• “The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly.” – Tim Pool (42:28)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• GOP Moves Against Biden Pardons & the “Autopen” Controversy: 05:14 – 17:31
• Precedent, Political Power, & Legal System Breakdown: 14:00 – 32:01
• The Trump NY Indictment, Felony Upgrading Controversy: 18:31 – 29:10, deepening at 109:00 – 124:00
• Prosecution of Trump’s Lawyers: 29:10 – 32:01
• Personal DOJ Targeting/Media Influence Operation: 44:25 – 63:18
• SNAP Benefits "Snapocalypse," Legal & Political Fallout: 65:25 – 86:21
• Endless Partisan Warfare, End of Compromise: 89:15 – end

---

Tone and Language

• Tone: Conversational but intense, at times adversarial, largely uncensored, combative on policy and legal interpretation but personally respectful.
• Language: Blunt, unfiltered, with dark humor and repeated use of "unprecedented," “nuts,” and references to real political and legal terminology; at times, raw and emotional (especially in the first-person accounts).

---

Summary Table: Key Segments

| Segment | Subject | Key Speaker(s) | Timestamp | |---------|---------|----------------|-----------| | 1 | Biden Autopen Scandal | Tim Pool, Dave Aronberg | 05:14–17:31 | | 2 | Precedent & Political Will | Tim Pool | 14:00–15:45 | | 3 | Trump Indictments Debate | Pool, Aronberg | 18:31–29:10 | | 4 | Lawyers Prosecuted | Pool, Aronberg | 29:10–32:01 | | 5 | DOJ, Media, Pool’s Experience | Pool, Aronberg | 44:25–63:18 | | 6 | SNAP Benefits Crisis | Pool, Aronberg, Brown, Coughlin | 65:25–86:21 | | 7 | End of Compromise, Culture War | Pool, Aronberg, Coughlin | 89:15–end |

---

Final Takeaway

The episode is a snapshot of a country where legal and political warfare has reached new, uncharted levels. Discussion centered on not only how law is being stretched (“unprecedented” is the word of the night), but on how underlying trust in civic institutions is collapsing. The hosts and guests reflect on both specific headlines — Biden's autopen, Trump's charges, SNAP shutdown — and broader trends: weaponization of government, partisanship as the only rule of the game, and the end of any meaningful center in American life.

Listeners come away with the sense that not only is the system shifting dangerously, but also that even attempts at dialogue, like this episode, are increasingly rare and vital.

Transcript

[A]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R u b r-I k.com when it comes to delivering flowers for life's special occasions. Trust the name that's been setting the standard for nearly 50 years. 1-800-flowers.com from breathtaking bouquets to one of a kind arrangements, 1-800-flowers is your authority on quality blooms. Always fresh, always stunning, always delivered with care. And right now, for a limited time, you can save up to 40% off your bouquet and make someone's day. Save up to 40% off today at 1-800-flowers.com podcast. That's 1-800-flowers. Com podcast. The Republican Party has released their investigation into the auto pen scandal and they are formally requesting the DOJ void, or at least investigate. They're declaring void and they're asking for the DOJ to invalidate pardons and executive orders from Joe Biden. Pam Bondi has tweeted, actually, they're already investigating it and this information is, is great for them. 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. I think it's fair to say that Letitia James and others are currently facing indictment. So call me. I mean, it is happening, but I think a lot of people want to see a lot more action. So we'll talk about that. And then, of course, my friends, snapocalypse. That's right. Food benefits set to expire in just three more days. And there's fears of food riots and what might happen. Now, states have filed suit against the federal government saying you need to release or do something with SNAP benefits. But this makes literally no sense because who are you suing 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. So it'll be, it'll be strange. Now, the Trump administration says they will not pull any emergency funds as videos go viral of people threatening to loot supermarkets and steal your groceries. So it's going to get interesting. Now, we'll talk about that before. But before we do, we got some great sponsors for you, my friends. We've got Beam Dream. Everybody knows I love Beam Dream. It is a nighttime blend to support you as you are preparing to go to sleep. I drink this every single night. No joke. It is. It's absolutely incredible. It's got magnesium L theanine, it's got melatonin and no grogginess. Zero sugar, only 15 calories. And they got a ton of amazing flavors. I need to try the peanut butter one. I love the pumpkin spice and the caramel. I recently bought the pumpkin spice. My sleep score improved. I was in the mid to high 80s consistently and I started drinking a glass of this before bed every night. And I think it's a combination of things that's improved my sleep. It's one hydration, but I think the magnesium is really what I needed. And my sleep score is now in the mid to high 90s almost every single night. I'm a big fan. Go to shop b e a m.com timcast and pick up your Beam Dream today and shout out to Beam Dream for sponsoring the show. Also, don't forget to go to cast brew.com and pick up some delicious Cast Brew coffee pool water. Coming soon. We're working on it. We of course have Mary's Ghost blend, S', mores, cast brew.com and everyone's favorite Appalachian Nights. My favorite coffee ever. Easy for me to say because I'm the one who personally blended this. No joke. I grew up around coffee. My family in a coffee shop very briefly. I ordered a. We ordered a bunch of samples of various coffees that I knew I liked. We blended them in the right proportions and this is what came out. And it's my favorite, but I forgot there's also low acidity. Ian's Graphene Dream. Check it out, check it out. But don't forget to also smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we have Dave Aronberg.

[B]

Great to be here, Tim. I'm Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, AKA Florida Law man. I do legal analysis and it's my first time here. Thanks for having me.

[A]

Absolutely. Should be great, especially considering this to hear your insights. So we'll be fun. Tate is hanging out.

[C]

What is up, guys? Tate Brown here, holding it down. I am happy to be here. It's gonna be a fun show.

[D]

I'm Seamus Coughlin. I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes. I've made over 600 animated videos and gotten millions of views with $0 spent on marketing. The left owns Entertainment Media in this country, which is why myself and my team are pushing back. We're currently working on a full, full length animated show. We've already got the 25 minute long pilot made. We're crowdfunding it. We're three weeks in and we've got three weeks left. We're over 50% funded, but I need you to help us get funded 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. You'll get access to the pilot. You and you'll be helping us build the future of Entertainment. That's twisted plots.com right on.

[A]

Well, let's get to the news. We got the story from Fox Baltimore. I don't know why I chose Baltimore as the source, but interesting nonetheless. GOP Asks DOJ to Invalidate some pardons and executive orders signed with Biden auto Pen the pardon of Hunter Biden by his father, former President Joe Biden has appeared to get under Trump's skins. That happen. 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 auto pen warrants a second look by the DOJ. Echoing sentiments from Trump. During July 14 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. Trump even released a presidential portrait of his predecessor depicting an auto pen instead of Biden's face. They just released a report entitled the Biden Auto Pen Presidency Declined Delusion and Deception in the White House. 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. In one video, Connor has asked, quote, were you ever told to lie about the president's health? In response, o' Connor pleads the fifth on the advice of counsel, I must respectfully, respectfully decline to answer. At the center of the investigation are questions about who is actually making key policy decisions, including executive orders and pardons. Republican lawmakers assert one report as President Biden declined, his staff abused the auto pen and a lax chain of command policy to affect executive actions that lack any documentation of whether they were in fact authorized. Now we have this post from Attorney General Pam Bondi. She says my Team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's reported use of the auto pen for pardons. James Comer's new information is extremely helpful, and his leadership on this issue is invaluable. Will continue working with GOP oversight to deliver accountability for the American people. Suffice it to say, this is unprecedented, right?

[B]

Totally unprecedented. Now, there's a problem here, though. First off, we don't know if he used the auto pen when he did the pardons. And secondly, if he did, there's no requirement that I know of that you have to sign a pardon. And also, you have this part of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, which gives the President, excuse me, broad clemency power. So when the pardon goes into effect, it only needs to be accepted by the subject. Since the pardons were accepted by the subject, there is no mechanism to reverse them. So I know this gets a lot of people hot and bothered, and I respect what's the investigation, but I don't think it's gonna go anywhere interesting.

[D]

Well, I mean, listen, he has the legal perspective here, so I don't know. I guess I'm not an expert in law. I know that. Listen, as. What's that?

[A]

Just cartoons?

[D]

Yeah, just cartoons. 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 law well enough to argue with you about that. It seems like, at the very least, a moral gray area 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. We have no paperwork documenting that he was. And this was done, again, by the auto.

[A]

That is. You know, I respect what you're saying, James, about not having the expertise, the legal knowledge. Now, I also lack the legal knowledge to argue through, but I certainly have ton of arrogance, so I will. I would argue I'm half kidding. No, I guess the question is what the GOP is basically asserting is that Biden actually didn't authorize this. The problem, I suppose, is that is a nebulous argument. I mean, Biden says he did. 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. 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.

[B]

I mean, you make a good point. You don't need to be a lawyer to have the common sense to know that, where is this gonna go, right? I mean, how are you proving that this was a farce? Like, are you gonna ask President Biden? Well, he said he was fine. You brought up the fifth. The guy taking the fifth. That doesn't tell you anything except makes him look bad. It makes the administration look bad as well as Biden administration. But where does it go? How do you prove that someone did something illegal or unethical? There's no way to do it. This is the smok President Trump wants. He wants us to be talking about it. It makes him look better, makes Biden look bad, and it keeps us from talking about other things he doesn't want us to mention.

[D]

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

[B]

You would have to get a smoking gun. You would have to get something that said, biden knows nothing about this. I am signing this, this war, this pardon myself. But wasn't.

[A]

But don't we actually. We don't have a smoking gun, but I think we certainly have probable cause. Wasn't there a statement from Zinz 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. 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 Zinz 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 me, let me see if I can find this.

[B]

Well, and while you're looking for that, part of the problem is that President Biden validated all of it. They asked him afterwards, and he said, yeah, I did all this. So how would you now show that he wasn't aware of it?

[D]

Well, let me ask you a question then. If what Tim's saying is correct, or let's create a completely hypothetical scenario, like they either find this smoking gun, or maybe if it's not somebody who is, like, 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. 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. Where are we at there legally?

[B]

I think it's over. If he validates it even after the fact, then it's a done deal. You'd have to show that he was totally in the dark, it went against his will and, and that he hasn't endorsed and validated afterwards.

[D]

So he can retroactively validate it. Even if at the time he hadn't.

[B]

He could say, I supported that. That's all he has to say.

[A]

And he has.

[D]

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

[B]

It'S really impossible because you'd have to show that I didn't know about it at the time. I don't approve of it. Maybe that would get you somewhere. But if he said, no, I did, that's all you need. And he has said that. He said, yes, I did this, I approved it. That's all you need.

[A]

Let's see, there's a couple different.

[D]

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

[B]

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. What, what's going on here?

[A]

So the AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R-I K.com Core issue is white House.

[D]

He has said that before about a few things.

[A]

Jeff Ziens authorized the auto pens used for documents particularly on the night of January 19, 2025. Less than 14 hours like Biden left office. Emails show a late evening process after a meeting with aides ending around 10pm and aide summarized Biden's decision and sought approvals. Zinz 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. Yeah, I think the ultimate question is right if is it, is it legal for the Biden to say after the fact? Yeah, it was fine. Does that, does that make it an executive action?

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, it is. It is not improper for him to approve of something after the fact. If the chief of staff says, we're going to do this, and then. Are you okay with that, boss? Yeah, I'm fine with it.

[A]

That's all. So let's. Let me ask another question. If someone said, hey, go use the autopad and pardon all these people, and then a day later said, hey, boss, by the way, I told them to go do this. Yeah, that was fine. That. That is. Is it the same thing?

[B]

I would think it'd be okay, like, as far as overturning it, because there's no real process for overturning a pardon. It's so broad in the Constitution. Plus, there's no requirement. You need to sign anything for a pardon. The person just has to accept the pardon and it's done. That's why I think this is much ado about nothing. 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.

[A]

I think the bigger question is just who has the willpower to enact their willpower?

[B]

Who has the willpower to enact their willpower?

[A]

Yeah, it's a question of, as we've seen over the past several years, the way the political game is being played is you can assert things without a fact or basis, and as long as you're willing to tell men with guns to do it, it'll get done. 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. So we can make the argument that, right, arresting Jenna Ellis and charging under RICO is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and downright insane. They did it anyway. We could argue that charging Donald Trump with 34 felonies without any underlying crime proven by the government is unprecedented and insane. 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? And I honestly think you don't even need the argument at this point. I think we're so far past that Republicans are going to say, hey, team, we're doing it. And they're going to say, lock them up. The Democrats already did the exact same thing and tried to lock people up and did lock people up. So the Republicans are going to respond in kind. 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. You know what I mean? Like, what are you proving that his brain didn't work? Well, you know, maybe, but what's the argument? The ultimate argument is going to be, we've now decided and we will ask the courts to assert that is not acceptable. 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.

[D]

Well, also, it's a little bit unprecedented as far as legal territory goes. Again, my understanding is a non lawyer to have somebody in office who's so clearly steeped in cognitive decline. 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. 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 wow, except the media. So I don't. Well, except for the media, corporate media, but the media did what we knew what they would do, which is they said he's not in cognitive decline. And then as soon as he left office, they started publishing their books and doing their op eds and yeah, he actually was in cognitive decline. And here's the esoteric knowledge I had being in the administration the whole time.

[A]

Well, there's another argument too, and it was that. Was it Jack Smith, I think, who made the statement? Was it Jack Smith who said it wasn't gonna. Wasn't gonna prosecute? It wasn't Jack Smith who was it that the reason they wouldn't prosecute Joe Biden is because he's a forgetful old man.

[B]

It was. Was it Robert Her?

[A]

Robert her. Right, right. Sorry. Sorry.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Jack Smith was. Was in the Trump case. And many people pointed this out that it was, you know, hypocrisy within the doj. But how do you, 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? I understand the functional argument of, hey, look, the Constitution doesn't say if you're, you know, brain damaged in a coma or anything like that, you're not president anymore. I think the play Trump is going to make is the courts should rule that it is.

[B]

Right, but I don't think it'll go anywhere. I mean, are you expecting when you say the court should rule? So who challenges it? Is it comer who has standing to challenge someone's pardon, a president's pardon?

[A]

No, it would be when the DOJ brings criminal charges against Anthony Fauci, for example.

[B]

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. And the pardon power is so broad, so absolute that it's not that. I just think it'd be a waste of time. I don't think the DOJ does that. 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. So that's why I think, like a lot of this stuff, just spinning our wheels. And it's fair to talk about cognitive decline. I mean, Democrats have talked about that after the fact. It's fair to talk about Robert Herr, because Robert her did come out and say that, and it's a fair comment to say, well, how does he say that here and how does it not apply there? But when Robert Hearst said that he did that as a reason why they were not gonna prosecute Joe Biden, they said that if he went on the stand, no jury would convict him because of that mental decline. You have to show intent, and he didn't have the intent to withhold those documents from the government.

[A]

So let me ask you about. You're familiar with the 34 felony accounts for Trump in the case? There was no proven secondary, or I should say primary crime. So they effectively have an aggravating crime of some sort. They have falsification of business records and furtherance of a crime, but the government never proved another crime. So this violates due process.

[B]

Well, they didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You just have to show that it led to another crime, which was the initial one was the falsification of business records. And the other crime, they gave like.

[A]

Three options and said we don't need to prove it.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

Well, that's unprecedented. I mean, the government has to prove a crime against someone if they're going to accuse them of it. Right.

[B]

It was. Didn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they had to at least show the theory. And they did show the theory. And then the jury, the judge allowed it, and the jury found unanimously that he had.

[A]

I mean, but Is there, is there in US 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.

[B]

I don't know about. In history, I don't know all that. But I.

[A]

It's a big ask, right?

[B]

That's a big ask. I'd be a historian for that, more than a legal guy.

[A]

My understanding is most analyses of this has been for the first time in US History, a crime which requires a proven underlying crime did not have one. And so obviously the falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, which was beyond its statute of limitations. However, they upgraded to a felony arguing that there was falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime. The implication being that's an add on charge. When you have an underlying crime, like a mafioso is gonna murder somebody and then falsifies records after the fact, they say, we're adding this onto that charge of that crime. You did, you have felonies that couldn't have happened unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the first crime actually happened. So, Rick, 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.

[B]

Right. The intent to defraud here only required that there's an intent to commit another crime or to conceal another crime. Right?

[A]

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

[B]

Right. You don't, you don't have to prove the commission of another crime, just that it's, it was intended and that's the difference. So they had to show that. Why did you conceal those documents, the business records? And the reason is to hide campaign finance violations or whatever they decided they're.

[A]

Going to have to prove that crime. 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 that our justice system is gone. This is unprecedented. The idea that the state is going to say, and look, we're going to charge you with felonies, we can't unless we prove another crime, but we don't have to prove the other crime. It's an absurdity.

[B]

Well, again, it's only the intent that you tried to conceal something else, like a campaign finance violation. You don't have to prove that you actually committed a secondary crime. You just need to show the Intent to conceal it. And that's what they did.

[A]

So it's a, so attempted robbery, attempted murder is, are also charges if they're, if they're accusing Trump of campaign finance violence. Like, I'll put it this way, if someone attempts to evade taxes or attempts to commit campaign finance violations, are those crimes like with the DOJ go after you if you were, if you were.

[B]

Trying to attempted to commit election, excuse me, election violations? Yes, yes. And you know, 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. A second one was a violation of New York election law that concerns unlawful conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. And the third one was violation of New York tax law. So, so, yeah, go ahead.

[A]

All right, finish, finish.

[B]

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.

[A]

The courts would argue it is. It is unconstitutional. Because let me ask you this, can the government impose a penalty on an individual at any point without proving they committed a crime?

[B]

No. But here the statute says that you just have to conceal the records, which he was proven to do so, and that's just a misdemeanor. But to elevate it to a felony, you don't have to prove a second crime, you just have to prove the intent. You're doing it for a reason, for a bad reason. And when you ask me, are there other examples in the law where that is, I can't name it, but the courts have found that that is allowed.

[A]

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 US History an aggravated or add on charge did not have a proven underlying crime. Now, maybe first time in history is a bold claim, it's an absolute. But my argument would be then, if it is to be argued that the US 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, then the Constitution is out the window, then all gloves are off, no holds barred, razor Y in the boxing glove doesn't matter anymore. The point is this falsification of business records is a misdemeanor. And if the government can prove you falsified your business record, straight up misdemeanor charge, if they know you did and don't pursue that charge. It goes beyond the statute of limitations. They can't bring those charge later on if the government can say that. Falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime. The only, so let's put like this. Let's, let's, let's segment this misdemeanor falsification of business records. Let's argue it's a misdemeanor. So it's maximum one year. Probably on top of that, the felony charge after the fact in furtherance of another crime is an extra addition. Right. So we've got the base level misdemeanor. The upgraded felony expands the penalty. This would imply the government has the ability to impose penalties on you without proving you committed a crime.

[B]

Well, you're proving intent. So compare this to conspiracy. 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, they can bust you for the conspiracy. Even though they never proved that you robbed the bank, you completed it. And all this is, is about intent. This goes in your mind.

[A]

Fair point. But the conspiracy itself is the crime.

[B]

That's correct.

[A]

So the argument would be threatening to murder someone is a crime. Murdering someone is a different crime. My point is the government has never proven there was another crime.

[B]

Well, remember, we're showing the intent. You don't have to prove another crime. You just have to prove there was intent for another crime.

[A]

Right, I understand that. So my point would be the unprecedented case where they, you, they upgraded the misdemeanor to a felony to use against Trump. And, 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, maybe even it's just, just to jam up the, the people who receive these pardons, Foushee being the principal example, they will use, let's just, I don't know, circuitous legal means to go after him in some way.

[B]

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. So, but there are other examples where, but, 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.

[A]

Well, it would be like saying the government charged someone with money laundering but never proved money laundering. They said he had a meeting where he talked about money laundering. We could never prove the money laundering happened. Charged him and convicted him.

[B]

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. 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.

[A]

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

[B]

Well, the intent is all you need in the upgraded crime. You don't need to show they actually committed the election violation beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.

[A]

I suppose we'll see because it's been floating appeal for over a year now.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Like the judges have heard the case, they've not ruled on it, I think. And then we'll jump to the next story. Snapocalypse. My view of this whole thing and the reason why I brought it up was because everything we're seeing is unprecedented. The Democrats going for the political opponents is unprecedented. The arrest of Trump's lawyers is unprecedented. RICO charges for soliciting legal services, unprecedented. I think Trump had, it might have been like three or four lawyers who were arrested and like we've never seen anything. Look, I can't speak for the entire country, for the entire history of the country, so it is a bit hyperbolic to say never, I would say, in my lifetime. It is shocking and terrifying when the Democrat DOJ starts arresting the lawyers of their political opposition.

[B]

What lawyers were arrested?

[A]

Jenna Ellis. There was, I think it was two lawyers from the Georgia case and one in Wisconsin. Jenna Ellis was the most notable because she ultimately ended up pleading guilty to RICO charges. And the RICO charges stemmed from her drafting a letter that Trump solicited her to draft a legal letter to pursue an election challenge. And they argued RICO because Trump's election challenge was a conspiracy to overturn an election. And because she participated, she was now had committed a crime.

[B]

Well, Jenna Ellis wasn't charged by the Fed, so it wasn't, it was by the state, it was state of Georgia. That was Fani Willis's case. And that one was because they charged her with the trying to overturn the election by Writing letters and doing all that stuff.

[A]

Lawyers writing letters is a crime now?

[B]

Well, it could be, yeah. Lawyers who, like consiglieres for the Mafia, have been accused of crimes for many years.

[A]

Is it illegal to challenge an election?

[B]

It is not illegal to challenge an election through the proper channels, through courts. But what you can't do is you can't call the proud boys to come to the Capitol.

[A]

Daniels didn't do that.

[B]

Oh, well, I'm saying in general, so.

[A]

We can, you know, instead of, I'm not here to argue January 6th, I'm arguing specifically the unprecedented action of arresting Trump's lawyers.

[B]

Well, if she committed a crime, just because you have a bar card doesn't give you a get out of jail free card. You know, you're charged with. She was charged with two felonies and she actually took a plea.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

Right. She pled guilty.

[A]

Indeed. Because lesser crime. Because pleading guilty always implies the guilty party is guilty. Right.

[B]

Well, I'm a former prosecutor, so of course not.

[A]

There's the trial tax and Jenniles fear that there was no defense apparatus from a legal machine at the state and federal level willing to arrest lawyers. So she cowardly bent the knee and cried on TV and admitted to things when all she did was draft a letter. She wrote a letter for Trump. They charged her with rico. And the bigger picture, I think, on all of this is, show me the man, I'll show you the crime. And that's the ultimate point with the GOP Oversight Committee with the pardons, we're looking at Letitia James on mortgage fraud now Adam Schiff on mortgage fraud. And the argument from the other side is Trump is going after his political opponents. And I'm sitting here being like. And they went after him. What's the difference?

[B]

But you're talking about Fani Willis in Georgia. That's different than. Right. That's not Joe Biden. That's not Merrick Garland. You're talking about Janet Ellis, who. The reason why she was prosecuted was because she was participating in lies that Rudy Giuliani made before Senate committees. And so if you lie, if you commit perjury, you know you're gonna get bit for it. And that's why she.

[A]

She wrote a letter. I forgot it was to. It was to a politician in Georgia requesting access or something, or, you know, challenging the election in some capacity. And this one, this is the most egregious. They argued that, I mean, she was charged with specifically rico, like, a felony conspiracy involved in Trump's election schemes. But There was another, a lawyer in Wisconsin. I. It's ridiculous. Right? So your political opponents, he's. He's the front runner. Whatever the argument is, it is insane that they went after all of Trump's confidants, his. His staffers. And it. It extends. It does extend to J6. Obviously, not to anyone 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 from misdemeanors.

[B]

Well, that's where the conspiracy comes in. We talked about that. Seditious conspiracy. You didn't have to be there to be part of the conspiracy. I think you're talking about, like, Enrique Tarrio and people who weren't there on the scene. Right, right. That's the law.

[A]

And so I suppose the issue is, we have a lot of laws on the books. And if the Democrats say, let's rip precedent and throw it out the window, then Trump's gonna respond with, I got a nuclear bomb waiting, I win the election.

[B]

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. And then Bondi wavered on that. She didn't. She didn't move forward on that because she's an experienced prosecutor. 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. He says there's not enough evidence. So then he appointed Lindsey Halligan for the sole purpose of prosecuting his enemies, James Comey and Letitia James. And so now you have the prospect of these cases being thrown out because of vindictive prosecution. And that's where a president needs to be careful, because when you directly order your prosecutors to prosecute your enemies, you're gonna get a vindictive.

[A]

Well, Democrats.

[B]

But when did that happen?

[A]

So we've got the E. Jean Carroll case, where they created a law specifically to allow just her to file a civil.

[B]

But that's the State of New York. That's not Feds.

[A]

Indeed. Well, the argument is the Democratic Party is not just a federal organization or a state organization there. In fact, both. And their leadership operates across the board, state and federal and city and local and otherwise. But also, you had the feds raided Trump's home.

[B]

You had, oh, they had a warrant for that.

[A]

Sure. 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. 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, oh, well, you know, we couldn't convict him anyway. The American people aren't gonna tolerate it, whatever your argument's gonna 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. 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, you can't do it. And that's why historically we've not seen a political party or political actors go after their top level rivals. Like raiding the front runners home in any way. Is, is, is it. It's nuts. Even if they did do something wrong.

[B]

Well, I, I'd have Bolton too.

[A]

Bolton too?

[B]

Well, Bolton's a different matter. Bolden actually do think they have legitimate facts there. That's going to be tainted by the politicized prosecutions. Letitia James and James Comey, though it feeds into that. Even though Bolden looks like that may be a legitimate case, as far as raiding his 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 this probable cause that evidence of a crime existed in Mar a Lago and then they didn't raid it. They went in there unarmed. They had, they gave Secret Service a call in advance. 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. And so that was done the proper way. And then it went down. 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, you have the judges who are a lot more favorable. 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. And that was the beginning of the end for him.

[A]

It seems like there's always some unfortunate legal reason why they're not gonna go after the Democrats on these issues.

[B]

How so?

[A]

The Biden being the most, the easiest Example, we can look at the general unprecedented nature of, like I mentioned, the E. Jean Carroll case, where you're familiar, they created a law, they passed a law saying we're gonna allow people to resurrect claims beyond the statute of limitations. It was used just for Trump. Highly dubious story. 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. The financial paperwork submitted had the disclaimer, you must do your due diligence. The numbers may be inaccurate, as all financial paperwork does. And Deutsche bank even said, we weren't defrauded. 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.

[B]

I want to give you credit for the New York case. I want to say that that one is something that I think a lot of people are now saying that was unduly politicized. That was the Alvin Bragg case.

[A]

The civil fraud.

[B]

The. The New York. The 34.

[A]

There's 34 felonies. Civil fraud and egg.

[B]

The 34 felonies.

[A]

They were all New York.

[B]

Yeah, that one. I mean, first off, Alvin Bragg and Leticia James both campaigned on going after Donald Trump. Yeah. They both said, you should never have done that. So I grant you that. 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. And I think that looked bad. And that was the first case against Donald Trump that was not the Biden Justice Department, but that was Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, making that decision. 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, because if you had. If that happened, I would have gotten calls because I had Mar A Lago in my jurisdiction. I never got a call from them and never even got invited to a Hanukkah party. But as far as the E. Jean Carroll case, that law that was passed in New York was not for Trump. That was done for sexual assault assault survivors. It was used against Harvey Weinstein, it was used against a lot of rich, powerful men. Trump did get caught up in it, and that statute was used against him. And, you know, it was interesting about that. That's how I first found out about you, Tim, in this podcast, because the jury selection. You remember when the jury that's right.

[A]

They said they watched my show that was on Blue. Yeah, well, to be fair, he said he's seen an episode of it or something like that, and then they tried claiming that he was a fan, but he just saw an episode one time or something.

[B]

The lawyers for E. Jean Carroll said, you must remove this person from the jury because he watches Tim Pool podcast. And Tim Pool had talked about how bogus these cases were. And so the judge said, no, we're going to keep him on the jury. And then he ruled away with the rest of the.

[A]

Because he wasn't really a viewer of the show. Right. 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.

[B]

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 gonna file the evidence and the law in front of them and then rule the way they did.

[A]

I think it's fake. I think a highly partisan jurisdiction with an 80 plus percent democrat base is gonna find a jury to convict their chief political opponent, bringing up highly dubious cases like the 34 felony count, which is nuts. 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. 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. Not to mention Trump owned the hotel across the street. No one witnessed it. She got the years mixed up. Apparently, she had no key to access the room. Somehow Trump got in anyway. The story is 30 years old and makes no sense, yet the jury still said, sounds good to me. That sounds completely insane. And when you look at, again, the arrest of Trump's lawyers, it seems to me like, man, Democrats hate Trump. Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15, 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it.

[C]

Are you.

[B]

Are you playing me off?

[A]

That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan, $15 per month equivalent required, new customer offer for 3 months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com they viscerally hate him. And I mean generally speaking, the, the, the aligned Democrat voter base and the politicians. So they are willing to bring cases that should not be brought and they can easily find juries that will convict or find liability.

[B]

Well, I would maintain that the federal cases brought against Trump were very legitimate. I think that the January six saw it with your own eyes. I think the documents they gave him time and time again to return the documents, he refused to. They gave him a subpoena, he ignored it. Then they had to search the place, 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. but they didn't.

[A]

Well, so the challenge for me is that the Trump circle, his employees, they refute those claims. They argued, they didn't try to withhold documents, they offered them up. This makes no sense that they invited these people in, previously, shut them around, and the Biden DOJ was fabricating a justification for why they went in the way they did. Considering they wouldn't charge Biden for a similar crime, I'm less inclined to believe their accusations against Trump.

[B]

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

[A]

Right. That's a lie. Right. And my point is. Well, how is that a lie? Well, Trump's refuted it. Trump, his team, his lawyers have said no. We told them straight up what we had. We told them where they were, we put them in a room. They're fabricating the refusal. And my point is, we've got no evidence he refused.

[B]

We do. His lawyer wrote letters saying that and handed over documents to the authorities. And those documents were only a small portion of what was there. And then he found all the documents at Mar a Lago.

[A]

But didn't Trump's team refute that they refused any documents?

[B]

I don't.

[A]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that a lawyer says I'm gonna turn over documents doesn't prove he intentionally withheld anything.

[B]

The lawyers said that they turned over all the documents that they believed were responsive to the subpoena. Right. And then. But the lawyers weren't told everything. They were kept in the dark by their client. They gave me everything.

[A]

How do you know Trump's denied that? I mean, you're asserting his fact without proof.

[B]

Well, no, the proof is that they found all those documents and mar a lot.

[A]

It doesn't prove that Trump knew they were there. It doesn't prove the lawyers intentionally withheld them or Trump did either. So when, when you have a staff.

[B]

Of people, this said there are his documents, Remember Trump. Trump's defense was that I have the ability and the right under the Presidential Records act to keep these documents.

[A]

That's after the habit of the claim of refusal to turn them over, which is the point I'm bringing up. So I use this example pretty often for the people who believe the moon landing was fake. They say, how did we lose the technology to pass the Van Allen radiation belt? And I said, because it was in an office in 1970, the administration changed and people moved boxes around and don't know where they went. The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly. So when the DOJ goes, or the Biden admin says, we want these documents. And his lawyers say, here's what we have. And then Trump's like, I don't know, whatever. Trump's not monitoring that day to day operation. Like, I got a company here with 40 employees 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 gonna fix something, you think? I know. But, but so, 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 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. Right off the bat, I'm going to say, by all means, maybe Trump did intentionally withhold these things. Biden did intentionally withhold them. And we know it's a fact. It was reported across the board and they wouldn't prosecute him.

[B]

But when Biden was asked to turn the documents over, he did. He never kept documents after he was asked to return. That's the difference here. Because Trump.

[A]

And that's. We don't have proof of.

[B]

Well, we know that Trump kept the documents and he admitted. He said, I didn't return them because they're my documents on the.

[A]

So my point is this. They said, hey, turnover documents. Trump said, sure, whatever. I guess the lawyer does it. They then raid his home, find a bunch of documents, lay them on the ground, put cover sheets on them, take a picture and say, look what we found. And Trump says, yeah, well, I'm the president. I can keep him. Can I?

[B]

Also, you had Walt nada. His guy moving documents around so that the investigators wouldn't see them when they came over.

[A]

Again, I think the principal issue here and the deal. Here's what I see when I here's my perception of you. The DOJ said it, so it's true. Trump's DOJ says it. It can't be true.

[B]

No, actually, you know, I ran against Pam Bondi and then she beat me and then she hired me as her drug czar. So actually, I'm not here to bash individuals at the doj.

[A]

I'm not saying you're bashing. What I'm saying is it seems like if the Democrat DOJ asserted as fact.

[B]

You just say, okay, but what was the false fact? What is the lie that the Biden DOJ said?

[A]

Because, well, Trump's team has refuted. They intentionally withheld from the doj. They said they showed him where everything was, let him come in. And if the argument is after the fact, well, you can't hold these documents. You're, you're, you're taking what someone would like crafting a legal defense. Well, even if I did have these documents, as president, I have plenary declassification powers anyway. And you're using that to imply he intentionally withheld from the government.

[B]

Well, I wish that they could have argued that in court. 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. 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. And then when Trump won, he then dismissed the cases.

[A]

I would argue that if they're not going to go after Joe Biden for a comparable case, both, it's moot. And so like we had, it was Joe Biden's ghostwriter who actually I believe, didn't he destroy evidence as well, 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, he wanted to sell, he wanted to make money. He didn't take explicitly make money, but he wanted to write a book. So we know he had the intent to do it. And I believe the reporting was that the ghostwriter quickly destroyed the evidence of Biden having admitted to this crime. And so when I see that story, they're not going to Go after him. Everything else is a lie. It's like, you know, why would I believe someone at that point? But. But. But we should talk about snapocols. But I do want to add one more thing to this. 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 1 ever heard of or 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. He claimed that Dave Rubin was part of a Russian influence operation without any evidence. Because Dave Rubin commented on funny viral videos. That's the Merrick Garland doj. Now, the questions I have is, he never presented any evidence. It's conjecture and an indictment. He used it to smear me. Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others. 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. 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 faced it personally. And when they. 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. And then I've got sponsors calling me up. 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 8, and routine interviews. 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. And Merrick Garland publicly and personally came out and said this was spreading Russian propaganda. 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. That was a lie. And worse still, I had to hire two legal teams because of this and in December, my lawyer called me and said, the Biden DOJ has dropped the case informally and they will no longer be communicating with us. And I said, no way. They cannot go on TV and spit in my face like that and then drop it all. It was political. The only reason they did it. So in December of last year, and they have never come out and done anything about it. Now, I'm not about to call the DOJ and say, guys, can we finally wrap this up? 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. And that was the Biden DOJ that did it. So these people are unrepentant, evil, they are liars, and they did this to destroy their political enemies and media. And now we've got another story. 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. And then I said, the strategy used by Democrats in 2020 to win was ballot harvesting, which is legal, and that was the key to them collecting these votes. And according to Mike Benz, the Atlantic Council traced back the emergence of the. 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 Pool is the progenitor of this theory. We need to shut him down. And what happened? YouTube, that came down on us with the Hammer, banned a bunch of episodes and suppressed my accounts and channels. The Biden DOJ personally went to various outlets and threaten to suspend and censor people so we can. We can have a debate on the merits of various legal cases. 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. And that's not saying anything about the Trump administration. 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.

[B]

Well, Russo, rant over.

[A]

Sorry.

[B]

Yeah, no, I hear you. And I. I'm aware of what you went through, Tim. And when I looked at the indictment, it did not allege any wrongdoing by the influencers like you who created content for that company.

[A]

Never did.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Another lie.

[B]

They described you as an unwitting victim of it. In fact, The. 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. Or to their millions of followers its ties to RT and the Russian government. So the only thing I'd say is.

[A]

That I know never released any evidence. Well, they dropped the case two months later. The play here was simple. They did a press conference. For what reason? For what reason? Do a press conference and then drop the. Drop the case a month later to a month and a half later.

[B]

I think the press conference was to call out the Russian actors for infiltrating in trying to influence the election. But they used unwitting influencers. And I think that I understand why you're so pissed off at it.

[A]

Well, let me ask you a question in response to that.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What about a debate on modern dating in the United States is Russian propaganda. Doesn't.

[B]

Propaganda.

[A]

To me, it certainly doesn't. So why is Merrick Garland claiming that I was unwittingly sharing Russian propaganda? Because he's lying. Well, and it's ridiculous that. Let's listen. The challenge we have in this country largely is that there's a group of people that just believe these evil people. But for me to have to experience it, and I'm sitting here going, guys, we, we had a guy on who was a geocentrist and we had another guy on who was a. Who was a flat earther debating. I don't understand how this is Russian propaganda. Why did the AG go on TV and claim that I was doing that unwittingly or otherwise?

[B]

And you've had people on here who talk about Ukraine, on the Ukrainian side against Russia.

[A]

IRL never had a license agreement with Tenant Meade.

[D]

Yeah. Tim Cast is different. Culture wars where they talk about totally.

[A]

Entirely separate company.

[B]

Right, but. But I'm just saying that I, I get why you're upset about it. I, I understand lied, 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. I mean, that's something, right?

[A]

No, because he pardoned him.

[B]

He took. Well, but not Merrick Garland didn't. But he actually. Oh, no, Joe prosecuted Joe Biden's son. That's meaningless. Well, also Matt Gaetz, who was investigated under the Bill Barr Department of Justice. Merrick Garland took that investigation over and then dropped the investigation. He also allowed.

[A]

Because it was bunk. Well, so the issue here is this. I'll say the same thing, just like that. Merrick Garland dropped the Russian influence investigation into Tenet. He does a press conference, says, look at this bad thing that happened, and two months later says, we don't care about that. 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.

[B]

Well, when they announced the indictments, they came out and said, here's why we're doing the indictments. And they made clear that the influencers themselves, like you were not involved in.

[A]

That's not the point. 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. 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. I'm going to avoid swearing. 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 wanna malign them and impugn their honor and then you find out you're wrong. Maybe you then hold another press conference and say, I'd like to formally apologize to these individuals who worked for this company. We will not be pursuing this case. We don't have the evidence to do it. Thank you. Goodbye.

[B]

Well, first off, prosecutors never do that.

[A]

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

[B]

The only time that they speak is at the four corners of the indictment. They announce the indictment and then the stuff goes away. 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. 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. And so for him, he's thinking, that's all I need to do. But that's why I don't.

[A]

What was the crime?

[B]

The crime was the use of dollars to infiltrate the. To metal, essentially by the Russians. That the Russians had this influence operation and it was undisclosed and it was through rt.

[A]

Why publicly announce it?

[B]

Because it was an indictment that you announced at the time of the indictment. It's unethical to talk about it during the investigation. You have to do it.

[A]

Every indictment has a press conference.

[B]

No, just the major ones.

[A]

Right. And so why drop a major investigation?

[B]

Why do a press conference and I.

[A]

Mean, why do a press conference for. For what you would you ultimately had no evidence for and would drop. Is that, is that common? Maybe it is. I don't know. I mean, they say we have a major investigation into this Russian thing and then a month later, like, no, we don't care about that.

[B]

No, they do when they have an indictment. Not investigate. They weren't announcing an investigation, they were announcing an indictment.

[A]

Rep. Yep. And the funny thing is unethical if.

[B]

They announce an investigation like James Comey did right before the 2016 election.

[A]

So, you know, it's funny because I end up with two legal teams and we, I'm begging them, like, guys, we need to understand what happened here because I want a full breakdown of this. I want what 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. 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. We've done feminism and politics, modern dating, we've done geocentrism, interdimensional theory time. We had one guy on talking about MH370. Usually, like last Friday, we had a political debate, but it's, you know, 80, 20 if that. 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. And I said, I'm not worried about them not pursuing it. I said, I'm not worried about them pursuing it. I'm worried about them dropping it after accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda. And they said, you know what the assessment is the real intent of Merrick Garland's press conference was an October surprise. 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. And as soon as he lost, they dropped it, walked away and said, eh, we're done.

[B]

But there's currently still charges against the two employees of the Russian state media outlet rt. So it's not totally dropped.

[A]

So here's informally, they dropped it because I guess you'd argue that's a cold case now, that they have no interest in pursuing it. Why would they do that? Why would they launch a press look, I talked to my lawyers about it. They said it makes no sense for the aggressive to launch to have a press conference on an unprosecutable case.

[B]

Right, but, but it hasn't been dropped. I mean, it's there now. Maybe it's dormant because you have a new doj, you have new people.

[A]

They dropped it in December. They told my lawyers it was over and go away.

[B]

But not against those two individuals, right?

[A]

No, no, no. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I, I, 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. But there isn't any and there never was. 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. These men are not in the United States. They don't know where they are, they don't know what they look like, and they will never be found. The only reason you have a press conference about two people you can't even begin to prosecute is for political reasons. And you will likely get nothing from this. And then, sure enough, in December, they said, your final invoice is in. We've been instructed, it's done. And I said, are they closing it? No, but they're done. I said, what does that mean? It means there is no case. They were never gonna prosecute these guys. They can't prosecute them and they won't be pursuing it further.

[B]

Well, but they've done this before. So the reason why they prosecuted these RT employees is because of election influence operations. But also in 2022, you know, they, they also, the DOJ also charged Russians for infrastructure, energy grid meddling, trying to target them. This is some of the GRU people, and yet they can't hold. They can't.

[A]

The predicate of their case against these two individuals is that I, Benny Johnson and Dave Rubin, spread Russian propaganda. But no, no, he's not claiming we did something wrong. If Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and Dave Rubin did not spread Russian propaganda, then there is no influence operation.

[B]

I think that Merrick Garland wanted to make sure that you were not being targeted by it. As far as that, I was the only one.

[A]

Well, the three of us were the only ones targeted.

[B]

Right? But no, he wanted.

[A]

No one's going to go try and send death threats to two random Russians.

[B]

That's the problem. He wanted to make sure that you were not brought into this, that you were not intentionally trying to do anything. And I know what you're saying, but you didn't do it anyways.

[A]

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

[B]

As far as Russian propaganda, I don't know what was shared, what was not as far as like. But Dave Rubin was accused of a lot of this stuff. And whether or not the show that.

[A]

Was licensed and produced through Tenet for Dave Rubin was funny. Viral videos. That's it. How. This is the absurdity. And look again, you are blindly just believing that the DOJ did something right for no reason. I don't live in that world. I live in a world where we didn't spread Russian propaganda. I've never accepted money from a foreign government. We don't even have investors. We licensed a show that we owned wholly that we produced internally to a third party company out of Tennessee for live streaming rights. And then he claimed that we were being paid to spread Russian propaganda because he's a sick, twisted, evil man. That's why there. There was no Russian propaganda. No one ever told me what to say. Still to this day, no one tells me what to say. I can say screw Israel, I can say screw Russia. I can say Putin should be removed from power all day and all night. I can say Slavo Ukrainian. So why is he claiming there was Russian influence and propaganda being spread by me, Benny and Dave when it never happened? But I don't need to keep saying it over and again because I think you understand. We should talk about Snapocalypse. I don't know if. But I'll give you the final word on that. If you did want to have it.

[B]

Now, you went through hell and back and I'm sorry you got death threats and expend all this money on something where. That's why I'm trying to say that the one difference you and I have is this, is that it is not unusual for DOJ to held press conferences where they announce indictments. And that's what they did here. Also, Merrick Garland, I just don't think he came out of it. Came into this with a nefarious motive. 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.

[A]

You got caught up right before they announced the indictment. The Tenant media tenant YouTube gained 200,000 subscribers just seemingly over a day. So how does that happen?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Right before the initiated. Well, nobody knows for sure, but it certainly sounds like a psyop, 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. And then all of a sudden overnight it jumps to 300,000 and the staff go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on right now? And then as soon as it hits 300, he comes out and says, look at this major influence operation. It's clearly to those of us affected. How about this? When I told my lawyers, guys, will they issue a statement? No. Can we ask them to issue. No, they won't do it. Why would they do this right before an election? 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.

[B]

Well, Joe Biden didn't like Merrick Garland. So if Merrick Garland was using his story to help Joe Biden, that would be news to Joe Biden. I mean, Merrick Garland didn't try to help Biden with the. Merrick Garland tried to help Joe Biden or Kamala Harris win an election by appointing a special prosecutor who then embarrassed Joe Biden, Robert Herr, by saying that he didn't have the mental faculties, by the way, that didn't have to be put out there. Merrick Garland made the decision to allow that report to be public. And that was very damaging to Joe Biden. That's why I don't think that Merrick Garland came into this thinking that he's going to help a Democrat get elected. Merrick Garland takes great pains to try to be apolitical. He is disliked by the left.

[A]

These are all like personal, non fact based statements. I can't. There's no debate on how you feel about what Merrick Garland does. I can only talk about what he did.

[B]

Yeah, but he prosecuted the President's son.

[A]

He who got pardoned though. So I mean like for the fact.

[B]

They prosecute it, you wouldn't see this DOJ prosecute Donald Trump's kid.

[A]

Criminals, criminals and ne' er do wells often go through circuitous means to cover up their crimes. It's politics. You want to win points. You say no one's above the law hunter. And then Joe's like, look, we'll do this, just pardon him later. And then Joe said he wouldn't and he did. We all knew it was gonna happen. Nobody was blind to this. Look, we live in a world where everybody, but seemingly people in the corporate press and Democrats knew Joe Biden's brain was cooked the first time he said bad a calf care true. And I shabbat a pressure. Most of us were just like, okay, this guy ain't all with it yet. They kept going on TV being like, no, no, everything's fine. So at a certain point, sharp as attack, indeed. At a certain point, I'm just gonna be like, these people are lying and there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. But we should talk about snapocalypse, and I'm sure it'll be just as fun. So we've got this from cnbc. States sue Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits during government shutdown. A group of states sued the Trump admin. In an effort to maintain funding, the U.S. u.S. Agricultural Department has suspended SNAP benefits as of November 4, the lawsuit noted. The suit was filed 4. 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. We have that from NPR. Okay. This is why I hate the corporate press. So this article earlier today was titled Trump says Emergency Funds Will not be Used for SNAP Benefits. 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. So bravo, npr on being unethical in journalism. But there we go. So the question, I suppose is what authority would any court have to make the Trump administration release money for snap? Is that possible?

[B]

They do have standing. The states have the stand to sue. Now, whether the courts will go along with it, I don't know.

[A]

Is, is the. Is remedy possible?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. States have sued the federal government for SNAP before. It's just. This is different because this is during a shutdown, and this is a choice by the federal government to, to say, all right, while we're shut down, we're not giving you the money. And aside from the political unpopularity of it, I think the states can sue. I just don't know which way the courts are going to go on it.

[A]

I recognize standing makes a lot of sense. Right. Do the states have a right to sue over this? It seems the answer is yes. The question is, would a judge have the authority to make a political move like that?

[B]

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, why not? I mean, the, the courts do have oversight over it. I mean, you're talking about technical rules of funding and states rights and federalism and all these things that come into play. 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, you would think if anything is emergency funding, it would be this. But again with that Said there's no guarantee which way it would go. I mean, the Supreme Court has given a lot of deference to executive power. So I could see the Supreme Court siding with the President on this.

[A]

Is it. How long would do you think? I don't know if you would know, but how long do you think a court case would take, like, for something like this? Right. Because the reality is we have three days.

[B]

What we found is generally the lower courts, the district courts, will be more favorable to the plaintiffs against the White House. But then as you get higher up towards the Supreme Court, they have a greater sense of deference towards executive authority. We saw this with the National Guard in the streets, that even the once liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California has been ruling for the president in deferring to his authority. So I think initially you'll see a court perhaps saying, no, you got to release it, and then it'll get stayed on appeal by the appellate court and eventually get up to the US Supreme Court, and by the end, this shutdown should be over, and then this thing will be moot.

[A]

So I guess my questions, it's just, it looks like they're going to file. There may be an emergency injunction of some sort. Trump's going to file for appeal, and in the meantime, he's not going to move these funds, and there's no way it's happening in three days.

[B]

Agree? Yeah, man. Yeah. You and I are in agreement on this question is where does this play politically? Is this cause people to start getting the pitchforks out and saying, hey, let's, let's fix this problem? I mean, both sides are getting what they want out of the shutdown.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

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.

[A]

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. Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. I've been talking too much.

[C]

No, I just. I just think that what we can all agree on is we have the liberty to drink Coca Cola. Not paid to say this whatsoever, but we, these brave Democrat states, are standing up for our rights to drink Coca Cola.

[A]

And I think it's wonderful. Like on SNAP benefits.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

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, man.

[A]

I think they should. 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. There's nothing that we want from Democrats. We've proposed this to them, they can vote yes, so there's no reason to negotiate. And that right away I'm like, well there is. Democrats want something. Mike Johnson's effectively saying we're happy with the government shut down, so why would we bother doing, doing any deals? Like it's a win win for them.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And he doesn't have to seat the member of Congress from Arizona and then vote to release the Epstein fund. Yeah.

[C]

I mean that's how government shutdowns have always worked. Is the party demanding something is always really blamed for it? 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. 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.

[B]

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 the shutdown. Is it because of the healthcare issue? That that's an issue that resonates with.

[A]

I don't know if that's true though.

[B]

As far as the polling.

[A]

Yeah. I mean it's. Polling's impossible right now. Right. I mean it's wild swings. You know, I'm looking at real clear politics average. I try to use aggregates cuz individual polls are gonna have their bias or whatever there, but it's nuts. I mean one polls like Trump plus eight and then a day later another polls Trump minus eight.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I don't know which one's right and which one's wrong.

[C]

You go to like real clear politics and they show all the different polls and they're all over the place. There's like a 20 point spread between the polling. It's like how I can't determine. They can't parse information.

[B]

They have the ratings of certain polls, like the like letter grades for the certain polls. Why even give the F polls or the bad polls? Why show them?

[A]

Like RMG two weeks ago had Trump at up 4 and then for the same time period, relatively the same time time period, it was minus 14 with Knipiac. Well this, this 16 to 20 and 15 to 22.

[B]

That's his approval rating. What about. Right. Who's Winning the shutdown. Like, who?

[A]

Right. My point was, like, this is the easiest way to look at an aggregate because they poll so often that polls are effectively meaningless for the most part. 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. But now I've stopped because it's nuts. Minus 14, minus 4 in the same time period is meaningless. So when I. When I look at one poll from, say, it's like Gallup or something, or Quiddbap being a better example. For more, you know, current polling, I can't believe if it's like, yeah, Democrats are winning this one. I'm like, are they?

[C]

Well, I also think, like, it's really difficult to pull 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 shut down. I mean, there's. The news cycle's been so insane that I don't think the press has much appetite to, like, cover this in depth. I mean, like, when. When NPR reports on it on their daily podcast, they're just like. Like, oh, yeah, okay, we have to talk about this, I guess, because it seems important. But, like, I think the American people are just so, like, the news cycle's been so cooked that there's just not even really that much interest in the drama over the shutdown. So it's really hard to determine polling. It's really determined to, you know, gauge interest.

[A]

Here's Quinnipiac from a week ago. Who is more responsible for the government shutdown? Voters blame Republicans slightly more than Democrats. 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 they think both parties are equally responsible. However, at the same time, Quinnipiac had Trump at -14 for a similar time period. I don't believe Trump is at minus 14 in the polls. I don't necessarily believe that he's at plus four either. I certainly know a lot of people don't like Trump, but -14 is very heavy. In aggregate, he's at 44.9 approval to 51.4, 51.9 disapproval, -7 seems relatively plausible, but Quinnipiac seems to be heavily biased, so this is why it's hard to track. I've read a few. A handful of polls showing that Democrats are largely winning this. But I don't. I. 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. So there's a few ways to look at it. They don't think this will matter in the midterms because a year is an eternity in politics. 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. They must genuinely believe they're winning politically, that the perception is beneficial to them and Democrats must agree. So what I think is the polls are so divergent. Republicans are probably going, guys, we're winning. And Democrats are going, guys, we're winning.

[C]

Yeah, well, yeah, I think like both parties are galvanizing their bases right now as well. And that's primarily what's driving like both sides not really interested in negotiating here.

[B]

I think that's right. 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. So we'll see. But also, if the Republicans thought they were looking good going to the midterms, they wouldn't be trying so hard to gerrymander some of these districts. I do think they see the trends and 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. But you know, we'll see this. We're in uncharted territory here and I hope they can open it up. But the longer this goes, will the trends change? Will the Democrats start getting blamed for it? I don't know. People are worried that their healthcare premiums are gonna double if this bill, clean bill goes through.

[A]

I kind of just think we're well beyond the political argument phase of what's going on in this country politically. Well, I mean you'll get the celebrations for Charlie Kirk's assassination. Yeah, obviously we can say, you know, like the Clintons, Obama, high level Democrats and liberals said this is wrong and this is bad and heart goes out. 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. The younger generations are like ready and waiting, locked and loaded. 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 pointing at her neck. Yeah, there's one young guy Gen Z with got his Halloween costume was a dead Charlie Kirk. Yeah, that's where I'm just like, I hear you on the Met, on the, 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 what. I'd say the majority cares about it. So I would, I would, 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. However, millennials largely didn't have kids, so they don't care. The issue of medical costs are largely for the older generation. 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'll get medical care in the first place.

[D]

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 as it redistributes money away from those younger people to older people. So they actually benefit from those measures being withdrawn.

[A]

Young people are ready for this whole thing to go belly up. Yeah, right. Telling young people to pay taxes to boomers for Social Security, and they're gonna be like, revolution. When, like, they literally are.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Well.

[C]

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. And so it's like, really tough to really, you know, drive up a lot of interest in a government shutdown when 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.

[A]

Let's jump to the story from the New York Post. Fuming SNAP recipients threaten to loot if food stamps are cut November 1st. Stay the f out of my way. Quote, I'm gonna tell y' all straight up like this. I just got that text that the link is definitely cut the F off for November. Y' all better stay the F out of my way in these stores. Cause I'm walking out with carts and I'm not paying for ish. Another added, you know what?

[B]

What?

[A]

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 42 million people. And you don't need 42 million people for instability. So they're saying straight up, I don't know, man. I mean, is this what's going to like come November 1st? There's literally no benefits for anybody. And so they're just, it's time to.

[C]

Deputize the Walmart greeters. I think, I think it's the way out of this. I think stickers and then firearms.

[A]

Imagine this. Imagine if the Republicans. Let me first say, I have no idea the political play here for Democrats or for Republicans. Democrats could certainly come out and vote yes in the Senate. Seven votes. They turn, they spig it back on. Actually. I think they need. Yeah, right. I think one Democrat defected, one Republican defected, seven votes and SNAP is back. But Democrats must believe that whatever they're doing is going to benefit them. Republicans must believe the same thing. So I'd have to assume the Republican play is let's piss off as many SNAP recipients as possible and blame the Democrats for why they didn't get their food stamps.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[D]

I mean, that's a very important voting block for the Democrats. 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. And so this has always been something people have been aware of and Democrats cannot afford to upset that particular demographic in the same way that Republicans can. Yeah, though that, that's probably changing. 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. But I think the stereotype generally still exists and I still think there is some truth to it. So the Republicans know this is going to hurt the Democrats way more than it's going to hurt us.

[C]

Yeah. 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, a lot of these consulting groups, a lot of these policy institutes, they don't really know like what, what to do. 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. 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 gonna get this outcome. I think, I think people are scrambling in these, in these. Yeah, like these consultancy groups and policy institutes. They don't know what to do.

[A]

Food riots.

[B]

Oh, man. Like, what's. It's a dystopian. One of those movies that you see. It's like. I remember Robocop is my dating myself with robocops. I had pretty much the same type of thing.

[A]

When was Rotocop like Robocop? Late 80s, 80s, I think.

[B]

Yeah. I am dating myself. Oh, I used to be the youngest person in every room. Now I'm the oldest.

[A]

That's what happens. I mean, hey, hey. I mean, look, they're all younger than me.

[B]

Exactly.

[C]

You guys are now never seen Rogue.

[A]

I'm going to fire everyone younger than me and hire only old people. Thank you.

[B]

Well, good. I. I think consider me. I hear the cost of living is low here in West Virginia.

[A]

Oh, dude, it's not anymore. It's getting nuts. It's funny because I had someone, I can't remember, I was doing an interview or something and they were like, how do you think the economy is doing? I was like, it's bad. And they're like, oh, you like Trump? I thought you'd say it was a good. Are you nuts, bro? The property, the cost of houses is skyrocketing out here. It's insane. There was a property out here three years ago that was like 200 and it's like 550 now.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it's a bungalow. And I was like, how the. What is. It's crazy. Not to mention gold and silver through the roof. Yeah, it's not. That's not. Because good things are happening.

[D]

Yeah, exactly. No, it's true.

[A]

Now, what people need to understand about snap, and again, I'll say this, I'm. I'm for just cutting it off. It's not the preferable system. And I wouldn't even argue that I'm largely for it. It's like a 50.1% let it happen, I guess. But this is going to impact not just the recipients, but all of the stores. There's going to be areas of cities. People need to understand this. It's going to be geographic. There are areas in cities that are, that are. That have high density welfare recipients. And the stores there probably can't exist without these food benefits going into the area. 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, otherwise they do. And then there are impoverished neighborhoods that get a large alliance share of these benefits. Wealthy areas don't. The stores there disproportionately rely on people with EBT cards buying goods. So when this cuts off, you're going to see a bunch of bodegas vanish overnight. Night they're going to be like, we're not, we're cooked. We can't sell products. We can't. And then what's going to happen is gonna be a ripple effect where these small stores, if they shut. So you're going to see a variety of things. Supermarkets in general will see a margin drop which will result in every distributor that supplies them seeing a margin drop. It's going to result in a ripple effect. I mean it is a freight train slamming into a brick wall, stopping at once. And you know what it's like. You guys ever see that movie Hancock?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Remember when he stops the train?

[D]

Can't believe it didn't get the Oscar that year.

[A]

That was, I know, really amazing.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Superhero. A train's coming to save the person. 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. So bodega's shut down, corner stores shut down for those who know what bodega is. And all of a sudden the local distributors are like. The money that we were receiving was largely coming from, you know, 1520 was EBT. So now we just lost 12 of the stores we supply. 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 when they're negative. I mean they've probably got emergency coffers. They'll probably stay afloat for a little while. But we saw this during COVID when they shut down restaurants. The restaurants, like we've got $20,000 worth of perishable goods. When they shut us down even for a week, we lose 20 grand. We will never get back.

[D]

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.

[A]

So Snapocalypse. That's why I'm looking at this like there's no way they actually let this happen. But I at this point we're three days out. Is it? I suppose the only remedy at this point would be for Trump to release the 6 billion. Was that the only. Because I don't think they could reopen it and pass this fast enough, could.

[B]

They not this Congress.

[A]

Right? Indeed.

[B]

You know, it used to be. And Seamus, you said this, that this was a Democratic constituency. But, but we saw things turn on its head in this last election where generally lower income voters have flocked towards Republicans. 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. Well, it's going to affect your voters as much or more than ours and let's see who they blame. So that's the question, who will they blame?

[A]

I was thinking this, that look, Stephen Miller is a very smart man. You don't have to like him or agree with him, but underestimate him at your own peril. And I have to imagine he's sitting there in the room with Trump and he's like let snap expire. Cuz what's gonna happen is the people, the principal recipients of this are not Republican Trump voters. And so it is not gonna be your base that is hurt by it. Largely the Democrats will see a backlash because people don't know or care why the system doesn't work. They blame the politicians. So what happens in Democrat areas? There is outrage over the failures of their member of Congress. It will disproportionately impact Democrat Congress, Congressional districts going into a midterm election and that's all they need.

[B]

That's, that's a big question. Whether that's true or not, we don't know.

[A]

Well, I'm put like this. EBT benefits are disproportionately. 40% go to white, the rest are non white, 25.6 I think go to black. Their attitude is like, look, if it's even 2% detriment to the Democrats, it's worth doing. 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, meaning when you look at the math, Democrats, it's not about who's right or wrong, it's about how many angry people per district. And so the Republicans are gonna say we are gonna increase the amount of angry people in every Republican district by 7%. Democrats will increase the amount of angry people by 13. That's good for us. It destabilizes their elections.

[B]

But that's why they're suing. They sue. Now they take the initiative saying, see, we're trying, we want the speaker to be turned back on, blame the Republicans.

[A]

But it doesn't matter because the voters don't know or care. They only, they only want, they only know results. You go to the average person and ask them about the granular policy implications, actions, otherwise they're just like, huh, yeah, but all I know is my cards turned off.

[B]

But they know who's in power and.

[A]

Who'S in power is their member of Congress and their senators.

[B]

I don't know if most people even know who their member of Congress.

[A]

Trump's not up for election. Trump's not up for election. And that's the point. When they go to vote next year, Trump's not on the ballot. So in Democrat districts you're gonna have more anger than in Republican districts. And it's gonna be bad for Democrats running for election, particularly in swing areas.

[B]

The Democrats are counting that Trump will be on the ballot. Not his name, but his presence. He sucks all the auction out of every room. And they're gonna think that, hey, this is a referendum on Trump. And so that's why the party in power often loses seats in an off term election.

[A]

It's true. But let's, let me pull this one up. I love this. Let's see, which one is it? Which party will win the U.S. house call. She's prediction market has it near toss up territory. So shout out to Kalshee for sponsoring the show.

[B]

Is that a toss? It looks 58% to 42.

[A]

Uh huh. Prediction market, not polls have the Democrats at 58% likelihood to win control of the House. Republicans with 42. Now, considering the historical trend of opposition parties winning, this was actually in May, 82.5 to 17.5. No one thought it possible Democrats would lose. And then a variety of things happened and now it's as I say, near toss up territory. I mean 58 to 42, it was briefly 55 to 45. This is what, a week ago? So Democrats improved a little bit, dipped down a little bit. It should not be anywhere this close. So I'm, 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. The Republican message is going to be those people that are mad we're stealing from you. And I think a lot of conservative people are going to be like, yep. And then a lot of people in the urban environments are going to be like, I don't know what happened. All I know is you're supposed to have fixed this. 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 but it's going to hurt Democrats in a swing district? Maybe. But Trump may be maybe betting 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, I'm voting for the other guy because what's happening is bad.

[C]

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.

[A]

The initial decline appears to be like, you can see over the past several months, generally related to the public sentiment, the working class, etc. And then this bump that happened right here is when news broke that SCOTUS was likely going to overturn the voting. Was the Voter Rights Act. Voting Rights Act.

[B]

Voting Rights act, yeah, they were going.

[A]

To, they were going to overturn that one. And that's, that's allegedly going to give Republicans 20 more districts. I'll put it like this. When you're at the point in politics where in order to win, you're just blatantly redistricting.

[B]

Right.

[A]

We are well past the point of arguments. I'm looking at it like the agree with that 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. Like maybe I'm wrong, but I think Trump's attitude is all that matters is you win. As you know, we had on our McIntyre last week and he said, I forgot whose quote this is. The sovereign is he who makes the exceptions or the exemptions, whichever. And so right now I'm assuming that the Republican Party's attitude is who cares? You can just do things. That's it.

[D]

Probably.

[A]

Yeah. That 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.

[D]

We're way past that. Yeah, there's no it is.

[A]

But accuse Trump of being a Russian.

[B]

Spy.

[A]

You know, impeach whatever, by any means necessary, get him out and launch investigations. And then with Trump, you get the election is fake, you get January six riots, nobody. This is why I said this in 2020, that people are going to, I said people are going to storm the White House. Not exactly correct, but close because the arguments every Year. The argument, you know, it is, it's actually really simple. Let me say it like this. The argument only matters to the older crowd. The older you are, the more you're concerned about winning an argument, the younger you are, the more you're just like, crush them. And we see that with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death. 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. I don't see a remedy to the track we're on. I think it goes in one direction. Y' all know that.

[B]

Well, you have the ability, you have millions of listeners and followers and you have the ability to help shape the debate. That's why I'm here, is because you'll have someone like me on it, Tim. And that's something where you're not on the extreme, where you're generating hatred. And there are people who, you know, who they are, who, that's how they make their money in doing that. But that's not who you are. And that's why I think maybe there's some hope if we can have this type of debate, this type of dialogue.

[A]

I, I agree with you and I think it's been great. I'm really glad that you came and I hope to come back. It was fun, even though I just got really heated and started yelling. But I would, I would, 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? How do you think they feel about what, what Merrick Garland did to me?

[B]

I think they hate it. And, and that's why I, I understand your indignation about it. I understand why you're upset about it because you had to hire lawyers. You've had death threats. You still have death threats, I'm sure.

[A]

But because it was fake, it's a lie.

[B]

The difference that we have on this is not that I think you shouldn't be upset about it. I think the difference is that I don't think Merrick Garland went in there thinking, I'm gonna screw over these right wing influencers and I'm gonna help the Democrat win the election. Just. Merrick Garland is not like that. He's, he's got his faults. And the people on the left, they are really down on him because they think he dragged his feet after January 6, didn't wanna get involved in going after Trump, didn't even put a special Prosecutor into place until it was too late. He went out of his way to make sure Biden's son got prosecuted. Biden was embarrassed by Robert Her. He dropped the case against Matt Gaetz. This is Merrick Garland in the Democrats mind. So where I'm coming from is I don't think he came in there thinking, I'm gonna screw over to Tim Pool and the Republicans. He may have made mistakes, but I don't think it's because he intentionally tried to hurt you or the Republicans.

[A]

Why didn't he then reconcile the mistake.

[B]

He made as far as the case? Remember you said that you heard from your lawyers that they dropped the case in December informally. Right, But I haven't seen that. Like it's not reported.

[A]

No, no, no, but it's informal. And that's the point.

[B]

The case or against the case? Against the RT people, that's.

[A]

So here's the timeline. Press conference. This thing happened. Tim Pool, Benny, Dave did nothing wrong. Immediately we were attacked by every political actor imaginable, threatening our sponsors, trying to get us banned, death threats. There's no way Merrick Garland was unaware that would be the case. The argument made by Merrick Garland was that we disseminated Russian propaganda. That's factually incorrect. The shows that were licensed to were not in any meaningful way Russian propaganda. People tried claiming that because of comments I made about a German indictment of a Ukrainian. Cut out of context. That was Russian propaganda. Germany indicted a Ukrainian guy for bombing Nord Stream 2. 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. So then they say, aha. So a totally different company, a different show. And then they try to make some circuitous argument. 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. And then in December, the feds, the doj, instructed my lawyers that they would be informally closing the case. That is, it will remain open. We will not tell anybody, but we will no longer pursue it and we no longer need your correspondence. And I rejected that and said, absolutely not. What do I have to do? And that's when I was instructed, Tim, this was for the election. There's nothing you can do. The DOJ never had any intention to prosecute two men from a faraway land. They can't prosecute.

[B]

They've Done that before, though. I mean, sure, there are several.

[A]

And they did it right before the election. And so my point is this, not to rehash that whole argument. 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. They know Merrick Garland lied. They know that it caused us damage. They know that it put us at tremendous risk politically, financially, and safety. And the view is Merrick Garland is a portent of what's to come. This is what you get from the boomer class trying to destroy you. 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 strip us to shreds. He didn't mean for the to happen. He just did it on accident. So the response is, okay, these people are either so brazenly inept, they're dangerous, or they're malicious. And now the presumption is holy. It's malicious, considering Jenna Ellis being prosecuted. I mean, whatever your argument over what you think Jenna Ellis did, it is bold to criminally charge a person's lawyer.

[B]

Local prosecutor do that.

[A]

Right. But it doesn't matter. The Democratic Party is not a separate entity. The Democrats work at the state and federal level all the same. And the prosecutors are once again aligned with these political parties, federal or otherwise.

[B]

The fact that she pled guilty to a much lower charge means that they.

[A]

Threatened her life and she begged them to leave her alone.

[B]

But also, now I was getting there. Where the initial charge of RICO seems to be an overcharge. When you charge someone with such a serious crime as rico and then a few weeks later, they plead guilty to almost nothing, that, to me, is a problem. Then it does seem like an overcharge. But, you know, you talk about Merrick Garland, who comes out before an election and has his press conference, 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, and that then he closed it right before with very little fanfare. Right.

[A]

It was obviously political, and I think Hillary Clinton should have been criminally charged for the destruction of public records.

[B]

But. But the Comey part, right? The fact.

[A]

Indeed, yes, yes, absolutely. We have an overtly political doj. Always have.

[B]

Who is. Whose side was he on then? He was hurting Hillary Clinton.

[A]

Indeed. Yeah, indeed. I don't. I can't speak to the motivations of James Comey. I don't like the guy, nor do I trust him. 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. An October Surprise is an obvious October surprise. You're playing games. We get it. Now. The issue with Hillary Clinton is that she should have been charged over the emails thing a long time ago. But if the precedent is we're not going to do that, we're not going to play that game, they shouldn't have gone after Trump. They should have gone after Trump for documents at Mar a Lago.

[B]

Those are, I mean, apples and oranges, the documents. I think that was legit because, again, well, we already talked about that.

[A]

Right, but so, so to the Comey issue, the apples is that it is dangerous for parties to swap targeting each other when they switch power. 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 as Trump is campaigning, they accuse him of being a traitor. He enters office with this weight over him, 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. He ends up with the Mueller investigation and all this ridiculous nonsense. 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. And let me just succinctly wrap this up. I accurately reported long time ago that social media companies were censoring conservative voices and pro Trump voices. And every, every wahoo in the corporate press said, I was lying and I'm a conspiracist, admitted I up. Gizmodo was the organization that initially reported this. I cited them and then I got accused of lying. We now know all that was true. We now know that Biden's doj was sending letters, had illicit access to big tech platforms through backdoors, through threats against these companies. Zuckerberg came out and said, we resisted, but they forced us to do it. I mean, what Biden did is evil. Now, maybe Trump did evil stuff, too. But to the main point, before we go to our super chats, is that nobody should want conflict or crisis. Nobody should want war. It'll be the worst thing you ever see come to pass. And these young people, largely these urban lefty antifa types 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? I think conservatives are largely going to be like, we mostly live in the middle of nowhere and we have chickens in our backyard. So it will predominantly impact urban individuals who lose access to these resources. But everybody will be lesser because of it. Unfortunately, neither side will back down. 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, etc. Neither of them will accept the proposition of the other. That is, Democrats have proposed abortion up to nine months. States like Colorado, it happens unrestricted.

[B]

Well, yeah, but does that really happen? Yes, it does literally happen. But a nine month abortion happen unless there's a threat to the health of the mother, it does happen.

[D]

Well, no, no, but this is actually to call that an abortion. 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. To perform an abortion on top of that is never a medical necessity.

[A]

Well, let's say. But let's put that aside because that actually doesn't. That argument is not to the point I'm making. And if you know, by all means, Seamus can argue with you and show you the facts on this and we can disagree. My point is neither will accept the proposition of the other. So in Colorado, when they said we would like to legalize abortion unrestricted up to nine, nine months, conservatives and moderate liberals even said why? And they said, well, it doesn't happen anyway. I don't care what you think happens or doesn't happen, don't legalize it. They've also proposed child sex changes, put these people on tv. There is no reality where a conservative accepts that proposition. The conservative argument is drag shows for children are felonious and should be shut down immediately. And Democrats say we should have drag shows for children. What's the problem? Both sides saying that is an existential threat to my moral worldview. There's no reality where the Democrats, Republicans come and come to compromise on when children can get sex changes. It's, it's an absolute. There's, there's no middle ground. It's either you allow it or you don't. So I don't see a reality where moving forward, either side will negotiate a middle ground between the Two, it's just not going to happen.

[B]

I do worry that we're so dug in and people are not talking to each other. Now we have different social media sites. I mean, you have Blue sky and Twitter are separate and you have podcasts, and people have all this confirmation bias. 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. You think Nick Fuentes does? That's. That's not.

[A]

No, he tries.

[B]

Yeah, but he does.

[A]

He would love to go on liberal shows.

[B]

Oh, my gosh.

[A]

But. But here's the thing. So I respect it. I appreciate it. We're glad to have you. Liberals don't do these shows.

[B]

That's a problem.

[A]

Charge money. You know, don lemon said $50,000.

[B]

Wow.

[D]

He's worth every penny.

[B]

I know. Don the good guy. That's surprising because shows do not pay. That's the thing.

[A]

Like, shows don't pay. So it's not like it's just you.

[B]

No, shows pay every.

[A]

I shouldn't say every, but 80% of the Liberals we ask come back with a fee.

[B]

Well, you know Bill Maher, who I like, he says the same thing you do. He says that I invite the Clintons and liberals on the show. They don't come. Only the Republicans seem to come.

[A]

Bill Maher's right wing.

[B]

Well, he's considered right wing on the far left. He's actually considers himself old school liberal.

[A]

But Bill Maher and I largely agree on a lot of things, and I had a great time. I grew up watching your show when I was a kid. 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.

[B]

Were you on a show?

[A]

Yes. Oh, well, on Club Random.

[B]

Oh, that's cool.

[A]

I've not gone to real time.

[B]

You got a drink with him on a show?

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And I don't really drink, so I had some tequila because I'm not like a. Like alcohol bad. I just don't do it for health reasons because I just try to be. Eat healthy. Right. I got a good bpm, all that good stuff.

[B]

I try to get caffeine, like a caffeinated beverage.

[A]

Here.

[B]

You don't even have that. I'm impressed.

[A]

We do. We have yerba. We have tons of veer.

[B]

But no, I didn't see it.

[A]

Yeah, it's downstairs.

[B]

Oh, man. No, I didn't I'm here without any caffeine.

[A]

So, so, so here's, here's the example of Bill Mac, because Bill Maher is right wing. Several years ago he had on Dennis Prager. And Prager mentioned that in bathrooms they were putting. They're putting tampons in the boys bathroom because they're claiming that men can menstruate. And everyone on Real Time laughed at him. And Bill said, no, they're not. They put them in there for their girlfriends. However, the interesting thing, the story cited by Dennis Prager, and this is, I think 2018 was actually a three year old story. So various college publications and blogs had already written about, yes, men can menstruate and yes, colleges are putting tampons in men's room. 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. And Bill Maher laughed and said, dennis, what are you talking about? This is crazy. I've never heard this. So I believe that Bill Maher, it was almost 70 and I'm a fan. He gets his news probably from corporate cable tv. So he's not going to be apprised to everything that those of us who are reading the news all day, every day are. So what happens is he's three or four years late to the conversation. 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?

[B]

I don't think so.

[A]

Jazz Jennings was 7, socially transitioned at 11, got surgeries and puberty blockers or whatever. Not surgeries, Preview Blockers has a show and I think it's tlc. And there's a viral clip where Jazz Jennings mother says that Jazz, a biological male who is trans, doesn't use the dilator. So she will wake Jazz up in the middle of the night, take the dilator, lubricate and say, you stick this in your vagina or if you don't, I will. And that if Jazz leaves and doesn't do this, I will wring her neck. You show that to a conservative and they are going to scream bloody murder, child abuse. Yeah, you show that to Bill ma.

[D]

Like one of the most horrific incidents.

[A]

Well, I mean think about it. Took a pre pubescent child, surgically removed his genitals.

[D]

Dude, I can't even hear about.

[A]

And then when the, when, 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. You show that to Bill Maher and he's going to go, this is abhorrent and shouldn't be allowed. And the question then is, why are you voting for the party that is making it possible and putting it on tv and he's, he's not, I don't know. Because Trump is bad? Because Trump's lewd and lascivious and self interested and enriching his family. And I'm like, dude, make every political argument in the world that you want. Fine. If you come to me and say you can have the mafioso who's going to get rich off crypto schemes and, and, and, 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. And I'm going to be like, give me the mafia guy. And that's where we're at. We got to go to chats. We got to go to chats. So smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at. Tim Cast we got a great sponsor because we got to read a sponsor post, guys. Tax Network USA T N usa.com Tim, check it out. Deal back taxes or tax returns still unfiled. Do you. Did you forget to file for an extension? Time's running out. Even gathered all your documents or many made any estimated payments. You can still be targeted by the IRS and they can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts or even seize your property. 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. The moment they come back, they're jumping on those backlogs. So there is hub available. Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save over $1 billion in tax debt. They filed hundreds of thousands of tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens. And they can help you too. Don't wait. Visit tnusa.com tim or call 1-800-958-1000 for a 100% free consultation. In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA will guide you through some simple questions to determine how much you can save. Take action now before it's too late. Visit tnusa.com Tim and now we're going to read your chats which should just make it more, I don't know, more of a debate. Kid Funky says, if Trump says after the fact that he did unclassify documents, were they unclassified?

[B]

That was his argument.

[A]

But if Biden says after the fact that they were pardoned, does that make them pardoned?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, it means that he didn't do any wrong.

[A]

If both plenary powers of the president.

[B]

No, no, these are two different things. If Biden afterwards affirms the pardons, said, yeah, I pardoned him. That's what happened. I proved this. Then there's no problem here. If Trump after the fact says, oh, these, now I unclassify them. Well, no deeds already done.

[A]

What's the process by which a president unclassifies something?

[B]

That's actually a good question because. Because remember, Cash Patel was saying, yes, I was there when Trump said, I declassify. It's like Michael Scott in the office. Can I use that reference when he says, I declare bankruptcy? It doesn't work like that. There's a process especially. Exactly. Especially for nuclear secrets. There's a process. So I appreciate the argument that person who wrote in would be a good lawyer, but there's apples and oranges, as we said.

[D]

But if executive privilege exists for the president, isn't that a red tape argument at that point? You're not actually talking about him doing something nefarious. You're just saying he didn't go through the proper procedure.

[B]

Right there. Well, but there is a statutory procedure, especially for nuclear secrets. You just can't say, I declassified. Trump was actually saying, in my mind, I declassified it. Which is not a thing Sinek.

[A]

Sinek says, respectfully, I'd rather have Chat GPT be my lawyer than this guy. But I read that because I want to push back. Are you nuts? This guy's doing great. He's arguing his positions very well.

[D]

I think the best chat I saw.

[A]

That'S why it took 40 minutes to get through the first segment. Because you, you do a good Dre. Good job. Articulation.

[B]

Thank you. And I must say, I would like Chat GBT to be my lawyer, too. I mean that. Right. You can't get better than artificial intelligence.

[A]

Not any. Well, what's happening is they're degrading. Yeah. Because they're, they're consuming their own refuse. So what's happening is the, the, the way they learn is they, they read the Internet, but the Internet is Now half the AI generated content, so they're reabsorbing it and going insane. ChatGPT has gotten particularly bad. Like really bad.

[B]

I'm a Gemini guy. Personally.

[A]

I, I, you know, I, I didn't like Grok for a while, even though Elon's raving about it. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I try it. As of right now, I give Grok the lead. Grock. Real Grok watched my podcasts. Like I was, I opened Grok and I was like, give me the timestamp for this in the podcast. And it just like it knew instantly on a two hour podcast what I was looking for. Very great. ChatGPT couldn't function because I had a typo in a sentence.

[B]

That's great. So see, Grok is doing a competitor to Wikipedia.

[A]

They did Grokopedia.

[B]

I think that's great.

[A]

Oh yeah, Wikipedia is just totally defunct. Totally.

[B]

And full of Jew Israel haters all over Wikipedia.

[A]

So Wikipedia says of me that it insinuates, I pretend to be a liberal for authentic, to feign authenticity. And I'm like, that's an opinion statement. Why is that in an encyclopedia? It's not. Wikipedia is just crazy. And to be fair, my Wikipedia entry is not that bad. But for like RFK Jr. It says an anti vaxxer conspiracy theorist. And it's like, those are just insults.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, like, why is that in there? You don't have to agree with the.

[C]

Every prominent conservative commentator is just pejorative, pejorative, pejorative. And then like, then they give his resume. It's like, yeah, what are we doing here?

[B]

I still think he would make a good lawyer. Chat GPT sport.

[A]

Well, actually there's been a bunch of cases where chatgpt cited false precedents. It manufactures precedents.

[D]

That's true.

[A]

And then they get caught.

[B]

All right, good point, Spork.

[A]

Which says they didn't even have to agree on the alleged crime. What crime was covered up. Why do we think something was covered up? If you can't agree on the alleged other crime, you've got nothing. It was bunk. So another person pointed out that they never actually brought up the underlying crime until jury deliberations. So there was actually no burden of proof on intent either.

[B]

The writer is right that they don't have to agree. They the jury could choose any of the three secondary crimes and they don't even have to agree on it. It just has to be any of the three. They did mention those three during the to trial.

[A]

But that, so that is just a circuitous way of saying the government can punish you without proving a crime.

[B]

No, they prove the underlying crime Which. The misdemeanor.

[A]

No, no, they didn't prove the underlying crime. They. The. Under. The underlying crime was the three. The three. You know, choose your own adventure.

[B]

No, the underlying crime is a falsification of business records.

[A]

No, no, no. Falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime implies as an underlying crime for which they were intending to commit. Semantics.

[B]

Okay, maybe it's semantics, but.

[A]

So the argument is falsification of business records and furtherance of a crime. Furtherance of a crime implies there's an underlying crime. Right. And so the government never proved it. If the. 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.

[B]

But that's not what the courts say. Well, it's. Okay.

[A]

Right, so. So this is the fascinating thing about. It's a good lesson for people and it's about the exertion of power. You can just do whatever you want.

[B]

No, it's just not an element of the crime. The. The.

[A]

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 jaywalking and furtherance of another crime. 25 years in prison. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Jaywalking is not a. Not a felony charge. But you were jaywalking because you were intending to do something bad. Prove it. I don't have to. I don't. 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. I mean, this is pre crime. It's literal pre crime. Jaywalking in furtherance of a crime. He's going to go to prison now for 34 felonies because he jaywalked back and forth 34 times. But hold on. Jaywalking is a petty crime. It's a petty offense. You get a ticket for it. Not. Winston. Furtherance of another crime. What crime was that? Doesn't matter, does it? If that's the country we're going to live in, then I am ready. Cuz I say Trump should just start locking everybody up he doesn't like because he can just do whatever he wants. We don't got to prove it anymore. Campaigning and furtherance of a crime. Campaigning is not illegal. But in furtherance of a crime, it is. You're going to prison. But what's the underlying crime I committed? Nothing. But you were campaigning in furtherance of one. Prove it. I don't have to. I don't have to prove there was anything other than some, at some point you wanted to do wrong.

[B]

You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[A]

Indeed, that's right.

[B]

Right. But you have to show that there was intent. You have to prove there was intent. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[A]

But no one in the jury agreed on what the intent was.

[B]

As long as they agreed there was another crime, they don't have to be on the same one.

[A]

So that means I can say, in the process of campaigning, Seamus Coughlin approached a street. He didn't look both ways. He raised up a foot and we arrested him. I do not recall furtherance of a crime. Jaywalking. Jaywalking is a crime. And I can prove to a jury, right. That he intended to jaywalk, or at least the intent was there to jaywalk. He said, I'm going to jaywalk. So he arrested him and charged him with falsifying documents and furtherance of another crime. And it's a felony. Now, even this is the craziest thing. Like, if we're gonna live in that world, I also wanna give a shout out to Kanye west because he criticized the 13th Amendment specifically because it legalized, it codified slavery. People who don't. And this is. It's funny because the poor man, you know, for all of his faults, criticize him, but for the poor man, this all started when he said, we need to repeal the 13th Amendment. And the left and the corporate press, not actually reading it, said, holy crap, ye wants to bring back slavery.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

Got cuz. He was like, what? The 13th Amendment says, if you commit any crime, you can be made a slave. Any crime. We can't have that. And he's correct. Literally, according to the Constitution, you could jaywalk and then they enslave you. It doesn't say slavery is banned. It says only upon conviction of a crime. So that's what our country does. Now, however, we being sane, rational people are like, no, we're not going to enslave people. Right? 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 it's just, I'm ready if that's the game we're playing. Just as long as everybody knows, okay. Jaywalking and furtherance of a Felony? Can you prove they committed a felony? I don't have to. I don't. I'm just going to say the guy had a knife on him. Seems like he wanted to stab somebody. Right. Who carries a knife around? Well, we agree. Okay. Your jaywalking charge is now a 20 year felony. That's just nuts.

[B]

Well, remember, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have the intent to conceal the violation of a secondary crime. That's it. So you do have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. What is that secondary crime? It's up to the jury.

[A]

Right, so. But you can prove concealment of an unknown crime very easily. I saw Seamus shove a book under his coat and run off.

[B]

Well, it's got to be a crime.

[A]

I don't recall which crime.

[B]

Well, they gave him three options.

[A]

And so I can be like, oh, Seamus, let's listen. Like, bro, come on, are you hearing yourself? Let's try this argument. I see Seamus in a trench coat, grab a book and shove it under his jacket and then run away.

[D]

You know me. You know I would never do that.

[A]

He's now concealed a book, right? In this book are financial transactions. I then say I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he concealed this book of financial transactions. Here's a video of him doing it. So he concealed these records in furtherance of another crime. What was the crime? Well, honestly, I can't prove he committed the crime, but it's possible that those documents were him laundering money. And so it was either money laundering, he was defrauding an old lady, or he was stealing lottery numbers. You pick.

[D]

You know me.

[A]

But you saw him conceal it and he was looking pretty suspicious as he exited the building, hiding that booklet. So I can prove he was up to something.

[D]

I would never do that.

[A]

It was up to something.

[D]

You know me. You know I would never do something like that. You know me.

[A]

I mean, I think to me and to everybody else, the statement here is just literally, you can just do things.

[B]

Well, I'll give you this. It is a matter of debate. You're not the first to bring this up. And this is a New York thing that allows them to do this, but.

[A]

It'S never been done before.

[B]

Well, the court's upheld it.

[A]

Well, actually, the Supreme Court could overturn.

[B]

It if it wasn't.

[A]

The appellate court has not issued their ruling. They've held it for a year.

[B]

But as far as the ability to have a statute like this where all you have to do is prove, no.

[A]

No, no, I could be wrong. So I Don't. I'm not a genius. I'm not. I don't think I know everything. I'm not a genius. But my understanding is this is the first time it has ever happened. This is unprecedented.

[B]

I would disagree, but I don't have that press on me. But I. This is not the first time that statute has been used and.

[A]

No, but you out underlying crime. So the statute's been used as an addition to other crimes. Saying the guy laundered money and he falsified business records. This is the first time there's been nothing else other than he falsified business records and furtherance under the crime that we've not proven. That's why it's controversial.

[B]

Yeah. I think that this has been used as a felony statute in the past, and that's why other crimes. Right. Well, yeah.

[A]

And this is the first time it doesn't have another crime. No, there are no other charges.

[B]

There are three possible other crimes he's.

[A]

Never been convicted of. So this is the first time.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Issues have been used as a standalone charge.

[B]

We'll have to look that up because I thought it has been used like that. But we can look that up.

[A]

That. And by all means, I'm open to being wrong about this. Has there ever been a case in my. Where I'm typing this in, it's just hard to type in.

[B]

It's gonna be hard to get a quick answer on that one.

[D]

Hey, you said you wanted AI as a lawyer. Now you've got your wish, buddy.

[C]

Fair enough.

[A]

I'm asking Grock. So Grok has the ability to do these really long answers, which are really impressive. So I'll let. I'll let it cook and I'll grab some of your super chats. But we're having fun. All right, let's go. Brian Dayton says this guy's gerrymander comment just proves he's a political hack. Like, dude, Democrats have consistently only gerrymandered for decades after panic firing excuses for Garland in the face of personal experience. Well, he's allowed to disagree, but I would more politely assert the point being made. Blue states are insanely gerrymandered. Illinois is a joke. How badly gerrymandered it is.

[B]

No debate there. And thank you to the fan, my new fan. I'm going to. I'll put him down as undecided as far as I'm concerned.

[C]

Swing voter.

[B]

Swing voter. But here's the difference.

[D]

Depends on how you redistrict him.

[B]

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. I don't know. To the point where do both sides gerrymander?

[A]

Of course.

[B]

But has ever been done like this? I don't recall that. I think this is a first.

[A]

I agree. I think that's true. And I think what we are seeing is both sides just saying I'm going to win. I don't care. Yeah, I haven't read this. Grok just sped it out. Quote. Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard. In this. My question Is it unprecedented that Trump was convicted without proving an underlying crime? 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 to 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. Instead, they relied on proving Trump's intent to conceal another crime framed as a violation of New York election law, though a through a scheme involving the payment with multiple possible unlawful means, blah, blah, blah. Presented to the jury without requiring anonymity on any one theory. Jury instructions allowed conviction if jurors agreed on the false occasion and the broader intent to violate election law, but not on the exact secondary violation which defense appeals argued dilutes proof requirements and introduces legal error. While 17510 has been up has been applied in hundreds of prior cases, those typically feature clearer directly evidence underlying offenses. 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. The May 2024 verdict stands pending appeal. But the lack of an explicit underlying conviction has fueled claims of a zombie case revived unconventionally. So that was my point. I believe I'm correct. They have never before used this aggravating charge without any other crime.

[B]

You read that there was one sentence there that I think they make the distinction that never before when it comes to a federal election offense. Is that what they said?

[A]

None matched this novel bootstrapping of state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context.

[B]

Right. Right. That. See, that's.

[A]

That's limited, comma, right? Leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime.

[B]

Right. But what they're saying is they've never seen a state law that that's been elevated to a felony based on a federal election violation. Right, but what about if they decided that the state election violation law was. Was violated? Excuse me. That the state law was violated. And if they did, by the way, that would mean two misdemeanors equal one felony. Which is weird. But it happens, right?

[A]

Or theoretically, if the underlying crime. I think under this charge, you could have the felony falsification of records attached to a misdemeanor. So if you committed a misdemeanor and falsified records, you now have a felony.

[B]

Which is weird because if the underlying offense is also a misdemeanor. Since when does two misdemeanors equal one felony? But in New York they allow that.

[A]

I am incorrect. Charges in New York. Falsifying business records in the first. Okay, no, no, no. Okay, this is incorrect. No, I knew that. I knew that what it wrote didn't apply. We have to go to the uncensored portion of the show so I can write this again. I thought. I think I may be incorrect. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm gonna have to ask Grok again because it's talking about the underlying misdemeanor and it says misdemeanor. I'm talking about the felonies. I have to ask it again, my friend. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Stay tuned. The uncensored portion of the show is coming [e-mail] Timcast IRL. You don't miss it. It's always fun. Not so family friendly. Did I say you can follow me on X and Instagram cast? Sure, Dave. You want to shout anything out?

[B]

Yeah, thanks. I'm on substack now. For all my fans out there, or I should say fan, you can find me at davearenberg. D A V E A R O N B R G Please. I'd love to hear from you, even if you disagree with me. I'm also on Xrenberg and you can find me also@legal AF on YouTube. Thanks for having me.

[C]

Follow me on X and Instagram. At Realtate Brown, deputize the Walmart greeters. We're ready.

[D]

I'm Seamus Coughlin. I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes. The left has dominated entertainment in this country for decades. They've slowly chipped away at your culture through propaganda. Myself and my team are fighting back because you cannot win a culture war without making culture. We're working on producing a full length animated show. We already have the 25 minute pilot done. You can watch it by going to twistedplots.com in supporting our cause. I've got the team, I've got the experience, and I've got the track record. Give me your support and I will be unstoppable. Help us to create the future of Entertainment. Twisted plots.com we need your help.

[A]

Oh, Grok, you're giving me the business it keeps giving me. Well, what can you blame I How can you not blame AI for being dumb? What am I trying to say? Guys, we'll see you [e-mail] Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out.

[B]

Sam.