Told you Gabert says impeachment will only emboldened Trump in pressing his re election chances. My work I told you, you are one hundred percent correct. It's almost like hearing my own opinion, spotted back at me, The reason why it feels that way is because it's the correct opinion. I mean look any sane person whose follow the news over the past several months. Could clearly see the trajectory of impeachment and how it is in fact helping the president why I was upset when toasty. She flip flock wench, when, when people first started Lebanon is, she said. There's nothing here. She was right. Issue is one hundred percent correct. Is it the Democrats didn't even impeach Trump for any statutory crime? There was nothing. There was the call inappropriate actually think it was. You know trumps call with with Ukraine. I know trumps. Has it's perfect He likes it. I disagree, but does it have know? Is it a criminal offence? No gap was right in the first place, but you flip flopped disappointed that she did she. Then

Chile and voting present on impeachment, making a bold stand, rejecting the partisanship of all sides. Bravo because for her efforts well, she's being smeared relentlessly and its hurt her very much so and the democratic base, but you did the right thing now. Some, what the Trump supporters argue, the right thing would have been just took to vote no on impeachment, like Petersen and Van drew Jeff Andrew, obviously switching to the to the Publican party. But no, I disagree, I think, tells you actually did the right thing in rejecting the partisanship, noting that she believes trumpet something wrong, but she refuses to plan to this partisan game. I actually think the right move would have been to have rejected in piquant from the get go, but I can appreciate what she's doing with a protest vote saying I'm not gonna play.

A play this game with you. Now, here's the big, the big. I guess the funny thing about all this. I love how there are so many active progressives and Democrats online who just hate my guts and there, like team pool just attacks the left. Yes, I'm very much so critical of the Democrats and though I have explained before us, I've never cared for the Republicans. Never consider myself, republican and dont know we're care about what they're doing for the most part acceptance negative towards my per month. Might petitions today. The problem is the democratic, spiralling out of control in refusing to heed the warnings about impeachment We have been told you Gabert asylum right now and for her efforts. She is smeared and slammed and discredited, but she was right. You see what I'm a video saying, don't impeach the president. It will help him. He will raise money there, the defence years unimpeachable and the average person has no idea what you're talking about they say TIM. Why are you taking the left because you're wrong. It's so amazing, isn't it that they refuse to hear prism their ship.

Sale intercourse and Heaven forbid they find out there on the wrong course and as such, Tromp has been widely benefited by impeachment and now we have the next big store that I will want to conquer somewhere. Talk to you about tells you gave it and efforts, but I want to hear You, the story from Bloomberg. If trumps impeached, then why can't a Senate Start trial now new theories on when impeachment happens, make no sense when followed to their logical, constitutional conclusion. Yes, but Democrat Witness, who testified that tromp did commit unimpeachable offences is double down on the fact that Trump has not been impeached with the very same and logical question, if Trump really wasn't beached and why get the same sort of trial, because the fact is they didn't makes it really right argument. I'm gonna do this for you, but it says to me: then only are they refusing to heed the warnings of people like Tarsi and people like me who want to help them there?

getting nothing for their effort other than helping Trop and not even actually impeaching the guy. I suppose, though, we look at the polls and you see out Porthos he's voters how she's been negatively impacted by it. You can that the Democrats are actually being led by the nose not by what's right and what will help them with regular voters. But the activists based is yanking them forward and I have no choice but to support a losing position and for my efforts I will be called right wing for correctly pointing out every step of the way. This has been good for Trump. Sorry, it's just a fact, and you know it's funny man months ago, I'm like hey. If you a peach, tromp it'll, be a bad move, will help him. That's why you defending the president and now here we are with the Gallup Poll like trumps. Approval is up and is, and support for engagement is down and is raised five million dollars in a single day shattering records decent quickly. You dont men, you get what you deserve. You know,

So, let's read the story and see what tells you gave. It is actually quite short known to show some data before we get started had overtaken cast up I'm slashed goaded if you'd like to support my work as a pay. Pal option, crypto option of physical address but, of course, the best you can do is share this video, for whatever reason hoping to, I guess, shatter some but chamber some some bubbles. People might consider watching this video. I know it's hard, because people live echo chambers, whether inundated with fake news and then they that they build a world view based upon that fake news. So, when confronted with you know a different perspective, they say it. It must be wrong. I refuse to watch it. Seriously we have new data coming out I'll cover it later on my second channel showing that Youtube took, you know an axe to channels like mine. There there happened down there, basically shutting us down and it's bad bad news. If you like what I do sharing this video can up overcome this because word of mouth is and always will be the most powerful way

to help someone grow channel or business. That's really start varies in a busy news. They say, Hawaii rat tells you. Gabert spoke candidly on Saturday. About a controversial decision about present during last week's formal impeachment about adding she feared the impatient of President Donald Trump would only embolden him and increase increases chance for re election, not out before reader quote. I wanna see this dossier. I wish you heeded this advice. Beforehand. I know no matter what you do. You're gonna get smeared and slammed trying to do the right thing. It's it's unfortunate, but if you, if you made this point a long time ago, if you, if you took this position initially, Perhaps it would have had a lot more power than only after the impeachment isn't even voted on what tools he said. I think impeachment unfortunately, will only further emboldened Donald Trump increases support and the likelihood that will have a better shot at getting real, getting elected, while also seeing the likelihood that the house will lose a lot of seats Republicans

Gabert set in a want one interview with ABC News in Hudson New Hampshire and they gonna. Do Thus they say she told Gabert, a twenty percent or candidate noted that the prospect of a second term for Trump and our people uncontrolled house is a serious concern of hers, adding that she is worried about the potential ramifications that will be left if Trump is she told ABC News that it could leave lasting damage on the country as a whole, as are the democratic. Someone who is known to be an outspoken critic of her own party was the lawmaker to not choose aside and impeachment and has faced intense criticism for her choice. Well, you know what I think I fall into a similar bracket asked tells you, which is probably why I like her, and you guys know them a fan of of gabert when it comes to the present a risk, also Andrew Yang, who seems to be a kind of a maverick as well. Yes, before my efforts were also smeared. I'll put it this way, ask any conservative and they will laugh,

and say policy. Is such a lefty she's progressive, ask a Democrat. They will say toasty is such a conservative she's pretending to be a Democrat, and I get the same thing so I totally get it perhaps when you try and take a moderate and principled position, you'll be smeared for, of course, they're conservatives, who think I have bad ideas and their democratic think. We think I have bad ideas, but let me tell you something: you don't really weird Why is it that there are conservatives who will watch my channel and be like? I disagree with you ten, but I appreciate your perspective and the left says that, unlike the worst that I'm a drifter them and pure evil, as it saying they would tell see Taylor, this story tells you Gabert makes fans of trumped supporters in New Hampshire. How is it that we have on? There was a story from the american conservative. I don't have it pull them. Maybe I'll find a dumb Sang trade John trumpeted Trade, John Bolton Porthos, who gathered. I don't understand how we're in this in this position, where you have this broad and welcoming trump base. That's like we disagree with you with

your ideas are bad, but as long as you're being fair will listen to what you had to say and the actual our fans of totally gabert, coming up the funding from the press. It such a strange strange reality. The Democrats are thrown onto the bus when she's warning them and she's right check this out. Tromp approval, inches up support for impeachment depths Trumpery election campaign bags, five million dollars and impeachment day impeachment is helping trump and three key battleground states. I've been reaching into the wind and unfortunately, the Trump supporters are kicking back with a beer laughing, because they know it's true and there, like, whatever its helping us right, and I'm sick Yoda, the Democrats being like. Are you seeing what they're saying there celebrating right now and there like why you supporting them TIM, I'm not supporting the Mai, pointing out their celebrating I'm trying to tell you to do the right thing and to not

this games. It's the saying goes. You know the eagle needs to strong links to fly in the left. Right now is a fracturing shattered piece of garbage. Here's a bridge, my heart for her efforts. Gabert is now the most disliked candidate. After voting present on impeachment, well tell you what I'm I'm not super concern that tells you Gabert is lose any sleep over this. She stepped down from the Dnc in twenty sixteen over. That Hillary Clinton nomination, because she s principle. And she's no stranger to taking an unpopular but principled position, much respect unfortunate,

According to a morning, counselled Paul, I believe, is a week prior to the impeachment about Gaubert's unfavourably ratings that a twenty three percent. According to a morning, counselled survey, however, just days after her present vote that figure climbed to thirty percent, making her the fields most disliked candidate. Newsweek reported in a statement Gabert said that she, while she believes shop, is guilty of wrong doing. She could not in good conscience, vote against impeachment. I should also not vote for it because it was a partisan play. I disagree. I dont believe Trump is guilty of wrong. Doing I think tromp has very carefully. You know been on the inside boundary What is legal and acceptable while making me frown and many people go like you know, you're getting pretty close man like Tucker, Karlsson, even side, trumps phone call was inappropriate. I think that's a fair point. Man trump shouldn't be called

Ukraine and say in light or the president being like you, don't let me ask about some investigations. He should have just had the attorney general contact them about potential investigations, not just because you might think you know some people like if I'm unlimited appropriate, because trumps gotta be really really careful about how we use the power of executive branch, especially when it comes to people like Joe Biden, though I don't think Joe Biden above along its also about the fact that there's you know this is up. There is a way to do things legitimately and politically. That would also just protect Trump. I wanna see Joe Biden Bessie. I don't trust the guy. I think he's

when some shady will Seattle. Now, there's no he's not been convicted of crimes. Anything there, some circumstantial evidence, trumps gotta, be very, very carefully approaches these things. I am glad the hordes of course come on by the term. Investigation is happening, but you I don't like the phone call. Does it mean truck, should be impeached or commit the committed convicted of crimes? No and the Democrats, don't even think so, because impeachment no statutory crime, if the phone call was really a criminal effort unimpeachable then why didn't they are unsafe was really if it was really criminal. Impeachment is supposed to be about crimes in misdemeanours trumpet community and they didn't accuse them of any. In turn, the american people are seeing what's happening, and you know what the media as that, which is so twisted and broken. They say that I'm telling you know now is a right wing position. It's quite literally not a political position. I am not advocating for organs certain schools or religion or anything like that. I'm telling you and people will have the president and as a well, you know: what's that's right wing position, shore, I guess, but I was right. What do you want me to do you?

It'll lie about it. You're me to come on Youtube and be like Trump is losing. Even though he's raising tons of monies approval. Writing is up, but I still think it's fair did not come on man. So dumb like this, if trumps impeached than why can't assent trial start now. It is also fair to point out Turley who was the republican witness said no tromp was impeached by the by the vote, but Feldman, who is the Democrat? Witness is saying that's not the case and I'm sorry, it's just my opinion. Feldman is likely correct. In this instance, I will say this Feldman testified Trump committed, impeach, ball offences I defer to the academic,

however, I also recognise just stacking the impeachment you know hearing with a bunch of pro impeachment. Academics doesn't mean they're all correct, but I will deferred enough. No offense man he's the constitutional scholar. Not me. I personally think trumpet committed crimes, whether or not he is he can or should be. Impeached is a different question. I think you shouldn't be because it's bad politically its helping trump in the long run, but even he is saying Trump has not been impeached and if that's the case, I once again will defer to the expert plain and simple. I think the Democrats overplay there another good starting up, I think tosses, desperately trying to warn them in healthcare is really fascinating, because it's really really it's really just a simple argument. He says this accord. The long standing understanding of impeachment

policy has some modest leverage over in a trial with the authority the house has given to our she can control when impeachment officially occurs constitutionally. The Senate can't try tromp until she triggers a trial. By sending a message about impatient to the Senate. The constitution gives the house the constitution gives. The house has the sole power of impeachment and impeded means the power to initiate and conduct a process and the Senate, but if tromp has already been impeach by the House vote, then Pelosi has zero leverage because the site it can start the trial right away without waiting for the house to initiate or conduct the prosecution, After all, the house only has the power to impeach if it has already it's executed that power. Then the ball is already in this and its court has said it has a soul power to try the impeachment.

He's a short: a set of rules at a trial starts when the managers of unimpeded shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate. That's because the Senate rules understand and patient in the traditional sense to require can our communication from the house and commencement of a trial if the brand new theory is However, the Senate can just amend its rules and so the trial now Mcconnell, not policy would then control the trials. Timing evidence that official impeachment entails Munich The Senate can be found in every single historical source that discusses impeachment. Here's Thomas Jefferson describing impeachment in England in the manual he created for the House of representatives quote. The general course is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent and then to do. Some member to impeach him by oral accusation at the bar of the House of lords. In the name of the commons, can I just stop right there and then say: Thomas Jefferson said criminal charge. There is no criminal charge against. The president is the first president with no statutory crime.

So whatever, maybe I'm wrong about that, but I, but I can't find anything on the contrary. Abuse of power is not a crime obstruction of Congress, also not that they had a chance to rectify that the Supreme Court they didn't do it. I think it's completely absurd that you have people today like Alan Dershowitz. Ok, this guy is a long standing Democrat Hilary supporter Biden supporter in every capacity being called a Republican, Barack Obama being called Republican. Ok, you know what you all have lost the plot. I'm sorry, I don't even know what's gonna anymore, my political positions are

actually decently, you know far left relative to american standards. I've done the political compass test man. I run my business, admittedly pretty in print from a pretty left the perspective, but policy has nothing to do with the tribes and of today. If you accurately point out that a Democrat witnesses saying criminal charge and passing the resolution after the Senate will then they say it's a right wing talking point even on the democratic debate stage, when they were talking to immigration there, like that's all right wing, talking are you? What are you kidding me? Do it seems like there's? Just quite literally I don't. I don't know man, I don't know, what's left right anymore. I you know, I have another segment plan for the next stop coming up at six p m Youtube accomplished him guest, which I will be playing soon for those that are losing the podcast where I'm just trying to They got. What left and right even means anymore, because I dont know because you ve got you got pro truck socialists, you got you ve got Jacob in,

magazine praising show host by progressive and conservative. You ve got. You got people or socialist, to hate the Democrats and literally say the same things I do every day, but no one in their right mind would call them right wing. I don't even know what what what what If this is so look the problem, I see I'm an anomaly. Go for. Ok, I'm a show you the graphic again. I shall this graphical time take a look at us. They say Democrats, Republicans what you're seeing is a graph from the economist tracking the the view of the political factions

of Republicans and Democrats that other political leanings- and you can see it since nineteen eighty- the republicans- have come to coalesced around a common ideology and belief structure their unified. Yes, sir, it's about her. If you ve got you ve got this more centrist and in the more conservative and but for the most part, most conservatives fall right. The middle. The Democrats are completely fractured, with the biggest faction being further laughed and then a dwindling faction moving towards centre. There is no unified view of what Democrats are, so you then end up with people like to see who clearly don't fit and our warning the bulk, but because they're always you know so desperately trying to understand or or uncharted technically trying to stay within the trial. Boundaries which there aren't any and there's collecting conflicting views. None of it makes sense. I think this graph explains more than just what I've used it for in the past, right that the liberals and Democrats are fractured. I think it also explains why

You end up with so many Democrats. Fighting each other and accusing people on the left have been republican, and I think it easily explains why people like me policy will be smeared by the laughed I'll be called rightwing whenever become critical of Democrats, as you can clearly see, there is no unified democratic position, Republicans have theirs. The Democrats do not, and so there it there are bigger factions right. You can see here further to the left of work or the Democrats are there a bigger bump, but then a trails off towards the centre? This is the civil war happen under democratic base and because I'm clearly a more moderate actor in this. The bulk of of of Democrats, which are further left, will look to me as on their right and an you're, so much money before imagine looking on the street, and you see a bunch The wedding american flags behind them, easy money, but waving. You know like confederate flax when you're far away, it looks like there in one group, but if you actually go around and zoom out, you can see that the people, the american flags, are in the middle and after the further

other confederate flags and they're, not even in the same rally, but from far away. You see it because of death reception, that's kind of outworks most these Democrats look to their right and they will see Trump supporters and they'll, see me first and I'll say right, winger or face left winger or whatever, as long as Democrats, are refusing to to listen to this message, I think therein, for all the trouble, and I can't for life me figure out why there's no spying in any of these people, stand up and say: no, I mean I get it. You look what I was a posse she's, the she's she's that used to be made an example of the divorced base, the Twitter Roddy, the media. They do not represent America, they represent their weird, elitist faction, and there is I've shown that article several times a week from vocs saying the Democratic Party, the party of the wealthy elites or had become it.

And so anyone who dares about of wine and warn the Democrats there there spiralling out of control. They will make an example of you. They will smear. You was all right as far right as all of the worst things in the book but they're out there. There is something I do want to point out, as I represent as I wind down on this one political reports impeachment tribal supercharged battle for the Senate. Next year's trial threatens to Yoke Senate races to the presidential election. One of the things is often overlooked is that what Democrats may be hoping for as they lose the impeachment fight, they know they will lose the trump their hoping they might win some Senate seats. I disagree, though, I really really really do that's that's. One of the arguments are Democrats are thinking because impeachment is so popular among Democrats. Even I've got a little bit, they can maybe rile up their base for a Senate victory and take some more of the upper chamber. I don't think

so, though, because the Senate raises often reflect the presidential race, I think trumps based gonna come out heavily and check mark every all across the board and liked Elsie said trot gotta be re elected and the house is going to lose all their seats, because this is a last ditch Hale Mary for the Democrats to try and get whatever they can. But I tell you what mental say. I said I want to say it again if they just came out and conceded the fact that tromp was right about the economy it when they can't do it, though, because if you can see what happens to any whose steps out of line and that's Tulsa, Gabert and even to an extent, you know, Bernie Sanders

Andrea or otherwise. The media cuts them out of the press. They black out the kinetic. They don't want them to win. They want that Buddha judge. They want that Joe Biden or those of us with Warren. So if you dare support of line and try to do anything that might unite this country, you'll be punished for it. But I look I look at the future. You may cynical Prager, you shows an all time. Ninety ninety four Republicans and Democrats almost entirely overlapped. We were a unified nation for the most part today completely fracture, but it's worse than just fractured. Republicans are unified a note. They want their actively recruiting there there there supporting to an extent people like Tarsi, Gabert and people like me, even though we route, we repeatedly Jack them, I think surely hilarious. It shows that the trumpet What are being savvy and the Democrats are being insane because, even though can come on every day and say something like I don't like tromp. I won't board format. I don't like the guy. Even though tells you governed come out and say and call the president unfit for office

Accusing the unconstitutional actions in foreign policy, tromp supporters will still say: come on over and have a beer, I'm listening, and that is an act that that that position they have will guarantee. You convince many done. To actually make the leap, even though also never will then I closed the door there just at their fingers crossed laughing making. In about me saying. Why would shake the redtail term because not believe in the politics, but almost possible for honestly have no idea policy right, but we can just see here in this corner of you, no old school liberals who understand. The power of concession and compromise that we're not always gonna. Whenever fight that, we have to respect the views of our neighbours and brothers and sisters in the United States that we're gonna have a conversation and figure out where we can move forward together, give a little get a little right. The Democrats seem to be planned this kamikaze game. What he's gonna drive off the edge of the cliff and is what it is I'm I'm I'm just you know, I'm so frustrated because there are there. So many people who are they

I mean this item. Take the red pill vote for troublesome and that's not gonna happen. It's not like I've got this stuff pulled up for later segment on. What are you define the left and the right? It's all sides dot com- and I very clearly fall mostly in the left wing camp, even Jeff then drew does and he's the perfect example of what's wrong with these people, the Republicans are sent back with their feet up, saying: hey, Jeff, yeah, you're Democrat come on over Trump takes his hand and endorses the guy who's, the guy Back Nancy, closing nearly every step of the way, a guy who wants to ban offshore drilling trump, like don't care, come on the party we'd love to have you and what that means is also, traffic again, the Republicans are unified and as they have US on majority. They can gladly accept many refugees from a democratic party and they won't be conceding much ground, but you know this: there are people like

me who are willing to concede if it means stability and that's the economy and trumps, giving it on a lot of people say fine. You know what I disagree with the policy. I disagree with the cultural issues, but it's better than this so they refused to hear the warning doesn't matter. What's the point was the point of trying? Let them EU spiral out of control, accuse us of being all the worse things in the book? They can accuse policy of being an apologist. They can call me right wing whenever fine, you, ve lost a massive portion of people who want to be Democrats till see. Gabert has hundreds of thousands of unique donors and has raised tons of money. Ok, she's. She didn't qualify for the last debate, but he had a bigger run than most of whose establishment Democrats she made a longer than Kemal Harris right. She's raised more money from more individual donors. Think about all of those.

You know a hundred and twenty thousand people who actively support policy. Gabert war, not conservative, for your telling get out of here. We don't want you or do you think they're gonna go! Ok, if tells you doesn't run just do not want their party, would even going to vote for you think they're going to vote, for you have everything you didn't said. Not likely proceed again. Republicans are sitting near the door. The ball resulted in their fanning everybody. Overall, not some beers and saying we might disagree. I think your ideas are dumb his hat but come on into the party man. We're not gonna, kick your be mean, do about it and that's what you get anyway. Dago stick around next, I was coming up at six p m. You two becomes liked him cast news and I'll see you owe them. Last night, several people notice that a series of tweets from Donald Trump had seemingly disappeared. If you went to his twitter page, you would notice nothing out of the ordinary, but if you are looking for a specific tweets, they just weren't there

well. This is the official explanation we got the other day, Brien's doctor. If CNN tweeting, a twitter spokesmen confirms the play, format suspended some of the modest sphere accounts that tromp retweeted in a tweet storm last night for unspecified violations of twitter rules. Some of the accounts looked very spamming and suspicious engage sure. Whatever don tromp tweeted stuff that stuff just seemingly wasn't there, but you could still click the link and go to the tweet. Many people said This is shadow banning and yeah. It was, however, it's just a glitch. The president's tweets were invisible to any but he would visit his big because it was an accident right seriously that they were I believe it was an accident. These accidents happen all the time and why They only ever happen in one direction. Here's a story, Trump retweet of alleged whistle blower name- is back on track well. One of the tweets Trop put out was than was a reach. We,

where someone said the name of the whistle blower that I'm not allowed to say, even though the president himself has treated it, how does that mean? since I have no idea. What do you do for comment to see if we are now allow to say the name of the whistle blower considering the president himself, has retreated out the guy's name guy. Surely its grounds for us to say a name right- and you took a stretch of say this, but Bloomberg reports. A retreat by president I'll, drop, naming the alleged whistleblower, whose complaint triggered the congressional inquiry that resulted in his impeachment this month was stored late Saturday, night after being hidden for much of the day as in shadow band. As an ok shadow banning is when nobody knows not even you that your post is invisible, so so basically happens is most shadow banning instances. You will see your tweet like normal. No one else will and you don't know what had happened. Facebook actually allows you to do. This. Are someone comments on your post? You can click hide and only they can see. It is actually very clever.

General ideas. If the person seized their post remove, they might post again if they think they're posters there, but no one's engaging with it, then they might just think it was a bad post. It is an attack. At socially engineering, trolls and bad behaviour on the internet. But let me tell you when you do it to the president and we got Europe's problems, the post originally from the handle, surfer mom. Seventy seven was retreated by tromp around midnight. Friday, on Saturday morning was no longer visible in the president's twitter feed at sea and unreported like Saturday, the detail removal, father, twitter, glitch that affected certain accounts, not deliberate action to delete the tweet by tromp or someone with. Access to a twitter account, you know a man, I just don't know. If I should care anymore how, but I just get my van finally drive off into the middle. The woods coefficient. How stupid do they think we are that this happens all the time, how many videos at a Meda

this three hundred or the past several years. I mean I tell you what I wanted the Joe broken by cast talking just about stuff like this and they say- oh notes him you're crazy, is just an exit and it's a mistake. Then it turns out. You see people Ronnie Mcdaniel get shadow ban from search, the president's own tweets are by a glitch removed and remember when that twitter employee actually deleted trumps account, and it was a big panic. Yes, all just an accident, don't don't mind the man behind the curtain, your just crazy. It's nobody at Twitter, whose working on things that, but it may potential bias, and whether intentional or not it's just not happening you're crazy, you're. All nuts AIDS is, if not on purpose, here's here's ears, the beers, the worst case scenario, people at Twitter, our toiling their moustache and laughing and typing away in banning the president, another conservative accounts, or am I

establishment accounts. I know what I think is more likely. It is that the system is built by people who are biased, and so they view conservatives add, as others and conservative behaviors as other, and so when they say we only ban hate, they don't care about people like Sarah John, for instance, who post racist stuff for years because the them it's not racist but learned a coat. You better believe it you're out. Thrill of more than a statement of CNN twittering said that the that, due to an outrage with one of its systems, tweets on account profiles were visible, the sum but not to others. On Saturday, the Washington Post report at the outer edge affects tweets from millions users, twitter, didn't immediately responds to a Bloomberg news request for comment. As us.

This morning. The message was again visible to trumps. Sixty eight million twitter followers, the tweet identifies a person. It's, as is the whistle blower. The personal first alerted members of Congress to the president's conduct in his July. Twenty four phone call with Ukrainian Ukraine, President billionaires Linsky. What what? What? What? What what will hold on Bloomberg? I think you may have accidentally just confirmed, had tendency of the whistleblowers Now I get what they're doing, but I will tell you the mistake here: it says the tweet identifies a person. It says the whistle blower. It then goes on to say the person who first alerted members of Congress. So while I dont think that was their intent, some people may look at it. That way, and that's my warning to you, Their clear intent is to explain what a whistle blower is, but actually sounds like they're saying this person is the person who first at this, in which case there would be the whistle blower, which would be unconfirmed I can't say that aim in its individual, even the president himself retweeted and it's a subject of the story I'm reading to you, but I welcome to the future.

It's it's an amazing bit of irony right that I am doing so. Worry about potential censorship shadow banning and in this exact segment, were I'm telling you these platforms are doing this. It is it is. It is happening, whether its intentional or accidental. It is clearly happening, and they would say no, sir. It is just a glitch you're insane and I can't even see the name of the guy in the tweet. So yeah we're all crazy. You know a man I'm so of offer office. There is a beautiful lake somewhere in Minnesota full of fish. Just waiting for me to put that Van casting line out and say this is your problem now, but how amazing that every single time, something like this happens, they say, was just an accident and I literally can't say: name you think it was an accident.

Literally can't say the guy's name. Ok, yeah non driving that point home, but it's true simultaneously they're saying trumped is being genuine by mistake, but you better not say that name otherwise, will ban you from Youtube. That's right! I've had I had one video forced private, further, I don't know if you say the whistleblowers name on Youtube at any point, they will take your video enforce it into private motor so that no one can see it. Yup welcome the news that the new world I mean you know it's funny is that if that the censorship can't work because have to simultaneously sensor every single person who try talking about censorship, and you can't do it you're playing echo more with billions of accounts, ok, millions of accounts, it probably billions because the above multiple against What you got millions of accounts, one of em, says a naughty word, so you bob out with the mallet and then ten pop up, saying censorship and in your like, so you can't hide it. It's impossible to actually stop this. In fact,

by removing the tweet from trumps account with whether was intentional or not. You ve only made the story. Much much bigger and now everyone's gonna go to trumps. Accountancy with a tweet was naming the whistle blower the president himself. Sorry, I can't tell you what the president said, because we live in a nightmarish Estonia, where people are a lot of talk about the words of our elected present The White House did not respond, as they say this Saturday afternoon. The account which posed a variety of pro trump and anti democratic material was shown on Twitter as having been temporarily restricted. Its now been restored and carries Trump photo as its profile picture. You don't really funny truly funding frustrating. Is that, like They want me to say that its fake news. They want me to Look you in the camera and tell you none of this is real. None of this is real, and if I don't do that, this am right wing the world we live in today that I can say something like you know. My official position politically is like not a fan of republican policy or right wing policy for the most part, but

you're doing politics as they ve always done it and their winning. The Democrats, on the other hand, are playing ridiculous games playing impeachment into turning them, and, if I say and patron is a bad idea that war Democrats they sam right, when, if I tell you the truth right wing, that's again so on our italian man, it's it's almost impossible to actually talk about what is actually going on. What I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I was wrong. It's literally impossible because some subjects are so taboo. I can't even tell you what happened. You know there's, the story about something in New York last night. Horrifying tragedy can tell you about it. I really can't, because you too will punish me, for there are, doing it we got new data, might do, for my main channel new data showing that basically they are punishing and flying to destroy independent commentary now well welcome to the world of their doing so. I don't know how long I am for this digital career, whatever what it was to do about it,

the machine is the machine and the establishment laughed not even the progressive. Let the establishment wants wants this. They use the press, they lie and they play games. Is it what what good journalists would be like? Twitter is right? It was a glitch. I do some legwork men do some actual groundwork. Investigate what actually happened. You know there's a trump has posed by the whistle blower dozens of times over the months and also suggested in comments to reporters that he would like to unmask the face of the individual, like every American. I deserve to meet my accuser, Trop treated in September, well loved this. Is it I'll admit that I dont think you know? we have tried playing the whistle blowers, the accuser like not really, I mean kind of so Oh it. It is a bit of a conundrum in that the whistleblowers and accused accuse Trump actually nodded it back. There was applauded accused of a crime like, I suppose, but Congress than so we're weird situation on Thursday,

tromp also retreated a link to a December third article from the conservative washed and examiner that carry the name of the alleged whistleblower attorney Andrew package represents the whistle blower lamented in a tweet on Saturday that? U S lawmakers when the past have championed the rights of whistleblowers, including our public and senator chalk, grossly have shown deafening silence. Recently, This is a defining moment where legacies will either be solidified or destroyed. Well, know its awesome, Brian Spelter of seed and will, of course, just toe the line wherever that, whatever the corporate you know messages right Spelter is not somebody. Look, I'm not I'm not saying this to be overtly disrespectful to man, but you gotta journalist, right to an extent. I guess is fair to say he is insane capacity. I am but both brine and I are doing ground work. You know journals and for the most part some times, but so does Hannity sometimes

you know I mean rise over, goes in a show and he'll pines about the media and how these things work on any publishes comments. I guess you could technically call that like the lowest tier of journalism, and I would if I would put myself in the exact same camp for the most part, I'm commenting on various stories, giving my thoughts of opinions and every so often. I actually do some some grandma I used to do almost all groundwork, but for a ride reasons I've moved away from it, the most notable being it got to dangerous too may peoples by recognising me for the various content I was doing, and I decided you know, I became too dangerous by targeting threats. So here I am sitting by the camera telling you I thank and trying to break down these stories much similar to what brine sector is doing in a variety of ways. So this is a big problem. The big problem is, my criticism is stealthy. Tells people not to listen to other peoples are now. You should listen to hand a guy things, bombastic usually sentiment and tomato she's even worse, and you shall isn't a stout there's. You listen to me and other people, not a factor for yourself The problem now is that you have major corporate voices with massive followings

saying whatever the machine says to say uncritically you're, not getting the truth Someone says, oh by the way Twitter says, was a glitch. Don't worry about it? No, that's not the truth! Ok, you don't know the truth. Is I can't tell you truth, twitter. Do it on purpose, but I certainly would say it is dubious at best that it was an accident because how many accidents need to keep happening before you, ve won the lottery. That's why I was so people when you buy a lot of ticket. You have five coincidences until you actually one and the odds are astronomical by tell you this. You can win, but about this about this point. If you can accurately get these five or six numbers, not gonna lottery gang your plane, then you're just lucky right, I don't mean lucky in the magical sense I mean just like well, the numbers came up, congratulations but giving the point is. When you, when the lottery every month for three years at some point a commissioners come down and start doing investigations.

You see, I mean there. Was it there's a woman who, on the lottery like six times and yeah people, start to investigate, and sometimes they find there's fraud, like somebody works, thought they know about the Lotto, we're picking the numbers will rig it, so their friends could win try and do something you know about illegal point, his men. How is it that it was a left wing outlet gizmo that broke the story? What two years ago, about conservative censorship on social media? I say that these items, conservative. What? Because I made a video about it, you don't men the problem now is Had to be in the center, you would have to lie. I literally mean that you know I have people asking you like why don't you make a video about Mitch, Mcconnell and what he's doing and unlike what they do, what they tell me, I'm it seriously. I've criticise them. I don't like the guy at all. I think him and every other congressperson should be removed. I don't agree with politics and I think is facing legitimate challenge in Kentucky the problem

right now, as you get someone coming up and saying? Oh, you know how fifty times now there's been a weird shadow ban of conservatives. It's nothing! Ok! Great, that's the message that strategy that a toe the corporate line, otherwise they they smear you and accuse you like. They call tools he gabert republican. You know a man. There is no way to be a legitimate centrist unless you lie. That's how polarized everything has become an. I gotta say it's, it's frustrating, there's nothing! You can do about it. If you are concerned about legitimate acts that you know, break the rules and break norms. I'll give you an example, Ukraine, meddling by all metrics gate of of gauging ukrainian meddling occurred just by saying that right wing conspiracy, russian propaganda, that's not true than your time politico the hill and uniformity in modern times, but this is the best way to explain because the progressive view tubers in order to maintain their there

progressive bona fides are saying that it's a conspiracy theory. They just told the lined whatever corporate presses setting. Even though is the corporate press who said it happened in the first place, it is the most insane reality. Basically, right now,. Right wing means you're, calling out the fake news in the lies. I guess so because I can, all day and be like. Let me explain to you: I'm in a way can make sense and local jurisdictions. Let me explain to our social programmes are correct. Let me explain to you why can serve as a wrong about the bootstraps analogy, but so is the progressive left and that's right wing? Why? Because I think Brien's Delta giving the full story, because I think it's insane to assume and do no digging just assume the truth is that once again for the fifty billionth time these companies have accidentally. So Certain somebody yeah we have data now showing that mainstream media receiving major boosts, an independent commentary is being restricted and we ve had the data for a while

yet for some reason you will still here the exact same lies: Youtube radicalized people to the all right, it's fake, but the New York Times on the front page, if I call it out right wing, ok, you know what man your words mean. Nothing to me, I don't care a rapid up. Their trump is being censored. Ok, and I think that the simple solution would be that, because you have a company of so many biased individuals, their building a structure based around their biased, I do not quite understand and result in these things learn to code got people band. That was in no way violation of violation of any rules at all. Come on. It's so obvious, what's happening yet they will tell you time and time again. It was just a mistake. Ok, I'm done I'll see you all at one p m on this gentle. They sprang up.

The purpose of a word is to share an idea if I said the word apple to you, you can picture and apple in your head But what if the word to me meant something entirely different? You would picture the wrong thing The idea I'm trying to convey would never reach you and that's happening as activists. Try to change that in other words, for whatever reason or whether or not you think it's right or wrong. The fact remains it's happening and we ve got a media that loves, the game, because it makes a circus show- and I know I'm not trying to be offensive with his family- on trying to be offensive as possible to the media, who wants to use the spectacle twist words to make something shocking and unrecognizable so that you go to this. You go to the circus and what you see a big all sign reads: man eating chicken and then your head. What do you picture? Do picture gigantic chicken monster? That's going to eat a man or do picture of fat guy sitting a chair eating checking the point is the phrase conveys nothing other than confusion shop and why

under the circus, Joe tailored to the story, transgender men gives birth to non binary partners baby with female sperm donor exclusive, proud, dad Reuben Sharp has revealed how he gave birth to miracle baby Jamie with Partner J in Britain's most modern family, and even the couples doktor was transgender for I hope I have nothing against the family and no capacity, I'm happy for them to regulations. I think show you kind of an eye story. When you get past how the media weapon eyes is the nonsense for click bait. First,

transgender man gives birth to non binary partners, baby completely totally false with female sperm donor completely in totally false. First of all, its not the nine non binary partners baby in any logical sense of the word, because the non binary partner provided nothing towards the creation of the baby other than as a family they're having a baby. A female sperm donor quite literally, cannot exist because sex engender are two different things and female does not produce sperm. You could say woman or trans woman. You see. The fact is that constructed a type, come see in the shop five dollars left, read the story and I'll I'll break down for you. What actually happened, because if I wanted to convey to you the actual idea I'll have said man eating chicken. I see in the shop five dollars. What's the story and I'll break down for you? What actually happened, because if I wanted to convey to you the actual idea,

the actual information using real words out is. Unlike this, female receives sperm donation from Trans woman and gives birth to baby. That's probably the best way you could explain it. If you want a really really be reductive and exclude identity, you could say female receives you noticed female gives birth to baby after receiving sperm donor from male. That's it instead, as words, become meaningless and click bake, becomes all the rage of media. Lo and behold once again welcome to the circus spectacle. The mirror reports proud dad Reuben Sharp today tells how he gave what you said it. He and Capel's gave birth to a miracle baby in Britain's most modern family. Thirty, nine year old, into a man at twelve years ago, but he still had matters instincts and six years ago, stop taking testosterone in the hope of one day having a child and

dream came true when he partner, when he and partner J, had announcing baby J as Non binary. So does not stop. So does not what there's no pronoun there. So they do not so they does not identify as male or female. Let's be real. J is a theme There is nothing wrong with being female or mail, and you can still be transgender and we can point out what the word is supposed to convey. The reason why they he did a donor is because J is biologically female but doesn't identify as a specific agenda conflict. None of this makes sense, not tell you what man I don't care. I find it are not I'm sick and tired of the insanity. No one knows what is or isn't anymore because words are becoming meaningless. How can I tell you what's happening if news outlets are going to claim that a female can produce sperm when they most certainly cannot period? Ok, there are there for the most part. For the most part, I recognise that nothing is absolute, but overwhelmingly female refers to the prudent production you know of over of eggs and mail,

for the production of sperm, so no female does not make sense. They are simply trying to use a new understanding of what the word doesn't mean, but it does mean some people when there actually referencing a trans woman. Let's radon. I hope this is good sufficiently confusing for all of you. Notice when they talk about J than even use agenda pronoun, because I don't know what to say, how can I convey to you and ideas? We can understand the world if we can't even talk about it, because people are offended by the words you use. The sperm donor was a trans woman and even the doktor was transgender. No, it's something that matters. The story here is the same old story period, somebody whatever family. They got a donor they're having a family, I dont see white needs to be a spectacle and why me to be propped up for Furthermore, if we want this to be considered normal, then how can we have a media telling us? It's not. You see the problem. I made this point at a u to meeting years ago when it.

Don't talk about how we could normalize. You know certain religions and, like you know, get people to stop, makes extreme, and I said the fact remains are affected the more you try and bash into someone's had how something is normal, the more they feel it's not because you're telling them something different about it, you're telling them. This is not normal. Bye bye, literally going to someone saying look at this story, putting he and all caps, not using pronouns and trying to accentuate what is not normal about this, you are not normalizing, it you're doing the opposite, you're, making a spectacle of it. This I find particularly offensive, and if there is anything that was transphobia, it's quite literally this ok, you can explain to people simply not offensively. May not, I guess it s, you can't, because everything's offensive nothing makes sense. The role is collapsing. I hope to a what This can happen in twenty twenty. No one's can fail to speak English anymore. It's a really funny skit, where it's like a school teaching, people who speak English and their teaching them like verbs and adverbs, and they go now. Let's get to the proton section

and they turned out of the board in there's, like eight hundred words of like Caesar's IMS. Am me no booth, barf whatever and end the p. We're trying to learn English. Our like y yeah, exactly language is just a way to convey ideas, and what we have now our people who, for some reason what control over words problem is people don't all agree on what words mean: oh I get it might save yourself. Woman is an adult human female, hey! That's the dictionary defines that's how it could be defined that I think it's fair to say, but you go to certain progressive, sir, you go to the media and they'll say woman is, the representation of serpents certain social constructs take okay than then, then. What will the it's, a female can literally be a man, a male I'm not kidding? That's literally, what's happening:

so long as, as you know, look in the past I feel like the world was imagine imagined to people. You have a crazy leftist and you have a staunch conservative. The leftist has harness on a rope and the conservative is pulling that rope as the leftist slowly drags marching forward to the left. That's kind of how things went. Conservatives held the left back from going too far and the left constantly tried to push left, never knowing where to start and thus of the past hundred years. Societies are drifting slowly and left where direction something weird happened when social media emerged and people started complaining about the concerns holding the rope such media companies snip the rope and on the left just bolted off as fast as possible and theirs. Getting out of control and crashing into walls, and conservatives are standing in the exact same spot. They ve always been that's kind of the way. I view the world so now you have this right. There's a story from

Nbc knows that I just don't even only Mormon. I apologize banned from me tomorrow, even care on so over. There I'm busy news, rent a story where they said children as young as five or whenever start to identify with their gender playing with toys and other things like this and their gender identity is just as strong as a syringe says, gendered child. Ok, I have no problem with the research. Fine, oh. What's that, we're simultaneously being told that gender as a social construct and that boys and girls can vote play, with dolls or or logos and its society making girls play with those who hold on if gender is a social contract, but then telling a little boy, pleasant dolls, that he's Trans is scientific fact. Then what what is or isn't? There is no understanding of truth anymore, and that's it. That's the waiters, you're gonna. Do Do they want to do a longer segment. For my main point who does what was gonna packets? Probably I heard it but dumb might,

the reason the story about the odd the Trans family really triggered me got me really angry. Is now has nothing to do with the family at their their very happy. I'm very happy they're happy. I think we are more happiness in the world. May memo part two they are doing what they want with their freedom, loving lives and that's kind of the freedom Levin view of what I am, I think they're in the UK, but I think that's what's frames all about the Vatican. Vague they went through a donor is your kind of normal things. If they want to live their life, assert why so be it s our particular conservative view. I think conservatives are more interested in traditional families all this stuff, but I believe an individual freedom, people pursuing things to make them happy so long as we have certain protections on trying to cause harm to others. The problem I have is almost always how the media weapon eyes as things, how they jump on board because it gets the clicks they want and this story from just the other day already from last night. Thirty one thousand shares Bravo good Sir

and where is the left to call out the spectacle, whereas the left to criticise the media. You're saying something is silliest female squirmed arria, there's no more than one site because always been conservatives who have held back the left. Would that tether being snipped? Basically, what that means is social media companies will ban you if you criticise this, but that's literally what we need, because we need to build a figure out what the hell they're really talking about great noise at the each word and believe it or not. You can't sit and untrue. On Youtube is you're, crazy things. I've gotten, I can't say certain words like unexplained you certain ideas, but they can certainly pump out. This is in circus spectacle. Garbage it's a family had a kid great thanks move on, but it fits such a shock factor that its the spectacle for them- and so they know, writing this ridiculous headline, it makes no sense. Is gonna get em traffic and it does you know a man, I think we're doomed

I think I think we're in serious trouble when it comes to the future of our politics, because the right is being censored. It's a fact Kay and it's just conservatives, it's any moderate who might recognize this call it out to their or segment. I did Donald Trump tweets, were, were shadow abandoned and twitter was obliged, but it keeps happening and when that keeps happening when you Ben People who say hey. This is a bit too much. Then all that can happen is the left will run away unchecked into absurd to the point now where we simultaneously have listen. I've talked about in the past where, like, if you said they make blamed the word women with an ax. So it's w, oh, am acts and women. They said that was the right word to use, because it includes a inclusive word and encompasses all the kinds of women. Well, that a bunch of other feminists got mad, saying we mix and was exclusionary because it creates a new word and transmit. Our women therefore needed the war was born

simultaneously inclusive an exodus of experts. At the same time, and no matter which word you used, you were going to get attacked on social media for using the wrong word. There is no right way to do anything. Perhaps it will really happen is because the left has run so far off the edge they will spiral out of control and people eventually give up trying to figure out what the hell they're really. Talking about, but now we have this the gender binary social construct. Paradox we, simultaneously, true that females can produce sperm but that gender subtle construct, but that little boys playing with dolls are in fact, Trans and should take hormones to biologically transition. But at the same I'm a little girl who doubt places legos is not trans she's, just breaking gender norms. There's no answer as literally no right answer out. Even the framing of this video is gonna, be other than everything's crazy things falling apart.

There is no accurate way to describe what the hell is. This really means, so you know what it comes to a point where people like me who try to be reasonable. Try tried to be kind of in the middle to understand what both sides are saying. I say no idea. I really dont dishonestly right fine by all means flag. My video trying it me back. I don't care anymore, dude! Listen When you say a kid playing with dolls is trans, but that a kid plain withal is breaking the vine area and that there is no. Gender binary and bilateral sex doesn't exist, but that people can transition between biological sexes did I'm just lost, ok and you're just gonna happen. People are gonna, reject every last drop of it. You you, you do literally have people claiming that you can strangest transition from milk. Jordan Petersen debated a professor who said bilateral sex doesn't exist if bilateral sex exist and how does how'd you trends jet parry.

Are you transgender literally at all you it both can't exist right? I've heard the argument from actual trans people. I think Contra points brought this up. With the binary you have someone who's. Male wanting to transition to female, though they will really biologically female, they will take hormones to approximated to the best of our scientific abilities. But if there is, gender binary and behaviour, Our social constructs than their quite literally is no trans support. This way, why would a trans person who is male, want a beard If women can have beards, and women literally can have beards, it's rare, but it happens if a man can wear addressed, and still be a man at what point does that men become a woman if it is easy to the problem with boy? the simultaneous Lee Social Construct, but also biological sex things they dont coexist properly. So tell you what here's my position! I have no idea what you bet you talking about, I more than it

trusted in expanding the laws and and and helping and trying to practical civil rights, but not if there's two people of the same faction telling me two different things by all means. Tell me I just dont understand, but I really dont and I'm trying to tell you that. So why don't you come at below and break this down? First, I need you to define what the word woman is and what the word man is to find those forming. After that, I want you define what gender subtle constructors, and then I want you to define what biological sexes, assuming you believe or don't believe in it, assuming you don't believe in it. Plain to me, what you think the difference between a man and a Trans man is or a man and a trans woman. If there's no biological sacks than quite literally

to identical twins. Could both animal tameness will be male and female at the same time right, but they have to an unequal twins, both biologically mail. If gender as a social construct and their both wearing suits, could I call one of them? A woman and female because females have sperm, I'm lost man, I'm just been fungus frustrate with all it. Welcome a twenty twenty have a happy new year. Stick around next Eichmann coming up at four p m: you do that comes lashed him. Guest and I will see you there well lo and behold. Buzz feed and vocs are sad that people know the name of the alleged whistleblower, the President retweeted of tweet, with the guy's name in it In that everybody knows a name that I care not say on you too, which is the most insane distill paean nightmarish reality. That it? The president himself can say years the name and then you

oh can't repeat it because they will ban you and remove you from the infrastructure we used to communicate and sell things you see in today's day and age. The storefront is closing We are no a rate. Retailers dying as Amazon takes over the digital world is becoming ever. Our economies are digitizing people can actually leave big cities. It's a good thing, except for the fact that their private corporations that can set arbiter rules and respect your rights, perhaps we need some kind of digital bill of rights. People are proposed in the past, but maybe we do especially as people now in rural areas are to be underlined. Conversation is the internet expands. But let me just stress: here's ears, a story from Busby right wing. Publishers have found a way to post the supposed Trump whistleblowers named Spock Facebook, so that sharing you aroused the name of the person believed to be the whistle blower is against their policies. Stop new sites from doing it at what point

You can see. The name is public and people have a right to speak, you'd think when the president himself tweeted something out with the name in it, we'd be allowed to say it. But now the world we live in is that politicians can say what they want and you cannot. It's not just Buzzfeed. Surprise surprise. VOX drop is trying to out the alleged Ukraine whistleblower on Twitter, dude, anyone and their mother can Google search it and see the deeds name. I think at this point it's that would see what As far as to say, their saw upset that people have figured out how to share a name that is already public and posted to worth websites has been said on numerous mainstream television programmes. I think it was Maybe maybe not it wasn't on Fox news. It think at that point we start talking about it and since being scrapped, an imminent Buzzfeed rights, Facebook told

Us we'd news in November. They don't be removing content that feature. The name of the CIA officer and former National Security Council staffer, whom private Republicans have claimed for months, is the whistle blower whose anonymous complaint sparked the president's impeachment here's a question. I have four any instance of the name, certainly he's not the only person in the world who has that name, gay we'll call, do a simpsons job, but also get banned. If I do it all now, get the veal ban, so I'm not going to say it, but they do not have a decently common. So the most common aim in the world. But I have to believe that there is at least a couple thousand people in the world that this guy's name. So what? If you personally on Facebook, where you're like I have a chiropractor, he lives in Dubuque. His name is, I can't say, but what are we just posted it? Would Facebook ban you I'd curious, we'll see what happens. Busby goes on to say, except the name is still all over the platform. So say it dude, it's not Voldemort what you scared of now, Europe Buzzy, I can't say, because you too will take me down fine.

You can at least eight Euro news website essays. I will name- is regularly shared to Facebook in headlines in your rules, written by protract media outlets, a Facebook spokesman, and reiterated on Thursday that any mention of the name of the person, but to be the whistle blower violate its coordinating. Our policy, which prohibits the outing of a witness, informant or activist spokesman and said that even including the name, any url share in the post violates sites policies boy do high of an epic paradoxical conundrum idea? Why is a bit of post about somebody? You knew with the same if Facebook is willing to take down any instance of the name. Even if it's you know Josh, from Dubuque. Ai Weiwei is not doing anything political and is a fifty year old. Cairo tractor, was married. Father afford let's say you post something about that. If they took down that post that would make a

really weird statement about them, knowing who the name is actually saying that it is providing a weird situation right. Let's say you know nothing about politics. You post the name of your friend weapons have the same then, what a facebook took it down. What would you say what what's your name, do you gotta get within from Facebook bigots or what is everyone's? Everyone change their name. What, if people had accounts, and this was their name. I don't mean, like I'm elect. Yet what about the people actually have? This name will face a ban them. I did a search on Facebook. I found many accounts of people who changed their name to the whistleblowers name, but I also did find a couple. People who have this name is Facebook than a ban them. That's tough call. Are they going to request an idea from everybody who has the name? I will see what happens. I ought to say that

Spock reiterated yadda yadda, but content feature in the name of the CIA analysed continue to go viral on the platform. When asked how Facebook plans to moderate the thousands of links containing the whistleblowers name post the platform, the spokesperson said they would be removed as the site identified them. But that doesn't seem to be any moderation of yourselves containing this Yea analysts name making matters worse ever use- are worth a search that aim, circulating and right wing media. Currently, Facebook search feature pulls up. Posts that include urls, then include is opposing whistleblowers name. Why is Facebook and silent is Buzzfeed so adamant on censoring a name. Why? Who cares the names you know the name. We all know the name, that's it. Why won't you just say it? Isn't this weird come on man? You gotta admit it's creepy right, so Furthermore, according to social metrics website, buzz sumo before Our shared public facebook, post containing deposit whistleblowers, name usually in the url or headline of the third party link, we're all

pushed by american conservative activists group judicial watch, their posts have been shared, a collective of twenty five thousand times since November and they ve also far lawsuits about the name. Think about our present, there is a serious political effort happening to figure out with his person as because of perceived bias. There is probable cause, I'm not saying proof probable cause to investigate the individual activists. Groups are doing so Facebook. It Buzzfeed wants these groups and that's incredible men? What if there was somebody who, like on Renault, was working in the government and like had information about something which you knew he was like. You know no NEO Nazi and we're like we to figure out who does Nazi is working to truck campaign, who HU, the whistle on those nobler you're gonna be happy. The facebook is blocking this. You people are not the right wing media.

Frenzy or other sea analysed, reached a fever pitch this week when a Publican President Donald Trump retreated a tweet Thursday containing the name between was positive trump worm. So here they are acknowledging The president himself has published the name, you can't say cancer than it welcome to surf dumb. I guess, there is an elite class of individuals who are allowed to do whatever they want, and it's not you and they were make sure over at Busby the authoritarian maintain their position. Patently that's a right wing position now to criticise here's, a quote, hundred were every everytime trumps. Twitter makes a move. Facebook practically follows the washing examiner link that Trop retreat has been shared five thousand times on total face on total on Facebook, since it was published in summer. Third, according to social metrics website, proud tangle, the story was largely dormant on Facebook as December twelve, but recirculated among right wing groups and pages following terms retweet, it's pretty simple. Syria whistleblower is not a real whistleblower. The twig rates, along with a link to a Washington,

dammit or article that contain the name of the CIA analysed in the headline in Europe: I see examiner is a reputable newspaper. It is not. Some fly by night could make blog publish, publishes vagueness, legitimate newspaper talking about individual judicial watch is a well known activists group at files. You know four requests same as any left, wingers other would do and of all namely individual? What is this freaky new reality were living in where the name as being scrubbed- and you can't say it. I sent an email, Youtube. Asking now that the president has set the name technically. Can I say it so far? No response I get it. The holidays will see what happens But I'm willing to bet there's going to be no they're, gonna, say you're not allowed to say this name, because you know what we, the big tech monopoly, can ban things arbitrarily. Even if the president is talking about welcoming the nightmare men, they say twitter. However,

allows you to say that they trumps war room tweet, including the name of the whistle blower, is not a violation of the twitter rules? Isn't it isn't it weird that Buzzfeed would then like, even though the names all over Twitter Buzzfeed still won't say that aim? We all know that, it's in the newspapers and the press. It was on Fox news. Everybody said the president has said it, and here we are actually Voldemort can't be named. And you know whatever met gates and Donald Trump of also named the analysed and tweets. I guess they just post. What is this face books are the whistle blowers. Lawyer is saying you know it. Risks of serious risk serious harm or whatever you know what men everybody knows, the name, the only people don't know the name of the left and the weird thing is: maybe if they knew They would see the individual financial biases against the President and worked with Joe Biden in some capacity. So maybe That's the only real reason, their censoring rankest conservatives all certainly know this person is conservatives another person's by us, but so long as they keep the name of the press. Guess who doesn't know about it left gotta make sure the regular full court paying attention can

things remember what I think it was Jake Tapir sight. It was illegal, basically for you to have the leaked documents from Wikileaks. Man they're trying so hope so hard to give a stranglehold on the narrative and now we Know- unsurprisingly Busby invoked so outraged, so outraged I want to tell you man, I kind of feel like just doesn't matter at all, because even though every One knows you know, anyone who wants to know can know vocs, won't tell you the truth. Isn't it the boy? Isn't that isn't? Aren't journalists supposed to tell you what art journalist supposed to share all this information with you instead of withholding it makes me wonder anyway, sit around. I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly, because I

think it deserves its own segments store that I talked about in my main segment, if trumps impeached than why can't a Senate trial start now. New theories on when Trump impeachment happens make no sense when followed to the logical constitutional conclusion, even of the follow up story of some criticism of policy, but I want to give this its own segment and report, because I don't think I did it justice and just mentioning the main segment. The point is Many people are arguing right now. That Trump has been impeached, that by simply voting trump, has been impeached. Noah Feldman is a constitutional scholar. He was a witness for the Democrats and he has argued before that's not Tromp is impeached when the managers are sent to the Senate when Pelosi announces the prosecution, the impeachment because she has not done that. Trumped can say legally peace not been impeached. Now the argument then from other people, including

on Turkey, the Republicans witnesses that no tromp has been impeach because they voted to impeach. The best argument in response to this from no Feldman in this wild, weird whirlpool of politics, is that ok, Ok, then policy has just lost all of her leverage, because if your arguing Trump is impeached, the Senate can just start right now and scrub at all. But no, policy is refusing to another document, which means that these not impeached, let's read the story and then we'll talk a bit about policy and having her teeth. Remove I mean that figurative with, Feldman Rights, call me old fashioned or naive, but I think my job is to explain what the? U S? Constitution actually means, no matter who likes it, who likes it or doesn't that led me to explain recently that under the constitution, as it was, there stood by the framers and as it is an end as it still should be understood today, impeachment isn't complete when the House of Representatives votes to impeach constitutionally impeachment, because

official when the house sends word of adaptation to the Senate triggering, the trial. I will stop here on a pointed out. This process is likely due to the fact that there's no tv, you know back when the constitution was and that means after they voted. Somebody would have to send word up. An official document sank. It has done because we have tv, everyone knows they voted for, but there's no complete formal process So the easiest way to explain it is like just because the police said they decided to indict you? Does it mean they unless they actually file paperwork, to confirm all of this and move the machine for you. Can't just have law enforcement or propositions coming out saying I did this when they actually do it

it this way. Imagine if someone said I just bought a ferrari and the dealer is like you, ve, never actually, given the cash to me. So I know you didn't you can't go. Would dealership and say I have decided to buy the car like ok now hand the cash to the dealer in the car is yours know I'm going to wait, ok, willing to buy anything, nothing has been filed. Nothing has moved forward by all means. The argument here is that short claim me. They beat the president because then you just officially announced the Senate. Now has the ball in their court. He says this: which was originally understood. It take place when someone from the house formerly impeach the president at the bar of this, when a member of the house formally stated in the Senate at the president or judge or other officer, was impeached, this practice lasted for the late middle ages, until nineteen twelve. Since then the House instead sent a written message to the Senate, stating that the house has impeach the defendant, a message that triggers the trial procedures in the Senate both versions, old and new depend,

The house officially communicating the fact of impatient to the Senate. That communication has, ways taken place in short order after the house voted to impeach. The reason lies in the core element of what impeachment is, by its very nature, a prosecution by the house that takes place before the sun. If the message is not sent and the trial not prosecuted. There is no genuine impeachment in the constitutional sense of the term. It also creates, in my opinion, not a constitutional scholar, a kind of constitutional crisis in that you can't have the house claims to be impeaching people and then not allowing the process to complete tromp has a right to defend himself toward her capacity. Emily improvements different, but if it s a right all the trial, if you or withholding that right. Then we cannot say because occurred otherwise, you're creating we're constitutional limbo, so yeah complete the process file. The papers impeachment exists upon the filing until a few.

Weeks ago. No one to my knowledge has ever suggested that impeachment could be complete, even if there was no communication of the Senate and Knowest for example, of this new idea has been brought forward in the current discussion. The issue isn't merely Theo. Or academic. In pejorative sense. It has major political implications for the current stand off between speaker of the house. Nancy blow and Senate Majority leader Mitch, Mcconnell a court of law. Longstanding, understood the undermining of impeachment policy. Some modest leverage over his trial? With the authority the house has given to her? She can control when in piquant officially occurs constitutionally. A Senate can't tried tromp until she triggers a trial by sending a message about piquant and Senate. The constitution gives the house has the sole power of impeachment, and a patriot means power to initiate and conducted prosecution in the set, but if tromp has already been impeach by house vote, then policy

zero leverage because then can so the trial right away without waiting for the house to initiate or conduct the prosecution. After all, the house only has the power to impeach if it has already executed that power than the ball is already in this and its court, the Senate as the sole power to try the impeachment. So here's I want to show you the arm. Let's go down to the floor Supreme Court addressing actually when we do this issue. I do want to get to this story. Policy is lost, control, the Democratic Party to a scene, a lunatic left there I do it because talk about why policies literally doing nothing- and this is the republican criticism she is being basically forced into this, and she doesn't want to do it all three. They say the form of words used by the house is impeached, doesn't redefine impeachment, to make communication to send it unnecessary. Impeachment is now and has all and always has been by deafened.

A house led prosecution in the Senate, whether in the old days or now, impeachment happens when the Senate is presented with the act of impeachment, which triggers the trial as a Senate rules say, anything else would mean, no sense, because it would allow the Senate to start the start without the house without as managers there are prosecuted it's a literally think about this. If policy claims in the Democrats claim trumpets, impeach the Senate can say: ok, we'll start a trial, but there's no prosecutors, there's no one there to actually prosecute Trump

in which case those holding a trial with no prosecute oral management. So there's no trial literally makes no sense. The only logical conclusion is that until the paperwork has filed, Trump has not been impeached, but take it up. He says the Florida Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in a teen. Sixty eight after the governor was impeached and claimed he hadn't been because there was no quorum and the Senate. Florida law doesn't control, of course, but the floor to court went through all the sources it concluded and ears. It thus appears by ample president and authority at an impeachment, is not simply the adoption of a resolution declaring that a party be impeached, but that it is the actual announcement and declaration of impeachment by the house, through its committee at the bar of the Senate, to the Senate that it does thereby impeach the officer accused, which proceeding is at once recognised by the Senate,

you want the Florida courts have already said it. The president is already there, but if you need a Supreme court ruling by all means file and they will likely follow suit with historical precedent, Trump has not been impeached. It's such a weird attempt at like a semantic victory. I think it's fair to say, for all intents and purposes, Trump ease impeached, but I think, legally speaking, it's important if the Democrats want to maintain their leverage and- and the point is Nancy Policy needs to put the documents for and I'll tell you why the longer to drag their feet, the worse it will, hurt the outsider democratic candidates and maybe that's the game. Maybe policy is at war with the insane. Far left of her party- and this brings me the main point, not the innocent need a rehash. The impeachment argon Particular Steve's gullies These amendments aim wrong. I am I am. I just use grace said policy is lost, control, the democratic path

YO see a limited left. Why would why? Wouldn't I suppose, all the articles impeachment wasn't it before. If she withholds them until next year, Bernie Sanders will be forced to step off the campaign trail other outsider Democrats and senatorial and Senate Canada and Senate senators will also be forced. Do you know who won't be loaded, Judge Joe Biden? This may be a plane to regain control of a in spite of the party. The party is fractured fallen apart and the establishment refuses to lose. This is an establishment play. Viewed asked me. I think this makes no sense. I think they're making apply.

Against Bernie Sanders. I think this is an attempt to stop Bernice Revolution or whatever it is precisely this man. I disagree with Bernie on policy. I used to be a big fan of a because of his sincerity. I think he's given that up to pander, I think, he's playing the game, but I will tell you first and foremost, I will defend Bernie Sanders right to campaign and preachers. The american people, whether it's right or wrong- and it is the job of the Republicans, moderates or otherwise to counter that narrative. And if you can't do it, then you lose welcome to you know a constitution or public which, which has run through democratic institutions. Bernie can preachers message and if it works, he wins. You know what, if he's got a cheap message like free stuff asked you well then, when you're a disadvantage which gotta fight hard for, I certainly don't think shady underhanded games is the way to win. So I would rather see a legitimate campaign held by

Ernie Tall see another outer Canada's Yang Yanks, also not gonna, get held up in I'd, rather seal luxuriate argument between Bernie Sanders and and Donald Trump, opposed to him being forced out of the race due to Nancy plus you playing games, I think, is or look at it and I think I think you know Maybe there are a lot of you know right wingers and you know Hilary fans who are laughing because it works out for them, but I think really funny. When I see people like calculate ski. You know, I think, is a good deal. He says both like closer to the absolute with all the documents know dude. If you like Bernie, this is gonna backfire on em. So no it's a bad idea. I think it is a fair point to make that whether its intentional or not Nancy Policy is doing nothing to hurt Trump, at all, but everything everything she's doing will end hurting Bernie and other Senate senators. We're running for president, keep in mind that the

scared of a Yossi. She didn't want impeachment ask yourself why they did it in the first place. Pelosi resisted they're, not gonna win its helping trump. Maybe just maybe It's this. So I think, is a good agenda, but Dolly with their stick around next segments coming up in just a few minutes- and I will see you all- surely a new report from researcher Mark lead which once again provides evidence debunking the myth of you to read. Illustration. But while I want to highlight some of his work, what I really want to focus on is the meaning of left and right, because it doesn't seem to make sense anymore, everything's kind of falling. We no longer have a shared reality in trying to define what is or is it? So let me point something out to you: Mark lead which actually collected data disprove. The: U two radicalization narrative for one he mentioned The New York Times peace, written by Kevin rose

the claims that an interest this this this guy was radicalized the alt right. In fact, the story presents the complete opposite, the New York Times wrote a story about a conservative whose exposed the intellectual dark web and then became a progressive. Yet for some reason your times wrote the opposite now? Most of you were watching this. Another radicalization is a myth and I'll tell you why Very simple terms. I dont know actually go through his data, but bless his heart for actually producing it with a researcher from from Berkeley of all places. The reality is you two radicalization makes literally no sense. There is a gigantic logical leap that these people the media, the daily beast, NBC, Buzzfeed, comic journalism. View than your times. They met this dramatically. That makes no sense at what point did they decide that Youtube understands the political difference between pro and anti immigration? They don't you tube. Doesn't let me explain something to you: the organ,

and presented by the media. Is that if you watch the video about immigration you'll, be there more videos by immigration, thus radicalizing you to the far right you're that makes no sense Youtube, doesn't grade annexed, Doesn't have an extremism gradient you to present, say Immigration is minus one immigrants, in bad is minus two immigration. Russian, really bad minus three and then actually walking down a path. It makes no sense. If you watch a video about immigration, you are equal. The likely to receive mainstream media or alternative you know, or you took prayers, it could be pro or anti Youtube, doesn't know the difference of whether not something is good or bad. Now there are certain key words that can exist. Certain channels that can exist. So if you naturally choose to watch a specific channel, you will get more of it. To that extent there is, to some degree a rabbit hole in that you might become a fan of a particular channel. A crater,

but if you choose to start hating on a group of people, a choice you made because people have their own minds, perhaps use you watch a video about immigration, You then see a video that says: immigration, good immigration, bad you have to choose which to watch so no Youtube. Is it this great regulation radicalization engine? It's an engine of anything and I ll give you a better example. Do you know anybody was become say like a Spiderman extremist, but If anybody was like runnin around but leaving their Spiderman and obsessed, they got everything Spiderman. Now they become extremists, no, because you watch Spiderman videos doesn't mean you tube, specifically feed you crazy extremists, content about Spiderman, they're, gonna feed, you general cartoons about Spiderman. It won't be better or worse. You doesn't France, no one's, become a dragon ballsy extremist. Now you might argue yes, but their fans of gender policy right because they liked it. They chose to watch it and they want.

More of it. So what you're really saying? It's, not that Youtube radicalized people, but that people who already have a set of beliefs, we'll watch more of the context in which they already believe the fact of the matter as it is possible to a certain degree? but they make it seem like people are being trapped by this when in reality, its people choosing to wash the content they already agree with, and if you disagree with it, you will leave in fact than your time story shows the opposite, but here's. The main point took intolerant on this the point: is you ll notice that these sources, claiming that there is- declination Gennaro left wing, why? Yes, simply by saying the engine doesn't exist, Mark lead, which is now right wing. I'm not kidding, let me show you something. What really blows my mind with all of this is that you have people constantly trying to debunk something without evidence mark lead, which produced a data set. He's got graph

and graphics, showing you the flow of media where armoured sceptic. You know well, we'll send you if you want just content, notably to more armoured sceptic, and he is a. U do credit. Let's do this the group he is a centre centrist. I suppose, if they put on us that means, if you watch him, here's you're gonna get you're gonna get a variety of content. You really it last week tonight at some point: that's we feeds into his actual data. Yet people try to claim he doesn't, but here's what happens because mark lead, which accurately called out the media for pushing, without evidence a narrative, a narrative

guy who's, trying to debunk this, that the actual whether this is an actual out academic, Coronel University paper published by a few people, academics, I believe, and I as a phd I could be wrong, but he trusts claiming its bunk he's a Princeton professor, ok Aravind. I request that you humbly provide evidence debunking the narrative instead of making a claim without evidence, because, as all of you know, about pigeons razor that which can be claimed that evidence can be dismissed without evidence but notice, he says this. The first authorise banana diatribe about the media, even the thread introduced in the paper. It doesn't undermine the paper by itself, but given that they disingenuousness exclude how radicalization might work, it raises questions already he's trying to lightly poison the well.

If you oppose the media narrative, you must be a right wing. Here's the point when I write, but what I find particularly interesting with the assessment. By mark, I don't women for this. I don't I don't know how you put it. Looking up temple you get right, and it s a w aim. I think- and I ask you w and aim anus is arbitrary- was made by that when researcher you can also see. Almost all of my content feeds the Fox NEWS, which is please be ass, an last night with admires. Why? What why's that, if you watch my content, you gotTa Fox news. Why should fox news we promoted? First of all, my hence our fairly moderate. The reason he loves me and with the right wing group is because of the way he categorizes left and right, and this presents a fundamental problem for his study and basically any other study don't have it. I thought I had a pulled up already anyway. Here we go,

partisan right are channels mainly focus on politics and exclusively critical of the Democrats and supporting tromp. I tacitly, I would say- I would say, no really provide support for trump other than I don't think he's. I don't. I don't think he's like the reincarnation of Hitler. I think he's a bad guy, but I think he was right in the economy to admit when he's right, because all the press as it am I supposed to lie, I must say, though, the economy is bad in just out of the Democrats, We disagree with leftwing vocs, but it is true that I'm also of almost entirely was critical of Democrats, but he says this: the partisan left is focused on politics exclusively critical of Republicans. The problem is, it doesn't work, me door says a lot of the same things. I do accept he's pretty pro burning. If you look at Jimmy Doors Channel, I think pulled up and Jimmy doors awesome by the way I mean. Obviously, we agreed a lot of things you can see. Impeachment helps tromp condemns, don't care. Jake Tapir blames the media trumpet.

Legally impeached. A lot of the same things I say and much and a lot of support for those who gathered the problem comes not because he is wrong to say that he says my main man, is right wing, but he says that this channel is actually centrist, though, that the problem comes it's based on like, perception I guess, no sane person is gonna, call Jimmy Door right wing right. But me and Jimmy say the exact same things for the most part. I guess Jimmy's much work much more of it in a much more anti trump. I'm I wouldn't say I've. Never I've never directly support it, and I have expressed my intend to vote against him. I've express my support for told you so you're not gonna, make clear to thanks. My criticism is not about his classification of me. I think he did his best mark and entered the. They did their best to classify individuals, and I honestly don't care what you can the problem is that even mark himself is right wing simply for pushing back against the mainstream media narrative. So right now you have a problem

I've said over and over again impeach. It will help trump. I was correct, it did I've. Trumps approval? Writing will go up and it has I've said you know. Trump is gonna, raise record money, he did. Is it right wing to claim that it is? The answer is yes, and therein lies the big problem, no political understanding of what left and right really means anymore. So so I can show you this here's all sides outcome. They ve tried to quantify what left and right really means. The reason I think is important is because me and Jimmy Door can agree on ninety percent of everything and produce ninety percent. Of the same content with the same framing criticising the Democrats thing improvement is helping trump praising totally gabert, etc. Yet there is a perceptual difference as to why he would be considered leftwing by the mainstream media, and I would be concerned right wing. It makes no sense it's all about framing. I guess I dont know is that the reason I bring this up is because

I've tried to figure out. You know what I have to do to convince someone, I'm not a republican or conservative, I'm very critical. The Democrats, almost entirely so because I think the Republicans are doing what they ve always done, and it's boring to me. I've? U not operate this. Why group in Chicago surrounded by democrats who are lying in cheating- and I can't stand them when they do it I have also seen what they did to Bernie Sanders. I now see Bernie Sanders. Pandering makes me very angry. I dont feel betrayed by the Republicans feel betrayed by the Democrats. Naturally, I'm going to criticise them and I'm going to try to make them course correct. How do I then tell people my political positions aligned with the all sides left It doesn't matter, and that and that's when I realized I was a long time ago like this. Why ultimately dont care? You can call me whatever you want, think it was funny goes. One researchers at whatever TIM Pool is actually described, mean fun, but when we're trying to fool you're out what the left and the right as new states? I think it's fair to say there isn't one anymore

Morocco, Bhamo voters voted for Trump Bernie. Voters voted for Trump. Are they right wing? I don't know, I don't think it matters anymore. The words mean anything mark lead which is not a political act. He's a researcher, but his narrative aligned with the right that make em right wing. I have no idea here, so they say this out. Government services do believe in it. I do that the left wing federal laws protect consumers. I agree federal laws backing who equally I agree, I'm only critical when they overstep or dissolve those rights. As I pointed out in most, the views about the expansion of Trans laws is at their ill defined They do at a few things. I disagree with like banning hate speech, but when you go to the right wing side, I don't I dont line up with most of the stuff. I agree with freedom of speech. Personal responsible ending an intervention, one hundred percent. It's why a backdoor see gabert a belief in the role of government to provide for its people and suffer any contributor human prosperity. I don't know about that. I guess to a certain degree of, however, anyway, you get the point. I want to withdraw this. They do at a few things. I disagree with like banning hates me

But when you go to the right wing side, I don't I dont line up with most of the stuff. I agree with freedom of speech, personal responsibility, but not with you. No government should be small and unobtrusive. No, not really I'm a social. So then we have, I guess, a political, a political problem that take a look at this. This is a democratic find a voter study group and we can see the social identity dimension versus the economic dimension, and you can see that trumps voters are split economically This is what I want to highlight. There is no longer a shared reality of what left and right really is people watch my videos, they think I'm a liberal. Some of them think I think I'm centrist some of them demand that I take them. Some SAM we're conservative than early m here's what it really comes down to and why I want to do this video for one. I really wanted to highlight that the radical zation engines offers all bunk, but I would point out that everybody watches someone they think is trustworthy, but people who watch me will believe me

My opinions and they'll understand why I view the world the way that I do. I believe I show you no credible sources and back up all my opinions, but take a look at this. This opposed from David Pachmann six months ago. I'm sorry not from patent himself from his supper at it. Someone asked six months ago. Can we just admit that Jimmy Door is a tie, useful for the all right at this point even says this at this point, say that he's literally destroying the laughed and kind of turned into a junior TIM poor boy do David, Pachmann fans, hate me and I, like typically recommended David, even though I think he's wrong a lot of things. I think it's important to get a balanced view. Don't just watch my content, yet that's not good not for them. Fine, I don't care. What I really started to see is that from a mainstream political political perspective. If you oppose the mainstream media, you're right wing, that's one of the principles that have if your critical of democrats you're right wing, even if you

don't like the Republicans initially, when Mark did his first round of research, he published it with. There was a left wing there. The centrists. There was the right one, but there was also category called exclusively critical of left, and I was actually in that? I disagreed and I said why I've actually praise along the left actually made a video praise no cause, It has an initial campaign platform just because most of my content is but but you actually watch the videos you'll see. I have praised for a lot of left wing ideas, so eventually got rid of it, but even David fragments people aren't are targeting Jimmy Door accused. Accusing me of being a junior TIM Pool, now they're going to defend Jimmy and they go onto really excoriated me: ok, fun! I dont care. Here's. The thing is underneath, where I am is a mountain of news stories. I've read that I believe are credible. This forms the basis of my worldview. The same is for everyone else. If you watch my content, you ve seen me show you the facts, the proof the evidence, and so you believe it

then, when someone comes you and says here is evidence proving what you believe is wrong. You say no way. I refuse, because I remember the fifty stories Temple showed me disproving that narrative it makes sense right, you'd be stooped it just blindly believe one story after seeing fifty caught contradicting it. Herein lies the big problem. Take a look at this as a video from David Pachmann, he says: crowd, laughs at TED crews, conspiracy, theory in the video David Pact,

and uncritically parrots. The and MSNBC narrative that there was no Ukraine meddling, TED Cruises actually correct, and I can prove it. Here's at least one article, Ukraine, court rules, metaphor, disclosure caused meddling in your selection. If you believe the New York Times is pushing out factual information than you would have to agree that EU crank, a court in Ukraine itself said that officials metal than the U S election and there's just one story of many David Pachmann than publishes the story, recalls at a conspiracy theory and Chuck Todd's audience laughs at and crews. The problem is David Pachmann Just believed MSNBC was correct and he believed the narrative of the conspiracy theory. I am not blaming him. He has a worldview built upon all of the articles. He reads interests. I think David Pachmann is wrong. This is why command you go and watch David PATH, and I also think is wrong, but you shouldn't just take my word, for it sometimes he's right as well. I think it s pretty good job. Actually

He's actually also agreed with market, which is research, and so I think there is, where I'm wrong David as long as well, but here's the point David Pachmann followers will accuse me of being a drifter and of being right wing. It means nothing. I was correct. I was absolutely correct when I said TAT Croesus Correct, simply because TED crews is correct. Doesn't mean I that I'm right wing and therein lies the main problem I mustn't be. He is lying. Jacob magazine criticized Rachel Meadow Land Green, while those criticise Rachel Madame, the recent bringing this up is, you know, I dont, know too much about where we go from here and what the point will ultimately be solved this one up to keep it short. But the point is the rational. Stuff is fake. That's that's the most important bit but weren't. What I wanna get too is that I don't think there's a left and right wing anymore. I really really don't. I think people who watch me trust me and think, I'm you know a moderate liberal people watch David Pachmann.

Believe David and think I'm an outright drifter or something it doesn't matter, there's no mainstream understanding of what I am of what David Pachmann is of what Jimmy Door is Jimmy Door. No one in their right mind would call right wing, I mean the dude simply a socialist, and I don't mean that, as a pejorative, I mean he's actually pretty socialistic big Vienna Bernie, no one there, I would call might wind, but here's the same criticisms. The Democrats that I do that their crony establishment elites happen to be more of a centrist and want a more populist, moderate individual trend bridge the divide, I think tools he has tried to do that. But Jimmy Door also supports Chelsea Cupboard. So there is no understanding of who anyone really s left and right is meaningless. From this. I have no idea to tell you other then call yourself whatever you want nothing matters. Politics are fractured and a million different ways, and I have no way,

the anymore. I really really don't. I think it's fair to SAM, a centrist, or at least heterodox, because while it explicitly critical of the left, my political budgets positions lie with the left, but I don't know I don't know I don't care, I literally don't care I have no idea. What's going on everybody's lost their minds. People have a worldview bills that built upon reading fake news, the media's pumping out fake garbage. Let me show you my favorite fate garbage from Buzzfeed a man was stabbed the death in a fight over a pop eyes to consent, which literally a rapid, a guy died for sure chickens that genocide, which fights are never happened. It was a fine someone cutting in line. That's about it. The family came out said the chicken sounds. They never happened, but Buzz needs a credible source. Apparently, if I disagree with that they'll SAM right wing, why? Because Buzzfeed leftwing? That's where we're out right now there is no centre I'll. Tell you one more thing to I love, but let me pull up one other channel I really do like Miss June sure had is a centrist aunt. I say W Joan she's super property, she's she's, a democratic socialist she's left

It's you. If you're, not a democratic socialist, forgive me for calling you one minor standing, though, is she's very pro left in our policies, but- and I asked you w because she's anti authoritarian she criticizes the authoritarian left. An supports an anti authoritarian left, what she's a centrist, because when you see the point is if it takes them like shoe, who Chris as a social justice which is predominantly perceived as left, combined with politics that are overwhelmingly left the only each choices that if you oppose authoritarianism, you're right wing, nothing makes sense anymore, and that's really what I want to talk about, because I'm trying to read my hat around all this and again, the point is of the other than to say no, no offense to mark. I think it is best job is as he did. The fact is, there is no way to quantify the political leanings of most people because it makes no sense to call someone traditionally right wing if all of their policies our progressive. They just disagree with the crony establishment, Democrats and the social justice crowd. So here's what we get our put it this way. I think

easily quantify my main channel as TIM Pool for one reason: perceivable II, the Democrats are left wing in the Republicans, are right wing, however, because I'm anti astray double even though I support literal social justice and left in policies, because I'm criticising the Democrats and social justice. Therefore it makes me right wing, I guess, but June obscure and had similarly does the same. I guess, then the only real issue was not that I am actually right wing, but because my channel particularly focused on mainstream politics. That must be the case. No idea

not yet so again, I want to send us it's not to criticise, Mark lead, which is to point out the impossible task of trying to quantify what someone's political affiliation really is. I want to tell you I will say this, though, if you watch my channel TIM pool you to be sending you to Fox news sure you wanna talk about radicalization of blame you too, for that one, because my opinions are to the left, a Fox news, but we talk about the same thing. This disproves the radicalization narrative to an extent. My my opinions are not identical there to the left. A Fox news but Youtube doesn't know anything about direction. Only with their twenty minute rant over. You figure it out the main point of the segment, as I have no idea. What's going on other than the fact that the media often pushed the narrative without evidence then claims,

You are a conspiracy theories or right wing. If you push back on their fake news, you're only choice agree with the establishment press or be called rightwing. Welcome the politics and twenty I, I have no idea what's happening I'll see ya tomorrow at ten a m thanks, rang.