Trump Impeachment FAILED, Democrats FURIOUS With "IDIOTIC" Rep Shri Who Tried To Force Vote
01:06:06 Share

The impeachment of Donald Trump is over already. I mean, Sri Tanadar, you've never heard of him, was trying to impeach Trump over nonsense issues. But here's the best part. Which political party, it's my question for you, which political party was more upset over the impeachment of Donald Trump? Was it the Republicans or the Democrats? Because if you chose Republicans, you'd be wrong. Republicans didn't care because they got the majority in the House and the Senate, and it's a waste of time no one's paying attention to.

Democrats were furious, calling it an effing waste of time. Idiotic. And Sri Tenedar has backed down and said he will not force a vote on impeachment. Talk about one of the stupidest stories. This guy, the only reason this is news, let me tell you, because I think Al Green also had filed articles of impeachment before.

I think I don't know about in this term. Maybe I wouldn't be surprised. He was wiggling his cane at Trump. You know, no one cares when these low priority, low visibility Democrats demand a vote on impeachment. The only reason this guy's story got through is because they've got nothing to talk about. Donald Trump says, I'm going to lower the cost of drugs and the Democrats are mad.

Why are you mad? He's he's doing the thing that you want. We had John Rock around last night. He said because he's winning. He's taking their thunder. This is their issue and he's winning. Fair point. Fair point. So I love to see this. Democrats are in such a disarray. They have no leadership. They have no message. The only message they offer you, the American people, is orange man bad.

The orange man is bad and they will put his face on media and use image manipulation saturation to turn him bright orange and then say he's bad. Yeah. Here's a story from the independent House Democrats furious as congressman launches waste of time impeachment proceedings against Trump. Michigan Rep Shree tenet. Our resolution attacked as waste of effing time. That's amazing. Wow.

By his own side. But congressman insists it's about doing the right thing. No, it's not. It's about the fact that there's no high profile Democrats, no one to keep anybody in line. They've all basically abdicated their responsibility and they don't have the charisma in the first place. The Democrats have gotten so psychotic. They've driven out any sane person from their party. RFK Jr. could have been a great leader for the Democrats and rallied people around his cause of health.

And they gave him to Trump. Tulsi Gabbard could have been a great leader for the party. Why? She is a female person of color. Indeed. Checks all the DEI boxes, military service. They gave her to Trump. It's really amazing because they don't. You know what I think with the Democrats? The problem is there is no real ideology. It is just crabs in a bucket. They're clawing their way to the top and pulling down anybody else who tries to get out.

So in this regard, certainly there's other means of escape. They're not just stuck in a bucket. But the point is, they don't care about cause. They care about power. And Tulsi Gabbard starts getting popular. They destroy her. RFK Jr. starts getting popular. They destroy him. So who's left? AOC? She's not going to go anywhere in the Democratic Party. In a better reports.

If a Michigan Democrat has his way, Trump could face his first impeachment of a second term. Yeah, nope. He already backed down, by the way. Sri Tendulkar's resolution brings seven new articles of impeachment. OK, here we go. Post-millennial rep who seeks to impeach Trump can't name Michigan cities and towns he represents. This is this epitomizes my in my opinion, the Democratic Party. There's no leadership.

There's no there's no sound reason, message or a cause behind anything they do. Let me let me let me let me show you this. We got CNN, lone Democrats, Trump impeachment, push blindsides party. You've got Axios, Trump impeachment called idiotic in House Democrat meeting. Indeed. And then finally, Rep. Sri Tanadar says that he's giving up. He's giving up now. Hold on.

He says in the 15 days since I filed seven articles of impeachment against Trump, he has committed more impeachable offenses, dangerously accepting a 400 million dollar private jet from Qatar. Well, to be fair, I don't think Trump should take the 747 from Qatar. I do believe it's going to the DOD and not to Trump personally. They say, which even Republican members of Congress have called wrong. After talking with my colleagues, I decided not to force a vote on impeachment. So, OK, hold on.

Sri, if Trump is doing more impeachable things, why are you not pushing forward with this vote? I thought it was about doing the right thing. It's not. Sri Tanadar is a fake individual. He's got no real message, no real politics, no real cause. He doesn't even know the name names of the cities he represents. If it was about doing the right thing, you'd force the vote. And I love this.

Over on Reddit, because, you know, I love to browse Reddit. The response from these progressive libs is we may not win, but this is important because we're going to see who supports impeachment and who doesn't. I love it. The idea that it's a good thing that Sri Tanadar is going to bring this vote because then we're going to see who votes not to impeach Trump. Nobody, not even Sri Tanadar. Literally every single Democrat said no, and they didn't even get a vote on it.

That's how much they oppose impeaching Trump. It is all fake. If it was about doing the right thing, this dude would have forced the vote anyway. But let's let's take a we'll take a listen to our good friend Charlie LaDuff interviewing Sri about his own district. I don't know. What are the five gross points cities? Well, I'm not here to answer a quiz. I'm here to say that I'm going to fight for the people of

of Detroit, I'm going to fight for my constituents. And all of the growth points and all of Taylor and every course, every part of the 13th district. Let me just do this real quick. Growth point, growth point park, growth point woods, growth point farms and growth point shores. You know, on your campaign filings, it says occupation. Yours says United States government.

Aren't you employed by the people of the United States? Yeah, I am. Okay, you fixed that one. Okay, and finally, you're getting nailed with this one. The beagles. You abandoned the beagles, left them to die in their cages at your pharmaceutical testing. Oh, you know...

I got to be honest, I actually feel really bad for this guy, Sri Tanenar. I know he's a scummy dude. I know he's not very smart. But, you know, I look at this guy, you know, he's 70 years old and he's got a toupee that makes him look like he's in a 2003 emo band and he's 19 years old. It's good hair, by the way. You know, he got mad. People were making fun of him. You know, some of us think it's a fantastic hairpiece.

I'm kidding, by the way. He looks ridiculous. And maybe you could try beating. But anyway, he's 70. He does look very young. But I do feel kind of bad because, you know, it's like I watched this video recently and it was a lady by her pool and she was talking to I think it was her husband.

And she's just like, I don't know if I can leave the door open because the dog is really clumsy and the dog's going to fall in the pool and die. She opens the door. The dog walks out and then stumbles and falls in the pool. And you're and then she jumps in to save the dog. She brings the dog out of the pool and then the dog's all happy and doofy looking and then starts walking trips and falls in the pool again. And, you know, I just so I feel so bad for that poor thing. It's so dumb. You know what I mean? Like, I can't get mad at it. It's just stupid.

That's kind of how I feel about the Sri Tanadar guy. He's so dumb and just incompetent that I feel bad. He's getting roasted as if he intentionally, like he knows what he's doing. He doesn't know what he's doing. He's like that dog walking around and falling in the pool. He has no idea what's happening around him. He's a doofy guy. Here's a, I almost don't even want to play this video, but I'm going to do it anyway, of him talking about the impeachment. People see this president has conducted

Impeachable misconduct. This president and his actions have been unconstitutional. This president has broken the law. He has abused the power of his office multiple times. Just as we speak here today. Yep. Just as we speak here today.

Sure. If it was about doing the right thing, he'd have forced the vote on impeachment. And we all know now right now there's a lot of there's a lot of big stories I'd love to talk to you about. Considering impeachment fizzled out and just burned down, figured I'd give you that update. But Donald Trump is currently his administration's at the Supreme Court right now for an unusual hearing. Indeed, over birthright citizenship, but more importantly, over universal injunctions. The Trump admin did something clever.

When he issued this executive order to end birthright citizenship, of course, he gets sued. He then says, OK, file an appeal. Let's take it to SCOTUS. But in their argument, they're not so much challenging the notion of birthright citizenship, but they've added a challenge over universal injunctions from lower courts. Trump's trying to get a two for one deal on this one. Interesting. So that's going to be the big news for the day. We're going to wait to see if we get anything from the Supreme Court on that. So in the meantime, I give you this.

A sad, sad waste of our time. Trump impeachment fails. Democrats are embarrassed and rightly pissed off that this guy wasted everybody's time. But what can I say? This is what the Democrats are right now. You think AOC is going to win in 2028? Yeah, right. You know, I'll add this, too, because a lot of people need to hear it.

Women are at a disadvantage politically because of their, on average, lower stature. It's a fact. And I'm not trying to be mean to women. I'm not trying to disparage women. I'm saying outright, take a look at the studies. Height and depth of voice matters. And so women naturally being shorter with higher-pitched voices, they're saying AOC is the leadership. Then you got this guy. Oh, man. You know...

Democrats, they need to hire like a recruiting firm. Just get yourself. I'm sure there's some guy right now who sells medical equipment who is like 35 and he's six foot three and he makes 200K a year selling medical equipment. You go to him and say, hey, look, we'll just give you a script and then you sell it. And then they'd have a candidate, a better candidate than they got now. I'll leave it there, my friend. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast and we'll see you all in the next segment.

For those that haven't heard, Kanye West, now known as Ye, has released a new song. The title of that song, I can't say on YouTube. The song has been banned from basically every single platform except for X, where it gets played quite a bit. And it's gone pretty viral. People have been covering it. And Joe Rogan says, actually kind of catchy. And his guest says, Kanye never lost a step.

That's true. Yeah, he's great at making music. And musically, he made a song that people are getting hooked on. Now, the song, which look, I'll put it this way. The title of the song is about a particular Nazi leader and what people would say to that man when they saw him in public. And it's not that you can't like you get banned for singing on YouTube. But YouTube has this like downranking algorithm where if you mention certain words, they just make sure people don't know your video exists.

So let me just say this in a world where the where the phrase is unalived, sewer slide and grapes are the common nomenclature. You know that we have a censorship problem. Conversations need to happen. And this censorship is psychotic. It does not work. And the people do not want it. So that being said, I'm going to say right now outright, Ye's song should not be banned.

I'll say it's stronger than Joe says it, but Joe makes a great point. You're going to make it more influential. You're going to make it more of a buzz, but it shouldn't be banned. And I'll tell you why. There is a litany of songs on Spotify, on Pandora, and on YouTube which are 1,000 times worse than what Ye put out. And the only reason they've banned this song that he put out is because it is Ye. He's extremely prominent and successful and well-known.

So let me let me say it again. Numerous personalities and commentators have reacted to the song and the chorus. You can't even say the chorus, to be honest, of the song. But it uses a rate. It uses the N word and not like the hard R, you know, so it's more like a rap lyric. But many people have said the other phrase, which I'm going to avoid doing simply because I want to make sure you can actually hear my arguments and not get censored because the censorship opposing it is the arguments.

And this kind of exemplifies exactly the space we're in and why YouTube and Spotify and Pandora are wrong. Many people have used the phrase to explain the song. I get that. But the down ranking, right? You're not going to get banned for saying several words. Unalived covers one of these words up. Sewer slide. Yes. Sliding down a sewer grate. But you know what word the kids are actually trying to say it.

Sooner or later, the algorithm is going to find these things and shut it all down. Banning it does nothing. People just change the words. They just use different words. So here's the point. Easy. Nobody. Nobody move. You ever listen to that song and you're going to and that that song is allowed to be on Spotify and Pandora and you're going to take issue with Kanye West forever.

When his song, what is it? In Ye's song, the opening verse is not even controversial. Like there's one verse followed by a chorus. The verse is him saying, they took my kids from me. They froze my bank accounts. Even with all this fame and money, I can't get my kids back. I can't see my children. And then he says, so he became a villain.

The point of the song and the lyrics are not intentionally meant to support Nazis. It is meant to make a statement about how he feels. And he wants to embody something incredibly antagonistic to go after these people, like the people who worked with him, his record labels. Now, of course, Kanye West has come out and blamed the Jews for all these things. But I'm going to tell you what I think.

I don't think Kanye West actually cares and thinks that every single Jew everywhere is part of some conspiracy. What I think is he got into a beef with his family, with his ex-wife. He got into a beef over his children. He wants to see his kids. I get it. Man, that's got to be brutal. And then the people who worked with the music industry, who happened to be Jewish, sided against him. So Ye said, how can I hurt these people the most?

using his 33 million, and that's just tax, and all of his other followers to put out, and actually he may be banned from everywhere else, to put out statements and words that he knows will piss them off. That's why he goes on these shows and he says these things. Not that he actually thinks all Jews are bad or that he actually believes that he likes Nazis or anything like that. He's intentionally saying, I am going to get as many people as possible

To say things that will piss you off. This is the point that Joe Rogan's making. So I should play this clip from Rogan. He says that having this song is going to get more people to say it. That was Ye's point. That's why they're banning it. Despite the fact, you want to talk about hate speech, there are so many songs you could pull off. I can't even play Nobody Move by Eazy-E.

Speaking of the juice, have you seen fucking Kanye's new song? Bro. Bro. What? Here's the thing. What? First of all, kind of catchy. Well, that's the problem with it. That's the problem. It's like the guy from production, like he's never lost a step. He can make a beat. He's so talented. He's a genius. He's a talented producer, man. I do think it's like...

First of all, I think people are kind of done asking him questions because most of the shit he puts out is like self-release kind of commentary or thoughts. Because he's saying just fucking crazy, you know. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. But there is a thing where that song is like, what are you doing, dude? Like, what are you doing for real? It's the ultimate pushing back. Yeah, I guess. But there is like, I think I have a pretty...

you know let things go kind of vibe to me obviously yeah your fucking show yeah i don't show's ridiculous it's a ridiculous show and i've always been like yeah say whatever you're gonna say but i do think like making a catchy song about that i'm like what are you doing man like you're just getting at a minimum you're just gonna get more people that think it's cool to say highland like i think that's his point that's part of the program program yeah i think it's

part of what he's trying to do. Yes. I mean, is that cool? I guess if you're like, well, it's fun to troll the masses and get them to do that. Okay. But what I'm saying is that like at a minimum, you're going to get less educated people to go like, this is a fun thing to say. Indeed. I think Ye is mad at a small group of individuals, particularly individual people, not a group of people.

And the reason why he goes on shows and the reason why he makes statements where he says things about Jews is because he knows it hurts these individuals. He knows that making a song that will get random dumb people to start singing it and these words is going to piss a small group of people off. He wants them to feel pain. He doesn't want all Jews to feel pain. He just doesn't care if they do.

There's a distinction here. I am not trying in any way to defend what he's doing or make excuses for it. I think he's doing bad things. And I think he's doing things that are unproductive for a man who says he wants to get his kids back. But I get it if you look at what he's talked about.

He's talked about he said Jonah Hill made me realize it's not all the Jews. He's come on. You know, it's crazy to me that people think a guy who can generate a business so large and make this music is just nuts and stupid. They say the same thing about Donald Trump. They say the same thing about Elon Musk. It is not correct. Clearly, he has an ability to track a logical system. One plus one equals two. One plus two equals three. He knows what he's doing. He knows why he's doing it. He doesn't care what you think.

You know, for instance, let me tell you guys, I've said it before and I'll say it again. When he came on my show, it was staged. It was staged. It was staged. So he comes on. He's in my building, in my studio for like an hour having a normal, rational conversation like a normal human being with me. It's no different than if I was talking to my neighbor. No different than any other conversation I've had in Tim Kessler.

He was it was mundane at most. He was saying, you know, I want for president. And he said to me, he said, what do I got to run to win for president? What do you think? Just as calm as I explained, I'm doing an impersonation of. Yeah. What do you think I got to do to run to win the presidency? That's my impersonation of how he was acting. Right. And then I said, well, you know, I gave him some answer and I was like, I don't know, blah, blah, blah.

He we start walking up the stairs and he says, I asked you a question. You didn't answer me. I asked you what I got to do to win the presidency. And I was like, I didn't think you were serious. I mean, honestly, ballot harvesting. And he was like, really, what's that? And I said, well, the Democrats do is they send workers out. They go to nursing homes. They knock on doors and they collect the ballots from people that normally don't vote. It's like, really? We talk a little about it. He wrote it down. He literally put up a page like, let me write that down. And we got we get up, sit down and he starts writing it down.

Totally sane, totally rational. We have a big screen just to my right. This is how we work at TimCast IRL. And on it was a story. Mike Pence criticizes meeting Trump has Nick Fuentes. And I said, we'll open the show with this story right here. I know, you know, I'll give you a chance to respond to it. It's big in the news right now. Everyone's asking this question. If you don't want to do that, we can just talk. And then he was like, yeah, it's fine. And then he was like, Mike Pence, he's mad, honey. He's like, he looks at Milo and he goes,

He's like, what do you what do you think about Mike Pence? And then Milo made some comments about Pence. And he was like, yeah, blah, blah, blah. And then Kanye said something of the Jews. And then I responded. I was like, yeah, but look, I get that.

But there's a ton of rich people who are not Jewish who have power. You know, Elon Musk. You know, I forgot what I mentioned. You know, Tim Cook. I mentioned like Vice became a billion dollar company. And then Elon goes, yeah, but I'm not Elon. I'm sorry. Yeah, he goes like, yeah, but Elon works for the Jews. He was doing that thing with them, wasn't he? That ceremony or whatever. Totally calm, just like that. Then I say, you guys ready? We'll get the show on the road. And he's like, yeah, all right, let's go.

Show starts. I'm like, here's a story. And then Ye goes, I'm talking like this. And he goes, yo, I'm the same man. You bring him this story, man. You're like, what? I'll get a PJ and fly out of here. And I was like, what? He had a private jet waiting for him at the local airport. It's a regional airport used for private flight, not for commercial flight. And he had a jet waiting for him. He, Milo, and Nick got up left right there, 27, 28 minutes in. Got on a jet. A video popped up from paparazzi. And I'm like,

How did he have a jet? So I know I've told the story before, but in this context, I think it's important to say Ye isn't doing random things. It may not be that he cares much about the end result, but Ye with this song is literally saying they took my kids from me. These guys work in the industry, in the music industry, screwed with my business and hurt me and sided against me. I'm going to get them back. I am going to make them suffer in the worst way I can think of.

And that's what Ye is doing, using all of his influence to get stupid people around the world to start singing a song that hurts these people. It's not about the entirety of the Jewish people. Ye just does not care about them. I'm not defending the guy.

Network error, that's immediate for you. Their network don't work. Speaking of, it's cool to say Heil Hitler. I think the minimum. Well, I think that's part of the program. Just walk around and be like, you know, it's Tietman, Heil Hitler. Well, they said it anyway, so so much for the algorithm. It is crazy. But it's also kind of a sign of the times. I guess. It was a chaotic world we're living in. Yeah. And it's like, okay, this kind of highlights...

The benefits, I mean, I want to say this carefully because I don't want to think any—I want to say real clearly. I don't support people saying that. I don't think it's a good thing to say. No. I don't say it. I certainly don't think—I don't think any racism is good. I don't think anti-Semitism is good. I don't think anti-Christianity is good. I don't think Asian hate is good. I don't think anything is good. But—

There's a benefit to just letting people talk. Like, let people say whatever the fuck they want to say, even if it sucks. This is the benefit of Twitter. But this is also the bad part. It's like the fucking song has so many millions of hits on Twitter. It's been banned from every platform. But is it good to ban things from platforms, or is it better to let it be out there?

out there and let people talk about it, because if you ban it, then people want to hear it more. That's true. And then it becomes more popular, and then it kind of supports what he says, which is that there's this concerted effort, if you talk about Jewish people, that they're going to remove you from everything, remove you from banking, which is what he's saying. They run everything. To Joe's point, when they banned this song,

Tons of people started re-uploading it like crazy on YouTube, and it hit more accounts than it normally would have. So let me stress that again. Yay put the song up. It had gotten a lot of play. Everybody we're talking about, they already are. By banning it, 500 accounts all uploaded the song. And it's getting knocked down like whack-a-mole, but now it's probably reached substantially more people.

I'm not saying that all censorship is good, all censorship is bad or whatever. Sometimes censoring does work. It really does. You know, a lot of people want to default to sunlight is the best disinfectant and things like this. 80, 90% true. Nothing is absolute.

They could have figured out a way to make sure the song didn't get uploaded. They didn't. They could have actually restricted the upload at the, well, they probably couldn't because people could alter the file in such ways that the AI couldn't detect it. But all they did was ban the song and it resulted in way more people posting it. Like, I don't need to rant on this too much more. I think Ye is doing intentionally hurtful things. I think he's a bad person for doing it. And I think a lot of people, they're not necessarily wrong.

I'm challenged on this one. People are saying this is why he doesn't deserve to have his kids. Look at the erratic and crazy things that he does with like Bianca Sonsori and now this song. Kids shouldn't be around that. He's burned himself down. That being said, I think you can actually look at what he says and what he's doing. And it's pretty obvious what he's doing. A black man supporting Hitler like now. Come on. He's trying to hurt emotionally people that wronged him. That's it.

I'm going to wrap it up there, man. We got more more segments coming up. Stick around. Follow me on Instagram at Tim Guest and we'll see you on the next bit.

Actually, she says she's immune from prosecution. Oh boy, this is getting spicy, isn't it? The Washington Post reports, Wisconsin judge pleads not guilty to obstructing ICE arrest. Really? You know, the fascinating thing is when I heard that she was pleading not guilty, I said, how? The cops were all there in the courtroom. They've likely got surveillance footage. How is she going to argue? She didn't do the thing they claimed that she did. They literally had to chase the guy as he escaped the building.

She's claiming judicial immunity, arguing the actions she took were official actions as a judge, and thus she cannot be prosecuted. The Washington Post reports a Wisconsin judge pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges that she interfered with an immigration arrest. She argued that federal officials have no power to prosecute her.

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan entered her plea two days after a federal grand jury returned an indictment accusing her of obstructing an official proceeding and concealing a person from arrest. An attorney for her issued a statement this week saying Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court.

On Wednesday, Dugan's attorneys sought to dismiss the case, arguing that she is immune from prosecution for actions she took as a judge in and around her courtroom. As part of their argument, they cited last year's Supreme Court decision that found that President Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts. In the coming weeks, a judge will decide whether to grant Dugan's request to dismiss the charges. And this judge might actually do it. Might actually do it. Now, to be fair, we don't actually know what happened last.

We have a statement from law enforcement. We have the official indictment. A grand jury has seen enough to indict, but that is not adversarial and that does not prove she actually did what she's accused of doing. The charges stem from an April standoff outside Dugan's courtroom in downtown Milwaukee. Federal agents showed up in the hallway outside of the courtroom to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant who was to appear before her on state misdemeanor battery charges.

Flores Ruiz had been deported in 2013, according to immigration officials. Dugan said the Dugan sent the agents down the hall to the office of the court's chief judge, according to the criminal complaint. While they were away, Dugan postponed Flores Ruiz's hearing and escorted him and his lawyer through a jury exit that leads to a private area of the courthouse. Hold on. The Washington Post says.

While they were away, Dugan postponed Flores Ruiz's hearing. The Washington Post is saying she did it. That's bold. They go on to mention, to be fair, it says Dugan sent the agents down the hall according to the criminal complaint. However, the next sentence is entirely removed from the previous. Sounds like they're asserting it as fact. They say that area leads to the public hallway where federal agents were stationed and the agent soon saw him in the hallway. Outside, the agents chased Flores Ruiz.

and arrested him, according to the complaint. A week later, Dugan was the one who was arrested. FBI Director Kash Patel announced her arrest on the social media platform X, and later that day posted a photo of her being led away in handcuffs. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Dugan of protecting a criminal defendant over victims of a crime. The DOJ's handling of the case won plaudits from supporters of President Donald Trump and condemnation from more than 150 former judges who called the arrest an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

Indeed, Dugan's arrest is echoes of a case during Trump's first term when the DOJ in 2018 charged a judge in Massachusetts with helping an undocumented immigrant escape from a courthouse. Those charges were dropped in 2022 under an agreement that required the judge to report herself to the state's Judicial Discipline Commission. On Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Drys accepted Dugan's plea of not guilty and scheduled a trial for July.

Dugan appeared alongside her attorneys but did not speak during the four-minute-long proceeding. Because she gets how this goes. You shouldn't be saying that stuff. Excuse me. Man, allergy season. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adleman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. Adleman, a former Democratic state senator, drew attention in 2020 when he wrote a law review article accusing the Supreme Court of undermining American democracy. A judicial ethics panel later admonished him for the article.

So you think there will be a fair trial? Kash Patel can arrest this lady. They are going to let her go. That's how it's going to play out. Now, funny, Daily Mail, I love this one. Outrageous defense claim of Wisconsin judge caught harboring illegal immigrant. And they're calling it outrageous that she would claim she is immune. She's not. Here's the thing. My view, maybe they'll successfully argue she is. She shouldn't be. My view on presidential immunity is,

Barack Obama murdered a 16-year-old American citizen. He's immune. He is. I believe if his immunity can be challenged, okay, so right now, Trump's DOJ can't go and arrest Barack Obama over the killing of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. What would need to happen is he needs to be impeached. And yes, you can do it retroactively, meaning you are saying the actions he took are illegitimate. He would need to then be convicted.

And then he needs to be criminally charged, indicted, charged, whatever, face a trial. And then for this judge, perhaps similar argument. That being said, though, the reason why I say Obama's immune, despite the fact he murdered somebody, is because this was an official duty as president. He was authorizing drone strikes against enemies of the United States. I disagree with that. Still, it is logical and legal to say that is within the purview of the role of the presidency.

If Barack Obama instead walked out on the Fifth Avenue with a gun and shot a guy randomly, that is not within the duties of the presidency and is not immune. This judge was not acting as a judge. She was aiding and abetting a guy outside of the official duties of her role as a judge. Just because she is a judge doesn't mean she's immune. If Barack Obama, if Donald Trump was in the Rose Garden at the White House, pulled out a knife and just like,

you know, took somebody's life. We wouldn't say that was official duties of the president just because he's currently in the Rose Garden at the White House. This is a judge whose official duties were to prosecute, well, to have a hearing over a guy who is being charged with crimes. The purpose of immunity is that if the judge said, I hereby dismiss the case, bang the gavel,

You can't charge her for doing that. That's her job. You might say, wait, wait, wait, why are you dismissing this case? There's evidence. The guy's clearly done something wrong. You could argue that the judge took an action that was wrong, but she's immune. In this instance, however, just because she was sitting there, judge doesn't mean she's immune and let this guy go. That's a crime. Now I do want to throw something in here. I think I have the, uh, is this the right one? I don't know. Okay, here we go. There's a chart from Jack Posobiec.

All sides X influencer bias chart. Oh, heavens me from all sides. I like all sides, but they're wrong on this one. They're wrong. They put me in the lean right. And I would say they're correct if their assessment is based on the news you read. But that's fascinating. Matt's IEB is centrist. J.K. Rowling is a centrist. Joe Rogan is centrist. Glenn Greenwald, a centrist. I'm confused of what makes someone left or right, not X. My point with this is

I'm talking about this judge and there's a bunch of other stories. And I see this and I look at it and I'm like, you are considered left or right, not based on your policies, but based on the news you believe to be true. That's the weirdest thing. And this is how the categorization of left and right has come to be known in modern politics. As I talk here and say, this judge committed a crime and is not immune. It is not because she is going after an illegal immigrant.

Well, I must be right wing because no, there is an issue in the news for which everyone is talking about. Perhaps I'd be considered left wing if I talked about news stories that weren't in the news. Who would do that? This is one of the biggest stories. Now, on the left, they're going to argue she is immune. She did nothing wrong. But hold on. That's not fact based. My opinions on this are not based on conservative or liberal policies, nor yours, most likely.

Thus, the influencer bias perception is largely based on, do you believe in the rule of law? Do you not? If you take a look at the core details of any major story, the facts tend to favor the right. So here I am alongside Dr. Phil, Zuby, Scott Adams, Russell Brand, Piers Morgan, Elon Musk, Dave Rubin. Now, I'll tell you this. If you were to take half of these people, including myself, and ask them our opinions on policy,

We're going to be liberal leaning. So what does it mean to be left or right? It really just means which tribe are you in? That's it. Because policy-wise, I'd say I disagree with most of the entire right section. There are some things we agree on. I largely lean liberal on a lot of issues. But here's where we currently are. If you at home watching this think this lady committed a crime, you're right-wing.

even though she's been criminally charged for doing it and was helping a criminal alien escape. A guy who was charged with battery. How is that a right wing bias? The information. Indeed. We've got tomorrow. It's going to be great. You should watch it on the culture war. It will be premiering at 11 a.m. on YouTube and Rumble. I had a conversation one on one with Adam Conover, and I thought it was good. He's a good dude. You know, it was one of the better conversations I've had with a liberal.

And the fact that it was willing to come on the show and actually the conversation shows. I think the issue for these lefties is they don't know what they're talking about. That tends to be the case every single time. The example that I'll give here's here's the bait for the show. Adam Conover thought Trump called Nazis fine people. He genuinely believed that was true. And I pulled up Snopes saying, no, he didn't. And his response was, well, I'm not in your bubble. My bubble bubble.

I just read the news. I've got the New York Times, Politico, the Washington Post. This is what I find absolutely insane about the modern political discourse. I use the Washington Post as my principal source for this articles. I often do New York Times, WAPO, sometimes the New York Post. It really just depends. But I try to use as many sources as possible. I just fact check them. And the Washington Post wrote the story up.

How do these liberals not know these things? Because they don't even read the Washington Post. But I'm going to wrap up there. I'll leave it there, my friends. We got more stuff coming up for you for the day. So stay tuned. Follow me on Instagram at TimCast. And we'll see you on the next segment. The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about birthright citizenship, but also the ability for lower courts to issue universal injunctions. And I got to say, this one's getting pretty spicy and interesting, but...

It's not looking particularly good for the Trump administration as it pertains to birthright citizenship. Still, we don't know exactly what will happen, but the principal arguments were probably one of the more dominant arguments from the pro birthright citizenship side is that this question was already answered some 120 years ago.

And we have over 100 years of executive action and legislation built upon the understanding that if you are born in this country, by any means, you are a citizen. Now, Donald Trump has called this stupid, saying no one intended for people on vacation to be able to just be American citizens or to have a child who is. And I think that there is a strong argument in

What was the purpose of birthright citizenship and how does technology apply to it? Now, one of the arguments we often hear is that the founding fathers understood technology developed. But I also think it's fair to say that they didn't understand the degree to which it was going to develop, just that it would. And now what do we find?

Near universally, as it applies to the Second Amendment, even Republican 2A guys, even 2A YouTubers have argued to me people should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons or biological weapons. Thus, there is something within people where they consider technological development does presuppose the Constitution has limits based on what technology would be developed.

It's an interesting argument, and I don't think it's a simple principle matter. Some might say, no, we can't go that route because they'll take away our guns or our free speech or whatever. No, I think it's an issue of asking the moral limitations that we decide as a people, as it's always been. Michael Malice tells me this is anarchist thinking. The idea that only those of the power to enforce will enforce is.

Sure, he's right. We as a moral country try to figure out what makes the most sense as it pertains to law and what is the intent of the law. Not it's plain text reading means we can't stop birth tourism and people trying to destroy our country. Well, then our country ceases to exist. These questions need to be answered. And unfortunately, I believe that our Supreme Court will largely be spineless.

And I believe that on the matter of universal injunctions, they'll also be spineless. But I don't know for sure. Of course, we're going to hear from Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and they're usually based. They're going to come out and they're going to say what is logically true and correct that most of us agree with. So right now, the arguments are currently wrapping up. I can give you the basic breakdown of what is currently happening in that regard.

Before we do, of course, shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club. You guys rock. Thank you for joining us in this Rumble morning lineup. Of course, I'm your host for the noon hour, Tim Poole. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. And I want to just shout all of you guys out with your viewership, you guys tuning in every morning. This morning show is the, on average, seventh biggest live stream in the country.

Not always hitting that number, sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse. As it pertains to news in general, I think we're number four. But for all streams, thanks to you guys, it's been a tremendous show. So I really do appreciate it. Now, before we get started, we got a great sponsor this morning. It is Tax Network USA. Go to TNUSA.com slash Tim. My friends, tax day may have passed today.

But for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss the April 15th deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help.

Self-employed or business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free. And acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash tim.

You may have missed April 15th, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move. So shout out for them. Shout out to Tax Network for sponsoring the show.

Also, just want to add, we are going to be joined later on by Rep. Thomas Massey as we discuss a little bit of these issues, but largely the spending bill. Right now, the question about what Donald Trump is trying to get done hinges on whether or not Congress will pass this spending bill. Now, of course, Thomas Massey has largely been against these this spending. But I do have questions. The Supreme Court activists, lawsuits, injunctions, they're going to jam Trump up every which way.

Unfortunately for Trump, even with the Republicans in control of the House, not everybody is in agreement on how these things should go. So Thomas Massey, we'll be talking to him. And we're big fans, by the way, despite our political agreement. Sometimes he's a really good dude. Let's get started here with this news from Donald Trump. Trump calls U.S. stupid over birthright citizenship.

Updates. President Donald Trump said Thursday morning the country is stupid for allowing birthright citizenship in the United States, adding that it leads to dysfunction of America.

The president urged the Supreme Court to test the limits of the 14th Amendment, which reads, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. His remarks came ahead of the Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments on several other emergency requests from the Trump administration.

Within this argument is another question. Can lower courts issue universal injunctions? Guys, OK, maybe maybe this is where Tim Pool is now more right wing on the issue, I guess, because I tend to be pretty liberal on a lot of things. The purpose of the 14th Amendment for literally anybody who studies history was to say, if you are a slave, OK, but you were born here.

enough. You're a citizen. Moving on. The purpose of the 40th Amendment was never, was not to allow a Chinese couple to fly to the U.S. on a temporary tourist visa, give birth, and then have their child be an American citizen, fly that child back to China where they grow up for 20 years. That Chinese national moves to the United States. 15 years later, they're running for president or they're in Congress or

If that's what the founding fathers actually thought, well, then they were setting us up for failure. But I don't think, well, to be fair, the founding fathers largely didn't answer this question. This came after the Civil War. The 13th and 14th Amendments were largely made to address the issue of slavery. Now, there was actually a really great quote. Let me see if I can find it, actually. This one matters.

The senator who wrote the 14th Amendment, senator who wrote 14th Amendment statement on foreign nationals. Let me see if I can find that quote for you as we carry on with this with this news and information. They say, what is it? House bill would track advanced chips. There's nothing related to. So this is the rest of that is unrelated to Trump and the birthright citizenship. So I do have the quote for you. Let me read this.

The senator who authored the 14th Amendment was Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan. When introducing the Citizenship Clause in 1866, he clarified its meaning regarding foreign nationals. Quote, this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Now, let me let me ask. I want to get this a full quote here. We'll get the full quote. But in the meantime, let me pull up this quote.

From the Constitution. And it says, let me see if I actually have the full source here. Constitutional Accountability Center. I want to make sure I have the full quote. Because, you're right. Okay. All right. I think I have the full. Let's pull this in. Let's pull this in. This is the Constitution.org. Truths and untruths about the Constitution. Origins of birthright citizenship. This is from 2011, mind you.

It reads, as our Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should be able to agree on. Misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or to allow us to tackle immigration reform in good faith. It was thus disheartening to see Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, again, 2011, mind you, seriously mislead the public in a letter to the editor printed in the LA Times. So I'm not sure if their position on this one is going to be pro or against, but I just wanted to make sure the full quote, quote,

Every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. The reason why it's important is because anti-citizenship advocates seize upon the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment.

Okay, you get it. But the full sentence shows otherwise. This is their argument.

The argument presented by the left on the issue is that it's not saying foreigners, aliens and those who were who belong to families of ambassadors. It's saying foreigners who belong. The aliens is just a qualifier.

Now, I don't rightly care what your interpretation of that sentence is. What matters to me is every person born in the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the U.S. This is where the mistake is being brought up and the interpretation is incorrect. I want to show you in the actual 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now let's take a look at the 13th Amendment. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

These two amendments were specifically about resolving the issue of slavery after the Civil War. This sentence, which opens the amendment, is clear. The problem is we are dealing with the children of children of children of children of children after these things had happened.

Now, if you want to make the argument that they did intend literally after this point, literally anybody born here was a citizen by all means. My argument following this is that is untenable for a nation and it will lead to its demise. Thus, considering the advent of transportation technologies, airplanes, we may need to reassess how we prioritize citizenship.

But I don't think we even need to go there. I think anybody who's read about basic Civil War history can understand the goal here. You had a bunch of people who were slaves. You had questions as to whether or not these people were allowed to vote. This is pre-Civil War. The three-fifths compromise. Now, incorrectly, many people on the left believe that the North was trying to say slaves should be allowed to vote. And the South was like, but they're not people. Wrong.

The South, the Confederates, well, pre-Confederacy, but the Southerners, the slave states, were arguing that slaves counted as people who could vote. The North said, no way. You can't own a person and then have them vote. They'll just vote for how you tell them to vote. So they came up with a compromise. Okay, each slave will count as three-fifths of a vote. The South wanted them to be able to vote.

Not that they were granting them any decency or dignity or human rights. So that's not to say that they were good people. The point is, after the war ended, when they put these amendments in place ending slavery, what was the question as to if you were a slave? Look, if you were born here or naturalized, of course, and you're subject to our jurisdiction, you're a citizen. Let's break it down. If you were not born here.

And you were not subject to our jurisdiction. They were not granting you citizenship. This excluded Native Americans. That was that was part of it. They were they were not saying from this point forward, literally anybody born here will be a citizen. They were saying the people who are already born here, it was descriptive, not prescriptive. Yet here we are. Let me show you an example of why this is stupid. Birth tourism organizer jailed over scheme to bring pregnant Chinese women to U.S.,

Is this what you think the leaders of this nation wanted to happen? Now, I'll make it. I'll make another argument. By all means. There's an interpretation, as I showed you this quote where he says.

This is Jacob Howard. This will not, of course, include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States. There's an or. There's an or. OK, throw that one out the window.

By all means, because I'm going to keep keep the argument going. I believe they were saying foreigners are not going to be citizens because that's completely illogical. Do you think if you went back after the Civil War and said, we believe if you went to these senators, if you went to the politicians, members of Congress, the president after the Civil War and said, let's just be clear, we want families from China and from Tripoli,

to be able to come to the United States, give birth, leave, come back later, and their child will be a citizen who can run for president. They'd be like, what? No. Absolutely not. Even after the Civil War with all these amendments, they were still extremely racist. People think the North weren't racist. It's like, yo, it's weird how people view history, to be completely honest. Y'all do realize these people are like the Northerners are trying to end slavery because they opposed the racist policies. No, they didn't. They maintained Jim Crow.

They maintain segregation. The South was racist, but the North was very racist too. Birth tourism. Look at this story. A Californian was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the U.S. to deliver babies who automatically became U.S. citizens.

U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner gave Phoebe Dong a 41-month sentence and ordered her immediately taken into custody from his federal court in L.A. Dong and her husband were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering through their company USA Happy Baby.

Yikes. The sentencing came as birthright citizenship has been thrust into the spotlight in the U.S. with the return of President Donald Trump to the White House. Of course, this was in January. Does anyone really believe that this is what the leaders of this country wanted to happen? So let's pause. Let's say they are correct on the merits in every capacity. Then we need a change in the system right now. And if it was expected to be that anybody born here for any reason was a citizen, time to change it.

You know what I really can't say? I do a lot of debate to these liberals. We have the culture war, of course. Whenever you make the point where it says we have argued this, we have asserted our positions. Now, for the sake of argument, let's advance to the next point. They go, aha, I won. No, I'm saying you're wrong. No sane person thinks that a random person from another country can just come here, give birth and then leave. And that kid's a citizen.

That's what Trump is saying is stupid. People on vacation give birth and their kids a citizen now? It's birth tourism. And that is exploiting our goodwill. A country cannot sustain this. You're going to have a president who was born in Iran, who's Iranian. I'm like, our adversaries can exploit this and then have someone run for president. That's ridiculous. Imagine after the war, you went to them and said, the British crown is sending a pregnant woman here to give birth to

here in New York so that in 35 years they can just have him run for office and then regain control of the colonies. They'd be like, to hell with that. That is no way. They might actually be like, we don't know or care as long as they're here and a citizen. And these are the rules. No, I think they might say you can't have a kid born here just so you can do that. Right. I'll make the argument this way. I think people should not have nuclear weapons. I think people should not have biological weapons.

However, the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not define arms because arms were understood. The argument for the left on gun control is arms back then were muzzle-loading muskets. And that's what they expected people to have. Counterpoint. People also had privateers, man-o'-wars, and grape shot. If you don't know, that's like when they spray a bunch of little balls. They also had, what's the one, um...

They had chain rounds. I don't know what they're called. They would fire cannonballs chained to each other so they'd swing around like crazy stuff to maximize damage to vessels. Private individuals had cannons. They knew this. Now, we recognize it's a problem if people start building nuclear weapons or radioactive devices. So we said no. And nobody fought against it. Some people did. Don't get me wrong. But largely, even the two-way people are like, no, I'm not about that.

Okay, then you've recognized that there is a limitation based on technology for what you perceive to be a God-given right. I don't. I think that constitution needs to be amended. That being said, I'm willing to entertain the argument that in order to maintain civilization post-technological advancement, which will keep happening, we may need to reassess not the previous standard, but the standard moving forward.

That is to say, the founding fathers, let's just sit for the sake of argument, say, no, if someone's here and they give birth, they're a citizen. Well, the problem with that is what about their parents? That never made sense. Let's say a Mexican family traveled a thousand miles to New York. You know, what is going to be like two thousand, three thousand miles from from Mexico to New York, arrived in New York, gave birth. And then they were like, this child is a citizen. You're not get out.

That doesn't make sense. Why would they grant citizenship to the baby when the parents don't have any rights to be here and they just send them out anyway? So that never made sense. But let's just take a argument saying they were like, sure, OK, fine. One thing that no one predicted, you'd be able to fly for real. Even at the point when they were about to discover flight, people were claiming scientists that heavier than air flight was impossible. The idea that you could travel.

From London to New York in a couple of hours. A couple of hours, but, you know, five, six, seven hours. Back then, planes were a lot slower, so I think it was like probably 10 or 12. But think about that. They used to get on boats, and those boats took months. And then I think after the Industrial Revolution, we had steamships. We were able to make those trips in a matter of weeks. But then they were like, let's put the plane. And all of a sudden, somebody flew, and they were like, whoa.

Now what the problem is, you've got somebody, imagine this, imagine somebody, this is how stupid the whole thing is. Imagine somebody gets in a plane, let's call it a single engine Cessna. I don't know if it can make the trip, but let's say they modify a small plane just with two people on it, a pregnant lady literally on the verge, or let's just say she's literally going into labor.

The plane flies, enters U.S. airspace, and they say, hey, you get that plane out of here. You can't land that plane here. You're in violation of U.S. airspace. And they say, we're just two people. We're doing an emergency landing. And so the military gets involved. Air Force gets involved. They force a landing down, approaching the vessel at gunpoint, and then opens the door. They look inside. And literally, a minute after the plane touched down, the woman gives birth. The baby comes out. They go, drat.

They entered this country illegally by plane, but she gave birth right in the moment. So that child is an American citizen. Seriously, like that makes sense. It does not make sense. There is a civic logical purpose to why we do these things. Now, I don't want to harp on too much because we do have a lot to talk about. I also want to make sure we get into the issue of universal injunctions, which did come up in this debate. In the arguments to SCOTUS, the question of universal injunctions came up. And I got to say, I am flabbergasted by the

Political activism, political activism of the courts, Katonji Brown Jackson and just the liberal justice in general. The U.S. government was arguing you cannot enjoin the government from taking a universal action national. You can't issue an injunction because one person filed a suit. The response from I think it was Katonji Brown Jackson. She was saying, so if you have someone claiming the government is doing a thing that's unlawful,

And they went, they get an injunction. How do you stop that unlawful activity from happening? I'm sitting here like, oh, my God. She adds, she says, I think it was I could have been somebody else. But one of the liberal judges says, you're saying that every single person will have to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order to get relief. And it's like, yes, that's always been the case.

The argument the government is making is if you were a single individual and you file a lawsuit, relief can only be can can only be given granted to you. Agreed. They then said, so you're saying Amy Coney Bear was even asking about this. It's not looking good for the U.S. for Trump's administration. She was saying, so what if a class is formed? And, you know, here's here's not supposed to work.

Universal injunctions, I believe, are unconstitutional. The idea that a lower court judge can block the president literally there's six hundred and seventy seven district judges. That means anything Trump does, he's going to get stopped. Here was a great argument from the US. They said we issued it. We issued an order. I think there's on the military and we got sued. The lower court issued a universal injunction. So we appealed.

The appellate court stayed the injunction ruling in our favor to continue pending litigation. At that moment, another injunction was issued by a different judge stopping us. So this is insanity. They're correct. Think about how stupid that is. You you say, hey, we're not going to take people in the military who are suffering from this mental disorder under the DSM five.

Someone sues you. Court says, you got to let everybody in. They go, OK, we're going to appeal that appellate court says, no, no, no, no, no. Until we figure out how to handle this constitutionally, you can keep up this policy just on this individual. OK, thank you, courts. They then sue in another one of the six hundred and seventy seven jurisdictions and they go, nope, we're going to stop Trump now. That means the executive branch is immobile and can do nothing. That was the so the argument was.

being made by the left is that any one of these judges can just stop the president from engaging in his own duties, which is insane. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, my friends. We will see. So for now, the arguments have wrapped. I don't know if we'll get an immediate ruling. This is an emergency hearing, which is unusual, unusual. It was an emergency hearing. We're going to see if we get a quick answer on this one, but it's hard to know for sure.

I will say this based on listening to the arguments. It doesn't look good for the Trump administration.

However, this is just one more issue. The next issue is going to be whether or not Trump can get the funding he needs for his agenda. And it ain't looking good. A two seat majority in Congress ain't going to be enough. Republicans are even opposing Trump. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Thank you all so much for hanging out. And we'll wrap up this portion of the show and we will see you all 4 p.m. Rumble dot com slash Tim cast.

or youtube.com slash Tim Kast. We've got the interview with Thomas Massey pertaining to this legislation. Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.