When government institutions apply laws unevenly and target political opponents rather than applying rules consistently, it creates a chilling effect that undermines democratic norms and constitutional protections, even when the underlying legal basis may be technically valid.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
He compared Hasan to AL CAPONE and got laughed at!Added:
It actually benefits us when we let our our legal system and our institutions degrade. It actually benefits us. Are you an accelerationist?
>> There's nothing bad faith about it. You just can't contend with the arguments >> that you that is that shows how small your mind is that you think I can't contend with that. IT IS A [laughter] >> WHAT CREATORS do you watch that hand you this slop and send you into the world?
Cuz clearly you would never have thought of that on your own.
If I go to the wick panel, [music] this was a this was a soy pill versus some guy panel. Okay. [laughter] At the soy pill, desperately calling for backup, Pisco Litty comes charging to the rescue. Will it be enough? Oh. Oh, was Soy Bill getting destroyed? Was Soy Bill did Soy Bill get obliterated?
Oh, I guess I'll watch and see if that's actually what happens. I I would love to see. We'll watch a little bit off the bat to get a flavor and then I might jump forward to where the content comes in. Okay.
>> What should the liberal response be to the Trump administration apparently subpoenaing subpoenaing Hassan [ __ ] What should our stance uh be on the US's relationship with countries like Cuba?
I'm going to hand the mic first to Mr. Soyill and then we'll let Bishop uh introduce himself. So Soy Pill, go ahead. What are your thoughts?
>> Uh it's irrelevant what his his behavior is. It's pretty irrelevant to me if he even did break a law here because what seems obvious to me is this is an >> it's so easy to understand actually we should uphold our norms around enforcing you know freedom of speech, freedom of interaction, freedom of transaction, freedom of association, right? We should uphold these norms and these like these things. We shouldn't punish somebody who is trying to go and help people, right?
That those aren't liberal values. Those aren't my values to just laugh when one of your enemies is jailed. Well, hey, how do you know you won't be jailed for that same thing? You go to do something kind. You go to do a nice thing and people who are malicious want to weaponize that against you.
What happened to being a a regular human being, a good a good person? What happened to that? Administrative crackdown trying to introduce some sort of chilling effect. They're not applying the standard over every single person that was on that uh convoy. They're not doing it to their own partisan pundits like Nick Shirley who might have stayed in a sanctioned hotel. This is just an attack to try to silence critics and you should look at it as a fascist government and an authoritarian move and oppose it regardless of who they're doing it to. Yeah.
>> Okay. Glad to have you and $10 from pondering politics to say askill the steel man Joe's definition of populism.
Uh we'll say that for the maybe the uh the meat of the discussion, but uh thanks for being here. We're going to get into it as we go. Uh next up, we're going to give the mic to Mr. Bishop. Go ahead.
>> Hey everybody, it's [clears throat] Bishop here. Self-described locky liberal. Um I uh I do a I'm a defense contractor by day and a poster on Twitter by night. Um and uh my take on the Hassan situation is that um I I believe that a lot of the uh a lot of the dialogue around Hassan right now is talking about the illegitimacy of the government and the illegitimacy of like obviously in my opinion a fascist type government uh and uh unwieldy uh use of our institutions. However, I still think that it's very important that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and um and just completely discredit any any kind of a subpoena put out by federal law enforcement. Um, and I think the the point that I think really needs to be argued, >> oh, so this guy's going to argue something. It's like, okay, maybe there's a actual underlying like fundamental purpose there, sure, but like we'd have to see some evidence of that, right? I don't mind that. I don't mind that the people look into this maybe, but the way the media is jumping on it and the way the government hasn't cleared anything up or hadn't cleared anything up, that seems concerning to me.
>> And with that, I guess we'll get into it. Can can you give us uh maybe elaborate a little bit more on that serious cause? Do we think that the subpoena may be legitimate? What what are your thoughts on that? Go ahead.
>> I think the question is what is legitimate and what is illegitimate? I I believe that now in the year of 2026 what we have across many different legal domains is we have a series of rules, regulations and laws. And uh what we wind up having is we wind up having situations where people will break a law and then maybe they'll be pursued and said, "Okay, well now we're going to hold you accountable. You did break the law." But the problem is that nobody is prosecuted for that law. And so I think one of the main ways people are looking at this is they're like, "Oh, well maybe Hassan violated sanctions, but number one, I we don't know if we agree with the sanctions in the first place. And number two, uh like what we're seeing with this Turning Point USA kid, we it doesn't appear that the violations of these sanctions are being applied evenly. Therefore, it is targeted." And um while I think that there is certainly some truth in the unequal application of of those uh violations, it really brings me to think about the situation with Al Capone. And don't get me wrong, I do not think that Hassan, >> Dude, if you mention Al Capone in reference to Hassan. Oh, well, he's really bad, so let's get him on something. Listen, dude.
Uh, I we just all need to remember, okay?
Anybody who's taking this position, I want to say anybody who's taking this position where you are claiming to be a liberal, but you're denigrating your own principles to go after Hassan because you think he's bad, you don't like him.
Anybody who's doing that, man, I feel like I'm not gonna I'm not going to shed a tear when it comes to you. I'll probably fight it. I'll probably say it's wrong, but I'm not I'm certainly not going to shed a tear. I'll say that's wrong. That's wrong. No, don't do that. I'll probably say it more forcefully. I'll probably just totally caning actually defend the person it happens to. But my god, these people suck, man. I I will probably because it's just what you have to do ultimately. That's the position you have to have is oh these people are using the government to go after people and they're they're basically breaking with norms, breaking with rules to do it.
They are violating all the norms that exist. They are not applying the law evenly. And if I support that even in the case of somebody I despise, then it can be used against me. Although not me because I live in another country, but it could be used against you.
And so don't think of it as protecting that person you hate. Think of it as protecting yourself or your loved ones.
That's who you're protecting when you stand up for Hassan [ __ ] Your loved ones, not you. Sorry, not Hassan. You're standing up for yourself, your loved ones, your colleagues.
Do you get it?
How hard is this to understand? Is Alapone. I want to be clear. Alapone killed people. Hassan is just a streamer. Um, but we understand that the way they went after Alapone, the way they got him was for tax evasion. And we understand that he he wasn't targeted by the IRS that the IRS was randomly like, "Oh, hey, we think this guy might have a problem with his taxes." The problem is he was causing all these other problems and taking advantage of all these loopholes with with the liberties that are afforded in a liberal society as opposed to an authoritarian state. He was taking advantage of them. And so we understand that they had to do they had to apply some of these rules that he was breaking to address the greater problem which was to get him off the street. Now I I say all this, >> don't you feel like totally insane? a guy who abetted like dozens and dozens and dozens of murders, all kinds of crimes across like the the entire Midwest. And you're like, "Yeah, that's basically like Assad [ __ ] We we need to get Hassan [ __ ] so badly off the street so badly that we need to just like fundamentally shift away from all norms to do it." Like, I don't know. Why would you Okay, you argue that you better argue to go after Trump. You better basically be arguing that like Trump needs to be gone day one, right?
Come on, man.
the threshold, the legal threshold for it to be a criminal is actually outrageously high. So, I don't think we're even really at that level. But I do think that um the uh the hostile nature of the Cuban government and the Cuban island is unbelievably like uh not talked about. A lot of people talk about Cuba as if, oh, it's just another island down there and we had like a shaky past with them. But to >> this already, this started off totally insane that this guy like basically makes an argument where he's like, "Oh, well, you know, maybe there's an argument that they're applying the law unevenly and maybe this is like really up." But also, if you considered Al Capone, you got to know that you are in an argument. Okay, if if what Wick said is true and Soy Pill is truly getting his his blown out and he had to call for help from Pisco, that seems kind of tragic. That seems kind of embarrassing. I hope that's not the case, man. I sure hope not >> to not go on and on and on. Um the fact of the matter is according to uh Hassan the the trip was organized with the Cuban government. So this was a Cuban government approved political program and uh in it being a political program that means that the uh Cuban military and intelligence services were somewhat involved. Even if that means that their involvement was we approve uh it means that they were involved and I I think that's uh way more serious than anybody's talking about right now.
>> Yeah. Uh so a few things. My understanding is not only did he approve this with the Cuban government cuz yeah know you have to let the government know before you take a giant ship full of 20 tons of supplies and drive it up to their border. So of course they let them know. He also went through OFAC the office of foreign assets commission or whatever that stands for. So he's went through the same government that is subpoenaing him right now. So the idea that this is like some Cuban coordinated back deal to subvert American interest is pretty ridiculous to me. Uh the second thing is this subpoena isn't so it's going to be one of those debates where they found somebody to argue totally insane and obviously there's only one person arguing like dude get somebody in here who can actually argue cuz holy like this isn't going to be a debate. It's just going to be this guy making a total ass of himself the entire time making zero good points. You know what I mean? Like this guy's just going to continuously embarrass himself. At least let Wick 2v1 at least. I hope Wick at least 2v1's with against Soy Pill because otherwise soy just gets to sit back and be like, "Yeah, uh, so here's like the fundamental thing we all believe in and I don't know why I even have to point this out." And the other GUY'S LIKE, "WELL, HAVE YOU considered that Al Capone is kind of like Hassan Piker?" No, that's a totally insane thing. I didn't consider that because it's a completely insane thing to say. I didn't entertain that or consider it because you'd have to be on mushrooms to consider that. You'd have to be on acid.
you would have to be out of your mind on drugs to consider that. So, I didn't consider it cuz I'm sober right now.
Isn't alleging a crime even. It's just, hey, let's go after you by looking into you, assuming that you did something bad, but we're not sure yet. Which is very clearly like, let's, you know, try to investigate this person to produce some sort of chilling effect. And third, you did this whole alapone thing. Uh, well, what's the alapone equivalent that Hassan is doing right now that is like, well, this guy's doing something illegal that we can't get him through and it's a loophole, so let's go after him. The thing he's doing is talking [ __ ] about the government. He's about Democrats.
He's on Trump and you do not like that, and that's fine. I don't like some of the stuff he says, and in fact, I don't like a lot of the stuff he says. But I would never say, and this is why we need to find some sort of legal loophole like, "Hey look, you put 55 in a 50 zone. Let's lock him the up." That doesn't justify. So, what do you think justifies what he's doing right now that the Cuban government colluded with him to subvert American interest or some sort of insane, you know, like back deal here that you think is actually worth arresting this person over or what he's doing outside of this that this side not real like thing, but this like side project to arrest him is worth arresting him over?
>> Well, let's let's start off with some ground ground terms here. We're not talking about a legal loophole. A lot of people are using a lot of this loose language to talk around the issues. This is not a loophole. I went to Cuba personally and when I went to Cuba I kept a notebook with me and I documented every single thing that I did because the the legal uh permissions that I went to Cuba with asan noted are very strict and guess what when I came back I was questioned on it. This is not some legal loophole that somebody is, oh well, technically everybody's it's 55. It's actually very serious. And going to an island that is actively involved in military and intelligence operations is perhaps the most aggressive intelligence entity uh addressing the United States consistently houses.
>> Oh, so if you've got an aggressive intelligence agency that operates in the United States, you'd want to like basically treat that that entity like a hostile entity, like not an ally at all.
Oh well.
Well, well, well. Let's see if this is applied evenly in this conversation.
>> Chinese and Russian intelligence facilities. Um, this isn't this isn't a joke. And by the way, to put this into comparison because like I said, we keep on talking over Cuba like, "Oh, it's it's just like some interest. It's just some interest." If somebody went to Russia and started uh spending money at Russian militaryowned premises and then they came back and they said, "Hey, we're going to look into whether you you violated any sanctions." I don't think anybody would be freaking out about it.
In fact, I think most people would be saying, "Hey, wait, what? You spent money on a Russian military?"
Wait, but that's isn't that way different that they cleared the whole trip with the American government beforehand? Isn't it like a way different situation organization? Maybe we should look into it. And like you said, I think it's right. Number one, from >> look into it for what what's the >> to see if to see if uh well, I think the risk here is that he is collaborating with Cuban uh intelligence uh intelligence apparatus. I mean, one of the main things uh one of the main things that he said when he uh and one of one of the main things we were talking about that he said was that the Cuban government reached out to him through an intermediary about having consistent internet access. So, but like through an intermediary who would be a FAR agent, I assume like somebody who could lobby or somebody who could represent the Cuban government. Like I I thought this was literally somebody through like OFAC. No.
>> What is going on with him having consistent military a consistent uh internet access and consistent power access on an island in the middle of a blackout? Was that a military network?
Was that a military generator? And if he was on the military network, what if all the FBI wants is possession of his laptop to start going through the records of getting to the bottom of uh the details of that military uh int military internet network? There's there's like 20 dozen different things here and Assad himself has said and this really seems to be the case. He is not the target. He doesn't think he's the target. I don't think he's the target.
It seems like it honestly it seems like Code Pink isn't even the target. It seems like the target might be whoever the main financial backers are of Code Pink. And to sit here and say that an intelligence agency has absolutely no interest in a uh in a series of influence operations that are addressing ongoing military conflicts, I don't I don't understand how we can sort of live in that world where it's like why would the FBI interest?
>> So this to me is one of those things where people will look at the laws on the books or immigration and say, "Well, of course they broke the law. Don't you think they have an interest in investigating the laws that they broke?"
And you're kind of deferring to like these laws that exist, which by the way haven't always existed and changed significantly under Obama and then were reversed in 2017. And then to say that this is not some sort of agenda-driven thing to me is belying the point that this is clearly an agenda driven thing and whether or not they're targeting Hassan Copink. The point of this is to, you know, use them as this sort of surrogate for we're attacking Cuba and and the conversation right now is being centered on should Hassan get in trouble for this. If you think there's a good faith effort by an intelligence agency to go through Hassan's computer to find potential adversarial information, maybe this is to totally possible. Do you think that's why he's being centered at at these articles? Do you think that's why the conversation is centered entirely around him and not what you're saying? because you're giving the most good faith possible interpretation of what an administration might be doing, which is to me absolutely ridiculous given everything we've seen come out of the Trump administration. Like you would have to be delusional to say anything like this is that unless it's on paper and ignoring the last 8 years of Trump that we've seen.
>> Well, one one of the things that I I when I listen to you and a panel of people speak about this on live and learn, I I noticed that everybody's initial response was well, this is coming out of the Trump administration, so we immediately need to completely discredit it. And while I think that uh large political things coming from the Trump administration warrant >> I will I will get to it. Okay.
>> Serious scrutiny. they weren't seriously uh sec going back over some things. I think it's utterly ridiculous to live in a world where we don't like the president so we're just going to discredit literally everything that happens from the government period because there's no real difference.
>> What what's what else is being discredited right now? It's just saying hey you're going after like some kind of influencer and that's not even the case by the way. I just think right now I don't know what the government is doing.
I do think it's okay to meet the Trump administration scrutiny of opposition to their party with total like derision with with you assume it's false until they show why they're doing it. That is the most appropriate way to handle it because they've been shown to be bad faith actors in so many cases. You know what I'm saying?
>> I I mean that's essentially army. You said they've got to be delusional to >> what what information do you think that they'll get out of Hassan's laptop that they couldn't get through the entire military intelligence apparatus that they're already doing with spying?
Intercepting communications. Why do you think they're subpoenaing specifically Assan and Code Pink? And why do you think these people the ones being highlighted by Fox News, which by the way happened before Assan or Code Pink have confirmed they even got a subpoena?
So, this is a sensationalized article to try to get ahead of something that might not have even happened yet. Maybe it's going to happen or maybe it never will happen, but let's say it will. This is meant to drum up anti, hey, look at these leftwing people sentiment clearly.
Right.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. So, I one of the things that we're talking about here is like is this politically targeted? And it reminds me about conversations when people talk about terrorism. Oh, well, it's such a political thing about what is terrorism and what isn't terrorism. Terrorism by definition is political. So of course it's political. So this dialogue about like oh well the only reason >> uh this guy is just trying to talk in circles >> brother.
>> They're targeting Assan is because he went to Cuba because there's a huge military confrontation with Cuba right now. It's like yeah that's >> okay but you're immediately be confronted with the fact that they did not go after Nick Shirley in the same way.
>> And so explain that discrepancy.
>> How things work when you that's not what I'm alleging. I'm alleging they're going to sign because he's a leftwing streamer, not because he went to Cuba, right? Nick Shley went to Cuba. He went to a sanctioned hotel.
>> Yeah. So stupid, man.
Am I just going to watch this guy punch himself in the face repeatedly for the next hour?
>> Tell and they're not subpoenaing him to my knowledge.
>> For sure. And I think it's very clear that they are not going after Nick Shirley because Nick Shirley is friendly to the regime. But they are not going after Hassan just because he's leftwing because if they were, they'd be going after every single major leftwing commentator that didn't go to Cuba.
They're going after Hassan because he's connected. He's low hanging fruit. He's connected to code pink who has >> didn't go to Cuba. That's the whole that's the whole reason they're able to have this excuse to go after them.
They're going after other people that went on the flotilla or the convoy that went to Cuba and they're using that as an excuse. Obviously, it's not relevant that they went to Cuba. But this is what they're using as the like, oh, and this is why we're allowed to go after, right?
Just like the your example with Alapone.
It's like, well, you did this. Now we have an excuse to punish.
>> That's another great point. You literally brought up Al Capone to make an example of you, right? You you brought up Al Capone. Why would you bring up Al Capone if you don't know if you don't in some way like totally understand what's happening here? Why did the name Al Capone even leave your lips, bro?
>> Right.
>> Yeah. And and absolutely. I think like I don't understand where the confusion here is. There's sort of like some allegation that something nefarious is going on because people collaborate.
>> What could Soy just ask him why he brought up Al Capone? I just need to know why did you bring up Al Capone?
What was the context? What were you trying to deliver to me? What information were you attempting to help me understand when you brought up Al Capone?
>> With the Cuban government and by definition with how it works, the Cuban military and intelligence apparatus to go on a political trip for the purposes of politics and then they're being investigated upon it in what world.
>> Wait, so name something that doesn't apply to Nick Shirley right now. Name something that doesn't apply. I assume if you're an American going to Cuba, you got to clear a bunch of either with OFAC or with the Cuban government. you know, just to get to go is like a non-Cuban citizen to Cuba as an American, right?
And never clear anything with them.
That's crazy.
That Well, I mean, I feel like you'd be taking a big risk doing that, right? You take a bunch of camera equip equipment, you smuggle yourself into Cuba. I feel like you'd be taking a massive risk. No, >> I mean, honestly, it would not justice if they weren't investigated for it.
>> Do you think Do you think there's like 5% the Trump administration tried to let Nick Shirley get smuggled to Cuba hoping they just kill him? gives him like a pretext to invade. [laughter] >> I'm gonna skip forward. I'm skipping forward.
>> Oh, getting rid of him, right?
>> By the way, um >> who who are they dragging in?
>> I'll be honest. I'm gonna be honest with you. And then maybe no one's going to disagree with this. I feel like we don't need to ban Hassan. We don't need to feel bad for him either at all. And to be honest, I don't even know why. I mean, even if people do um cheer on it, I don't think it's bad cuz Hassan is an enemy of us as well. And they're not going after like liberals, I would say.
So, I don't know there's any reason we need to defend someone who will not defend us. And if anything, getting rid of him, I mean, quote unquote, getting rid of him, right, would help us in the long run anyway. So, if you look at like a net benefit side, him being gone is the great greatest thing ever. I'm not going to defend >> Wait, so Vicy, to be clear, you wouldn't defend anyone for any sort of rights that you think are like supposed to be of enforced for all Americans if you didn't like them.
>> No. Okay, that's a really Okay.
>> Do only disabled people call into Wick?
This guy is a total [ __ ] It actually benefits us when we let our our legal system and our institutions degrade. It actually benefits us. Are you an accelerationist? What creators do you watch that hand you this slop and send you into the world? Cuz clearly you would never have thought of that on your own. That is a totally moronic argument you just made. Whoever this guy is, wrong with this person. Dude, >> I would defend him if it was anything like >> that's a Hutch mod. Classic.
We don't have to feel bad for him.
Nobody's telling you to feel bad that Hassan's getting arrested. What I'm asking you to do is go hassan, but I'll defend him anyway.
[ __ ] It sure is funny that that guy's getting over, but I am going to step in and defend him now because I don't want that to happen to me. I'm gonna step into and help him now because I don't want that to happen to one of my friends. That's what you do. You can laugh. You could go haha, but I'm still going to defend him.
>> The Cuba thing, I feel like they have some form of legal avenue to do it and it could be yes or no. I don't think it is straight up like just political. I would say they literally advertised something that could >> Nobody said it was just Nobody said that they made this up for no reason. Hassan went to Cuba. They're saying they're applying the law unevenly. When you come in and say, "Well, he technically did go to Cuba and stuff." Yeah, nobody's disputing that. You are just wasting time. You were just filibustering, wasting time cuz you were a [ __ ] it' be sanctioned. What? Like sanction breaking or whatever. But if it was like for espionage or something like that, I'll be like, "Okay, no, this is bad."
So >> Well, then why do you have why do you have any smoke? Dude, you can't make up that. You can't make up that that guy's a hutch. Holy [ __ ] There's just there's no way that's a hutch, dude. For Hassan doing it at all then, if you would do the same back cuz I think what he says when he say he's like a, you know, centrist Democrat getting arrested or having some dumb DOJ charges thrown under him, that's bad, right? And then that's why I wouldn't do it to Hassan.
But you're saying, "No, actually, I I won't have any smoke for a song cheering on Adam Schiff getting arrested because that's what I think we should do."
Right?
>> My problem with that argument is that it's it draws a false equivalency. It's sort of like, "Oh, yeah. You say you're tolerant. Well, then why don't you tolerate my intolerance?" And it's like, "Look, the same thing from different people are different things."
>> Yeah. One of them you agree with and the other one you don't, but they're the same tactic, which is I don't care what the charge is. If this gets rid of them, I'm okay with it. Right.
>> I just I just want to make my stance clear here, >> dude. It's so stupid, man.
I understand how you let like let like your anger blind you sometimes. Maybe I get it. I get how you can let your anger blind you sometimes. It makes some sense to me, but you got to you got to wake up before you go on a debate panel and like sober up and figure out what's actually important. You know what I mean? Like, oh, I really hate this guy.
Whatever. We keep watching.
>> I think that Vishy I I think that's the wrong way to go about it and wrong way to think about it. This isn't like, oh, he didn't defend us. We shouldn't defend him. No. The reason my mind changed is because I was convinced and and and reminded of because again I have worked in the military before that there were oh wow there's a plausible legitimate reason that a subpoena could be issued here that I think I cannot I do not have enough information to say whether or not my distrust of the Trump administration overrides that. And so I am like okay I think the legitimate reasons are enough that I'm going to sit back stand by uh see what happens here. I'm not going to take too strong of a stance yet. Um, I think subpoenaing him could very well be entirely legitimate and within America's interest. So, I'm just gonna Yeah, but my my >> that could all be true. You should still say that, hey, this is bad. Hey, investigating Hassan without like some some very obvious pretext, some very obvious reason why. I'm going to assume this politically motivated, right? I that could be totally fine. That could be a reasoning for saying, "Well, I'm very suspicious of this and I support Assan. I don't think he should be jailed for anything he's done." Right? Like I don't think he should be in trouble for anything he's done here. He took aid to starving people. I don't want him prosecuted for that in any way. But if they want to look through it for some sort of intelligence reason, okay, that's fine with me.
>> I'm I'm kind of okay with that. I could be more okay with that. Okay. Decision here isn't because oh, Hassan didn't defend us, so we're not going to defend him. That's >> that's not the main reason. I'm going to put a part of it. It's like a minor reason, but I'm going to have that in there. Same way like I would say for the >> Come on, please go. If you want in, jump in, brother.
>> I was I wasn't mad. I mean, I was extremely bad when he went after Comey, even though I hate Comey with all my heart because I feel like that was straight up just like that was straight up just political warfare. I think there is some validity to going after Assan.
>> Like at the end of the day, I hate Republicans more than I hate Assan. So >> yeah, >> at I was so mad at Comey cuz I feel like I didn't see any single reason for them to do it or any of those ex-Trump guys that didn't like that didn't bend the knee at the very end. They went after him. I didn't like that even though I can be like, "Oh, who cares, right?" Um I think it's cuz they all went after one single goal. Um, if I swear if this was like another way they attacked us on for something else, I'd be like defending it. I just think there is validity here, which is why I'm not going to feel which I'm not even going to feel bad about. If there is some validity [ __ ] up on her mortgage stuff, >> to be honest, I don't know much about it. I don't think she did.
>> Don't Don't say do you think she did?
Don't say that. Say, what if she did?
What if she did? Do you think it's appropriate for the Trump government to push through to push through a grand jury, an indictment that the actual attorney general or sorry, the actual uh states attorney for that state didn't want to bring? Do you think it's good for them to push their finger down, put their thumb on the scale and push that indictment to happen, right? Cuz let's say Leticia James did actually something up there. But in a way, a ton of people something up.
Should she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which is what they wanted to do? They just completely made it up. It was a total lie. It wasn't.
>> Oh, speaking of [laughter] Pisco is going to go silverback mode on this guy if he continues on this route.
Okay. Especially now that the Leticia James thing has been brought up.
>> Like maybe they found an error somewhere.
>> I mean, possibly. I don't know much about it, so I'm not going to speak on it. I don't want to do that. I don't >> go look into it and then question whether or not you do the same thing for Leticia James given that like, hey, wait, hold on. You did technically break the law. It's fine. They're going after her, right? Well, there's also a difference in getting something wrong on your mortgage paperwork and collaborating with a hostile foreign government to indoctrinate the American public by the millions. There's >> Wait, do you do you think that's what they're subpoenaing for? Why would the Why would OFAC be the ones subpoenaing him if that was the concern? Are you out of your mind? Why would Why would the Office of Foreign Asset something I need to remember what this is? Office of Foreign Assets Control. Why would they be the ones subpoenaing him if that was the actual concern? Are you out of your mind? Come on, man.
>> You haven't substantiated whatsoever.
But okay. Yeah.
>> Well, actually, hold on. Pisco, uh, or soy pill, before you guys jump in there, I actually have a a point.
>> Pisco, shut the up. Pisco sitting here has not SPOKEN YET. PISCO, SHUT UP.
PISCO, shut the up. Pisco, stop over. Do we know who funded the media network that sponsored Hassan's trip to China?
Because I feel like >> a billionaire named Singum.
>> Yeah. Do we know if this person has any relation to who sponsored Code Pink for the China flotilla or not the China flotilla, the Cuba flotilla? Because in reality, this might not be about Cuba at all. This could be about ties to the CCP, which is even more adversarial to the US, which I would say is a much stronger case, not necessarily against Hassan, but would be a much more valid reason for a subpoena. As far as the >> So, what's the reason?
Wait, did somebody pay? These guys are saying, are they implying there's like Hassan's trip was paid for by somebody else. Is there some evidence for this?
>> Pina leaking to Fox News, which I know is what Soy Pill is about to say. I just think that was somebody being advantageous and selling a scoop to Fox News and the administration for a few thousand bucks because who the hell in this administr >> being advantageous isn't getting rich on the public's dime essentially.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Please go. Hold on. Just before we go, please go. I got some uh stuff.
>> Oh, wait. A sponsor for the visas is way different than a sponsor. A sponsor for a visa doesn't pay you money. That's like that's a name. That's a word, but it doesn't mean sponsor in terms of money.
>> Come on, man. Come on, dog.
>> You got some thoughts?
>> Yeah, a little bit. Yeah. I just don't know what's wrong with taking a negative inference against this administration.
Uh especially when it comes to, you know, subpoenas and targets related to political actions. Are we supposed to be blind? ignore the course of conduct of this administration as though they're not I don't think anybody's argued that >> hang on a second. So um I think when it relates to >> that's quite literally the argument when you come and say well actually we don't know if it's wrong yet that is the argument you're making. Pisco is saying give uh them a negative inference immediately because everything they've done so far has been totally corrupt and totally your position of ignorance. I don't really know maybe it is legitimate is actually an argument against what Pisco is saying things like potential criminal investigations at this point in the administration. It is your duty to make negative inference against what the administration is doing to the extent that it relates to you know politically relevant topics or politically relevant uh individuals. You could always say, couldn't you, at the subpoenas they gave to James Comey, for example, relating to uh testimony he may have given to Congress. Well, there's a potentially plausible um legitimate purpose and crime. Isn't it a crime to lie under oath to Congress? I mean, that is a crime, isn't it? And you cannot the administration.
>> Well, who who are you directing this towards? I'm kind of curious. I >> I think Wick or you to somebody were saying that it's improper to take a negative inference against administration. Nobody said that.
>> Quick, Bishop, please. Uh to be clear, coming into this debate, I did and I still have a negative um opinion of this. Like I I came in skeptical because anything the Trump administration does deserves a high degree of skepticism.
However, >> uh there has been >> So what evidence has caused you to to overcome what what is overcome your skepticism, your negative inference?
What evidence is there that has overcome this >> been a great argument made by Bishop that oh the Cuban government is a hostile government and there are very >> So you just didn't know before this. You hadn't thought in that pretty little brain of yours, Wick. Oh, well, the Cuban government doesn't like America.
Apparently, that slipped Wick's mind.
Wick didn't even think about that. When this entire argument was first being made, Wick totally forgot that the Cuban government is hostile to America.
Really? So, you're like a complete You're like a slobbering worthless.
Okay, fantastic. I guess we already knew that but proof something may have gone on that the America would have a interest.
>> I just totally forgot that like Cuba doesn't like America that this guy made an amazing argument and said that Cuba doesn't like America and I was like oh my god maybe this is legitimate.
>> Yeah. Okay. Fantastic about So I think >> Do you think that the Trump admin wick is more likely to have what you just described or everything they've been displaying? It's a coin toss after everything you've seen them do.
>> The difference between Comey indictment, the Comey indictment we knew was because the plausibility of Comey having done what they said was almost zero. However, the plausibility of the U of the Cuban government and intelligence agencies trying to use Hassan or get information from Hassan that it would be within our interest to find out what they asked him or what they even talked to him about is much much higher. Right.
>> What would it take to proper on that view?
I guess if you always think that there's a potential interest in the in the >> So again, okay, you could say all of that.
>> So they should be subpoening Nick Shirley, right?
>> So again, the same investigation must be carried out in Nick Shirley for the exact same reason. Yes. Yes. If they are ignoring that, if they're not doing that investigation into Nick Shirley, then something improper must be happening here. If that was the only bar, then surely ha then surely Nick Shirley would be getting subpoenaed.
>> Government of United States to find out what Cuba said or talked to about. What would it take for you to be like actually this is not good?
>> Well, if if uh as a result of their subpoena, they uh do something like charge him for uh buying a hot dog from one of the sellers there, right? Then that would be like, okay, this was obviously and this shouldn't have happened and this was obviously a political attack. But however, all they do is come in, ask them, "Hey, did you talk to uh did you talk to this person?"
>> How about this? What did they ask?
>> No, hang on, hang on a second. No, I'm I'm saying with respect to the subpoena itself, put aside any So, are you saying that only in the context in which or one of the the key instance which you could see yourself disagreeing with the subpoena is if some charge comes out of it? Um, but like is that are those really the only circumstances under which you would question the the use of the subpoena itself as as a device?
>> I think it's because it's Cuba. If it was like >> Yeah, >> this is Can I Can I real quick?
>> Go ahead. I apologize. Yeah. So, Pisco, number one, I wanted to say I think you're right fundamentally with what you're saying. Perhaps uh you know, the way that I've been wording it is anything political coming out of this administration warrants extra scrutiny.
I think that's absolutely true.
>> Oh, wait. That's not what I said. Sorry, I didn't say extra scrutiny.
>> Negative inference. Their action should be viewed as disfavorable, as not legitimate until proven legitimate.
>> I said a negative inference to be opposed to it unless and until you're shown some strong evidence that's uh motivated by non bias.
>> What do you What do you mean by negative inference? By negative energy, I mean a disposition that is against it, not just extra scrutiny.
>> Yeah, you're like, you're sounding a lot like an election denier to me. That's just what that sounds like.
>> An election denier is not using a as a basis for Pisu's opinion is all of the corruption, all of the weaponization of the system that's been done so far. The election denier has Dude, [laughter] he's about to I hear it. I hear it. He's He's He's fueling up.
Okay, he's he's getting into a rage. I can feel it from here. I can feel the the anger. Okay. Just I can feel it radiating through my screen.
>> To me is you're just like automatically you should assume that that's what it sounds like to me.
>> It's not at all like >> just automatically >> go pieces but to tear this guy's arms off >> inference automatically we should distrust the election and >> hang on a second. So it is sometimes rational to take a negative disposition against a person or institution as a default presumption. Yes or no?
>> That's so genuine. Sometimes >> what do you mean what what do you mean by inst Yeah.
>> should frame it as do you have a principal position against ever saying an institution shouldn't be trusted at a fundamental level >> like do you have some sort of position where it's like I will always assume the institution is acting in good faith unless shown otherwise. If you have that position then I don't need to argue further.
>> Explain that more. I'd love to answer.
>> Yeah. So to disbelieve information coming from a particular source until shown corroborating evidence. It is sometimes rational to have that epistemic frame of reference. Yes or no?
Well, I I [laughter] don't think that's very clear. I don't think it's clear. I don't think it's clear what you're saying because you are applying you are applying this this uh warranted negative inference to the Trump administration to the actions of a subpoena from the FBI and that that's a very wide net. Very wide net whoever fine, whoever the sorry the federal government. So I'm happy but I just want to clear up the air because you said that this is this would be like taking a kind of negative inference against election results and I'm trying to first clear that up to make sure there's no confusion. That's not at all what I applied. So you this notion No, just I just want to be clear about that.
It's not uh sort of included in my criticism in my application of a negative inference regardless of its scope. It's not necessitated or entailed that I would take that approach to election results. Correct.
>> So I don't know how wide your net is.
Like you're applying it to this this uh organ this federal organization that issued this subpoena. Like where do where does it stop and start with this Trump >> so I'm happy to get into the scope and and talk to you about that. But it's just enough for you to say it's not entailed that I take this epistemic view and this negative inference in the context of elections. Right. That's not entailed.
>> I I I think it is entailed because you haven't substantiated how wide your net is.
>> Well, no, it's possible. It's it's narrow such that it doesn't include elections. Correct.
>> No, you haven't. You haven't >> substantiated. Wait, wait. Sorry. You're arguing with me, dude. I'm not asking.
Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I'm not I'm not saying that I have substantiated. I'm asking is it possible for one to have this negative inference?
>> Possible. Yes. I'm asking you. This is the third time. I'm asking.
>> So, I'm telling you asking four times or five.
>> Yes. So, so what I'm telling you is I don't have that view for election results. Okay.
>> So, so that's what I'm trying to sus out. So, is it just elections? Is it just the dirty word? Is it just the one that makes you sound stupid that you don't agree with? Or is there a line somewhere?
>> Why didn't Pio just say that there's like a track record that I'm basing this on? Did he not say that already? That I have like an actual track record that I'm basing this on, that this government has come in and totally every norm and rule that exists. Feels very easy to do that.
>> No, no. The negative inference is makes sense to apply whenever it makes sense to apply it, right? To the extent that it makes sense to apply it. It doesn't make sense to apply it in the context of elections. Yeah. So, it makes sense to apply. That's what Sorry. That's what he is saying. He's just saying it's obvious. It's like self-evidently a negative inference to >> no peace code. This guy is like slobbering on his he he like slobbered on his keyboard and shortcircuited his camera. You need to speak slowly for him. You need to like lay it out very slowly, very nicely. All right. Very neatly, chill, and just lay out the facts for this guy >> to government actions or justifications in the context in which the government consistently lies and is corrupt. So in that context it makes sense to apply negative inference and that's not true when it comes to election results largely run by state governments.
Agreed.
>> No, I don't I fundamentally don't agree.
I think there's >> uh [screaming] what what do you Okay. So then show me the corruption coming from state governments.
Show me the like objective and and easily viewable corruption coming from the state governments in the same way.
>> State governments are different sovereigns, aren't they? Are state governments different sovereigns? I think that what we're seeing right now is that a lot of state governments are abiding hookline and sinker with the Trump administration. I think that's one of the biggest topics that we've been talking about over the last couple months. Where are you?
>> Yes. Now, yes, it is about elections.
>> First, first in the context of election results, by which you mean the count of votes, right? In the in terms of the counts of votes, I'm not aware of Republican states uh doing fraudulent ballots that said we should question their election results. And I don't think that there's a track record of that in such I wouldn't for in the context of of state elections. That's perfectly rational. What's the next question?
>> I think what I think what you're doing is you're you're cycling in and cycling out to get away from the fundamental question. And the question is, this is number five, by the way. I brought it up before. Number five, how wide is your net? Where do you draw the line? Because so far your only justification is whether I like it or not.
>> No, no, no. That is not the only justification. I just want to make sure Wick, you hear me when I give the explanation to the extent of the scope of this negative inference.
>> Okay. So, I'm not just saying whether I like it or not. Okay. So, reason number one, if there is a track record in a specific domain of government action, all right, here in the context of investigations, See, I don't know why Pisco I feel like what I said is way easier to understand than what Pisco is saying. I just wish he'd say what I said. Like obviously there's a bunch of reasons to believe that the actions of this government, especially with regards to subpoena and judicial power, is questionable. And that same thing doesn't exist for the non-federal government, the state the state bodies that run elections. That's how you talk about it, right?
>> Right. That that's what government investigations. If there is a consistent track record of lies and corruption, that's one reason to apply negative inference. That isn't just because I like it, right? That's not that >> I You You're saying uh generally speaking, you're >> Oh, never mind. Pisco laying it out this way is going to make it very clear to this guy that he can't argue. I see.
>> Defining your realm as investigations.
Yes, that's what you're wondering.
You're saying you don't like it?
Investigations is so broad that covers 100,000 people.
>> Wait, wait, wait. Did I say Did I say I don't like it or did I say if there's a track record of consistent lies and corruption or is that the same thing as I like it?
>> No. No. However, what uh what you are saying as I hear >> Okay. Wick, could you tell your guest to open his ears and use his brain? Could you tell your guest to stop being a to stop wasting my time? Stop pretending he doesn't understand. He understands. Ask your guest, Wick, to like turn his camera back on and slap himself in the face. Wick, if you want me to continue arguing, ask your guest to turn his camera back on and slap himself in the face now because I believe that is the only thing that could wake him up and get him to join the conversation and start paying attention. Thank you. Thank you, Wick. spirit is that you think that the uh Trump administration has uh used over and over and over again uh the judicial branch in order to fulfill its political goals in a way that you feel is improper or corrupt and therefore because they have a pattern of behavior that we should >> by default oppose whatever they do with >> all into question he didn't say necessarily oppose to be clear >> I said you should a negative inference >> negative inference and and so the the reason I do this is I mean everyone understands in their daily life if you have someone who consistently you over a student who consistently you know turns in the wrong paper, someone who consistently lies to you, a news source, by example, uh think like Iranian state media that consistently lies or or North Korean state media. This is not something bizarre to apply once you've been shown to be so unreliable and so uh you know corrupt that yes, this is not something that's insane to apply and it doesn't make you an election denier to apply negative inference.
>> What's the difference between that and extra scrutiny? Because you made it clear that that's not what you're saying.
>> Yeah. So the difference between extra Yeah. I understand extra scrutiny to be uh maintain a position of agnosticism, right? an agnostic position and before you're going to be swayed in favor to have an extra threshold. That's what I I take to be uh someone with extra scrutiny when I'm fighting over nothing because sorry no so so so that's not the same thing because that's not what I'm advocating for. I'm not advocating for you. I'm not So they're different. So we don't agree, right? So they're different so we don't agree, [laughter] right? I'm not advocating for you to be agnostic and just apply a higher threshold before you believe it. I'm saying negative disposition. No, wait. So these are different positions, aren't they?
They're they're not because the whole reason why >> they're they're the reason the reason why they're different is the reason why you would apply extra scrutiny to something is because you don't believe it.
>> Do you understand the difference between agnosticism and not >> No, this guy uh No, it's not that you don't believe it.
Although I would say that's like my default position, but it's not quite that. It's not quite that. Right. If I could identify something independently that was true, I wouldn't really question it. when it seems dubious, when it's targeting the Trump administration's enemies, and it seems like slightly dubious, when you could see that it's not being applied evenly, that's when the negative in inference would lead to you going, "Yeah, I don't believe this. Yeah, I don't I don't think this is real. I don't think this is serious." Right? What I would say is it makes sense to have the negative inference here and and nothing is overcoming that negative inference. I'll back it up.
>> Negative disposition. No, wait. So, these are different positions, aren't they?
>> They're they're not.
>> Oh, yes. It doesn't mean that you can't believe the Trump administration is doing something legitimate. That's why I said the thing about like obviously you could independently verify that like Charlie Kirk was murdered. So there needs to be an investigation into somebody there, Tyler Robinson for example, right? We there are some independent verifiable fact that allows me to go, "Oh yeah, sure. This obviously needs to be investigated."
>> So the whole reason why >> there the reason the reason why they're different is the reason why you would apply extra scrutiny to something is because you don't believe it.
Do you understand the difference between agnosticism and not agnosticism?
>> Yes, obviously. But what I'm saying, you you are intentionally applying a neutral tone to an investigation. In fact, a reinvestigation. And what I'm saying is that the whole reason to have extra scrutiny, and this is this is just we could chalk this up to me not communicating it well enough. But the the the whole reason to have extra scrutiny is because you don't believe it in the first place.
>> Yeah. So, I'm going a step further, right? So, like So, so I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Right. Like there is a position that you could take and that position is in favor. You could take a position that is against and you could take a position that is I don't really know. I'm agnostic. I I withhold judgment. Right?
Those are all different positions you can take. I understand a position of requiring extra scrutiny to believe something to be a position ultimately the grounds out into agnosticism. You see that that's different than being against it. I default against it in in these domain.
>> I I'm not describing agnosticism. I'm saying initially I do not believe that this is true. So I will apply extra scrutiny.
>> Oh. So are you an election denier?
>> I dude. Dude, [screaming] dude, what is wrong with this guy? How did he not see what he was JUST HOW DID HE NOT JUST SEE WHAT HE'S WALKING INTO?
>> This is This is my point though. I I like when you accuse me. Now we got the same [laughter] when you accuse me of We actually have the same position. Bishop, >> I was You were leading me to believe that you were arguing something further than extra scrutiny. I'm not even I am like >> No, Bishop, think of it like you're like [laughter] if you're a debate moderator, you're going to take everything they say with extra scrutiny if you're trying to fact check it. Even if like you're third person or like if you're not like let's say Caitlin Collins is trying to like fact checker is trying to do extra scrutiny to make sure all the debate people are like telling the truth but if you're uh doing a piece that's not that's not quite true like if Rob Moore tells me something I'm going to have extra scrutiny for it but I generally believe something negative >> inference but also say [laughter] no but the difference what what what makes this thing is I started off disbelieving the judicial actions by the Trump administration against this on I thought this is and I told people this right I think this like this doesn't seem to be something that there is a legitimate case for.
However, the argument made today has reminded me and I've looked into it more and things like that where okay, actually there's enough of a plausibility here. It's high highly likely that I have gone from being against Trump to neutral in the situation. I'm not pro, >> but I am now neutral. I now I [laughter] don't have enough information. No, you started started with something I've been wanting to say for a while. I'm I'm so sorry, Fishy. This is something I've been wanting to say for a while. I really wish that I could take the soy pill's entire perspective on this issue because I would say philosophically I started from where the soy pill is. The problem is that with my experience and knowing how a lot of this stuff works, I find it virtually impossible that he didn't talk to somebody and have a conversation worth worth asking about. I would say if I look, if I was in an intelligence officer and my job was like the Cuba desk, I would want to question every single American that is coming in and out of there right now. If anything, just to be like, >> why didn't they do that, Bishop? Yeah, but they didn't do that. This is mandatory process. This is >> You're right. But the I say a political program raises the threshold from your average person.
>> No, no. I'm saying you could have you could have asked about it. You could have sent an inquir. You could have sent him a letter. You could have sent a subpoena.
>> No, a subpoena has a force of law. It's a mandator. [laughter] >> Okay. Like that's what I'm talking about. If it was up to me, I I would I would want to talk to every single person. However, I think that the threshold can rise when you are doing a political program that is officially collaborating with the Cuban government.
This isn't like my friend uh Tyler Panel whose uh whose wife is from Cuba and he regularly goes to Cuba and they just go into and visit his family. This was a this was an entire uh political program.
>> Wait, how do you know they're not how do you know he's not doing that?
>> I I I I know that he's not in a political program that has been ordained.
>> How do you know? There's less reason to suspect that.
>> Okay. Shouldn't we shouldn't we subpoena him? Is it not plausible that he went to a bar and talked to someone?
>> Once again, I think that there is value in talking to every single person. I'd be curious and be like, "Hey, why?" Yeah. Why? Why don't we just subpoena all of us?
>> What is this question? You guys are playing stupid. I've said it four times and it's so it's like I'm talking to people that are intentionally acting like they don't know what I'm talking about. No, no, you can you can talk to people. No one's stopping you from talking to Hassan or talking to all these people, but what happened was there was an issuance of a subpoena and at least allegedly there was pre-clarance with the Office of Foreign Asset Controls. And in that context, I'm just not sure what what you're saying is well, there's an interest in talking to people. Why is that as which could be true of anyone traveling to Cuba? Why is that justification for the issuance of a subpoena if it I mean the greater includes the lesser here? Why wouldn't it justify his opinion everyone who goes to Cuba anytime?
>> I think I think I think he wants to right if you want to sub >> you would want a subpoena.
>> Okay, but that's not the position of the Trump administration of Nick Shirley.
>> Every single individual.
>> No, I wouldn't want to subpoena.
>> Surely surely something distinguishes this. I would want I would certainly I would want to talk to every single person that goes there and I would want to subpoena anybody that is involved in high level political programs deeply involved with the Cuban government and military. Yeah, absolutely.
>> As a gohead, sorry.
>> No, no, no. That's what you're saying.
>> I was going to say like if if what you take is that there's like a default presumption that if you go into high level communications with members of the Cuban uh I don't know government or whatever.
>> Yeah. So, I mean, if that's your view, is there maybe there's evidence that Hassan had high level communications and you would therefore want to subpoena him instead of like asking him about it or send him a letter or saying sending a request for documents? Um, I mean, I just don't think that this is a standard that the administration is actually applying. I think what the administr I think there's no question that if Hassan were someone that were sympathetic >> and basically would just need evidence that that's the standard they are applying, which actually I think might have come out since this interview started or since like in the past couple hours, somebody who's saying that they basically haven't sent any subpoenas.
They've done a request for documents essentially, which to me I'm like, okay, that seems that seems kind of fine if it's not like compelled. Okay. Okay.
>> He would not be hit with a subpoena. And I take politically motivated investigations to be repugnant to the constitution. And that's something >> So are you are you asserting that there is no difference between Hassan going to Cuba and my friend Tyler Panell visiting his f his wife's family?
>> I'm sure there's no difference. Why did you say I'm sure I didn't say that there was no difference. In fact, the reason in fact I'm saying the opposite, right?
I said that there is a difference and the difference is right and this is one that I I think is obvious is their sympathies towards the president. Their sympathies >> so I would I would say that a more important difference is that one of them was in an official program that was collaborating with a hostile foreign government and the other one isn't.
That's that's what >> Hey, why why didn't they subpoena Brian Grim?
>> Brian Grim? I I didn't do that.
>> I don't Yeah, Brian Graham.
>> No, I I don't know why they didn't subpoena every single person on that program.
>> Being a journalist, so I feel like that would be Well, journalist couldn't possibly talk to a guy in a bar. That'd be great.
>> What's the difference between Brian Graham and Hassan? Why didn't they? He's a leftist. He's a leftist.
>> There's honestly not as big of an influencer, I think, as big. They're like, "Hey, we can we can go after these people, right?
>> This is this but this is like if your position >> to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if somebody Fox got a heads up about some like an investigation into Code Pink and threw Hassan Piker's name in there just to get keep him in the news cycle just because like, hey, there's a lot of interest for these Hassan [ __ ] stories.
Can we work him? Can we just throw him in here? You know, we'll just throw him in here real quick.
>> Is that the Trump admin?
>> I would love to see Maybe we have to go back and check because I think I have the article from yesterday. Can I go check the language on that article? What is it saying? Uh an inside source is alleging that right. What's the language on the article? Is it strong language or is it very very very weak language of like possibly it is becoming there is an early source reporting that possibly maybe in some university or sorry some universe how did I say university I'm I'm trying to read and talk I'm reading chat and talking at the same time never a good combination >> cracking down on it political opponents and trying to chill anyone from going to Cuba or helping Cuba and also using it as a vector to attack its political opponents Ryan Grim certainly qualifies as a political component that they want to attack and a vector to chill people.
So the question you have to deal with and not I'm happy to answer that. Yeah.
For the same reason in the context of what they did previously with immigration and going after Mahmud Khalil and going after Amaze Auster because you don't have to get everybody.
You can go after particular targets and you go after people who are unsympathetic. Hassan is more unsympathetic than Ryan Grim. Ryan Grim has the extra extra credentials of being a real journalist. I mean let's be honest here. Uh Han is not a journalist and there's probably more of an institutional protection of them and so yeah they go after weaker targets that have >> Wow. Wow. Impuging impugning the journalistic credit of my guy Hassan [ __ ] this group of libs peo I see how it is I see how it is man >> less sympathy uh coding people right those aren't sympathetic people to most individuals in the country and so all of that I think explains why you pick and choose your targets and that doesn't mean that it's not chilling right anymore liberals are more likely to be like you know what I am okay with them going after that's the exact reason you're liberals be okay with them going after Ryan Grim and some of the other tech I think you get a lot I think Ryan Grim would get a lot more push back from the liberals and they did this because That's crazy.
>> No, I I [laughter] don't think you think Assan is less or equally as hated as Ryan Grim.
>> I think he is.
>> But if they're still in no for me, and I can only speak for me. I think that Ryan Grim is far more insidious than for a lot of reason.
>> I think it's not about what you think is more is worse. Right.
>> Most Americans don't even know who Hassan is.
>> People know who is than Ryan Grim. More people he's more famous than Ryan Grim.
A lot of these cases you you've created a disprovable scenario based on what follower count.
>> I don't No, no.
>> Now we're talking about disprovable scenarios. Mr. Got met in a bar and exchange intelligence.
>> No, [laughter] this is what I'm saying.
This is what I'm saying. You're there is no impossible standard. As a fact of life, Hassan told people that he was in direct communication with the Cuban government. That is something he said.
>> When did he say that?
>> This is not >> direct. He's in direct communication with the Cuban government through a proxy. I like okay actually I don't even know if it's just one proxy because like I I do believe if that's going through the like OFAC as well if all communications are going through a government approved entity then is that a problem >> he said so he can get his internet right >> yeah he and let me let me rephrase that in some kinds of legal terms he is in direct communication with the Cuban government to receive privileges >> fact is it a fact that Nick Shirley was in a sanctioned hotel he wasn't supposed to be in >> fact well don't get me wrong if you want to sit here and tell me that this dog government is not going after Nick Shirley when they should be. I'll agree with you all day. That [laughter] is not contention.
If you if you grant that though, if you grant that they're not applying the law equally, that's repugnant to the Constitution. That's repugnant to rule and equal protection and and we should be against the whole thing to put nothing.
>> That's not how it works. It's like so so if they if they wrongly investigate, they stalk somebody day and night for four years because they're trying to get him for murder and then they get him for murder and that was wrong because they stalked him for four years. All of a sudden we can't have problem with murder as a whole. No absent absent abs absent compelling evidence that distinguishes the cases. Absent ev compelling corroborating evidence. I am going to apply negative inference to this regime and and until they show me that the way in which you know object an objectively neutral person might distinguish the conduct here. I'm going to assume that they didn't have an objectively good reason to objectively >> what's up.
>> I was going to say this. I was going to say wick the way you described your like thing was 100% what Pisco said. But I wanted to say I honestly if they they didn't do it for China which was weird but my thing is weird. If they did for China or Cuba, I would be like, "Okay, I kind of get some validity."
>> Because they want to do war with Cuba. I mean, isn't that the most obvious thing in the world?
>> I mean, they do want to go to war with Cuba right now. And maybe that is another reason that a subpoena or request for documents could make sense.
>> And that's why they're doing they're all trying to not get like trying to have the upper hand on you. But if you went to like if you went to like uh Ukraine and they did this, I'd be like, "Okay, that's wild." But I feel like the two I feel like if you did it for China or Cuba, I was like, "Okay, I definitely understand some type of >> They didn't do it for both." actually is to me uh kind of pushes me towards that there is something legitimate here if their purpose was to target Hassan [ __ ] right? They would have done it after he came from the CCP, right?
>> Everybody would have everybody would have said he deserved it after he came back from China. A sound bite of him saying I'm not particularly patriotic to the United States. Are you kidding me?
>> Vishy, we're going to clean it up. I love you, BUDDY. BUT TWO BUCKS two bucks ain't enough.
>> So So So let's talk about that, right?
You're saying this is not political because I mean they didn't.
>> Does the US restrict restrict where you stay in China? Is there a list of pre-approved hotels and for you to stay in in China? Is that a thing that exists in China?
Cuz I could have sworn that that the US trades happily with China, that there is no embargo on China. Doesn't that imply like a very very very different relationship with China where you wouldn't be able to apply anything like this? Like, isn't it totally moronic to pretend that the same investigation would happen because you went to China?
>> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that for me, for me, right, I do not know and I do not have enough information to make a legitimate decision here. And what has pushed me towards that is again I start from the position that whatever Trump is doing is corrupt when it comes to the judicial system. That's my starting point. But there has been enough uh stuff to kind of push me to the side of well now I'm I'm unsure. And one of those, >> wait, to be clear, wait, >> dude. The Justice Department is opening a criminal investigation on Eene Carols of 3 hours ago. It turns out Trump, they really do like it when you grab them by the or they go to jail. If you don't like it when I grab you by the you're going to jail, get ready for it, >> dude.
>> Wait. No. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You move probably or might not be doing something illegitimate because there's a plausible scenario where this could be okay. Not maybe Trump is illegitimate. And also there's a plausible thing because that's my position.
>> I think it's likely. It's not just plausible to me. I think it's likely.
It's 60/40 if they wanted to chill uh people uh having positive relations with Cuba or having a positive view of Cuba or helping Cuba in these ways. They would have gone after everyone there most likely.
>> No, that's not true. Wait. So when they went after law firms, did they go after every single law firm? They went after Trump's enemies. They did. Every single one.
>> No, they didn't. No, that's not what occurred. No, they they they picked and choose the ones either that Trump hated the most or for whatever reason were more outfront in terms of their opposition or let's say they helped Hillary Clinton on a matter and when they did that other firms that weren't specifically targeted were >> Dude, if only there were ways to tell that these people's political opinion was worthless before this doobie. Oh my god. Like when they totally disavowed somebody for violating their friends and then crawled back to them when they realized they couldn't make it as a streamer over time.
>> Like maybe that one. I don't know.
And that's also true who saw what was happening to Harvard and other schools and you didn't need to go after every single school to get compliance. Same thing by the way when it came to immigration did they need to go after every single green card holder who criticized um the Israel policy? No.
They picked and choose and everyone else got the message. And for you to say, well, in order for me to think that that's their need to go after similar way people, you're really dumbing it down. You're really dumbing it down.
You're just you're you're you're dumbing it down by removing a lot of variables and factors and you're just you're essentially saying that, oh well, when they went after the law firms, they just went after a couple of them. It's like no, there was factors there factors and variables that went into who they target and why they target. For example, as we discussed before and with Hassan that there are variables and factors that differentiate Hassan from other people that go beyond his follower count.
>> So So I I'm really just trying to get you guys to understand the one singular point I'm making here, which is the following, right? Just because you haven't shown that they've attempted to uh do a specific action as to people who are similarly situated doesn't mean that they're not trying to chill. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but I think that it suggests to me that it might be the case.
>> Yes.
>> Why Why does it move the needle on you at all if they've picked two test cases the same way, by the way, that they've done in other instances before?
>> Because I see I see no I see no significant >> It looks like we're 5 minutes away from Lykan hopping in. I'm not sure where the argument goes. We'll see.
>> Downside for them to just subpoenaing the meal. Like I see no significant political hit that they would take from doing that. There would be no downside to doing that. Yeah, there going >> there's not a huge outrage about this.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes, there is. What are you talking about? There's like a whole like media swing and if you think if they didn't go after more journalists who had more evidence hated as a biker that they wouldn't get more push back, I don't think there would be any more.
>> I think your intuition here is incorrect. I think that if they had gone after every single person on that flotilla that that needle wouldn't have moved in any significant >> really that's I mean a strong >> it would just be the exact same if they went after everybody in that flotilla.
It' be the exact same guys.
Why do you think that?
>> So it does apply in the situation that the more you paint with so the more people that you you get involved the less likely that you're going to have uh you know a unified opposition against you know particular individuals because those people have their own networks have no all I'm trying to tell you is that it's true on both inferences. It's true on both worlds. It's true in the world in which they're chilling that they might not go after everybody and it's true in the world in which they're not chilling that they might not go after everybody. Right. So everything you've said are neutral to meal evidence. Wick wick wick. Do you think they're trying to create a media chilling effect? Do you think they're trying to create a media chilling effect when they go after Jimmy Kimmel?
>> Just Jimmy Kimmel?
>> Yes.
>> Why? It's just Jimmy Kimmel.
>> Yeah, it's just Jimmy >> because he's not just Jimmy Kimmel to be clear. They've gone >> No. What do you mean the thing? A bunch of people said a bunch of trust, but they just went after Jimmy Kimmel. So I mean like right like it's just because the line, right? Again, there's no legitimate case for this in but in the >> in the instance here there is >> this is once again I I can't paint I can't paint a scenario for you right now that something that Jimmy Kimmel said might have incited violence that there is a much no grant you that do you think there's a scenario that Jimmy Kimmel might have said something that a show host Wick do you think that Jimmy Kimmel could have said something that incited violence against Republicans >> not in any meaningful not a plausible scenario not a single by the way that's not what anybody says is obviously you are incurring some increased risk of somebody getting shot in the head when you call them a fascist. The issue is what what trade-off is more important to you. If I call you a fascist and I mean it sincerely and I lay out reasons I think you're a fascist and obviously the implication of fascist is like Nazi Germany uh our enemies. I am obviously doing that. The unfortunate thing is so long as it's descriptively true, so long as I'm accurately describing you and on top of accurately describing you, I believe it like that is more important. Preserving my right to that speech is more important than not increasing that risk very very slightly.
Right now, I don't think it's a big risk. I don't think you add very much to the risk. You certainly can't be held responsible for somebody taking that action, especially when you principally disavow that action. But of course there is some tiny tiny tiny piece where you are increasing that when you say something like that, right? The issue is the world where you let that prevent you from speaking the truth is a world you don't want to live in.
>> I did not say I did not say equal.
>> Yeah, exactly. I could say man that Trump guy really stinks. And probably in some tiny minuscule infantismally small way I'm probably increasing the chance that somebody blows Trump's head off.
But I'm not I don't. I think that's awful. I don't I would never suggest that. It is both morally and pragmatically repugnant and terrible and and awful for your movement to even lean into those things. Okay. I >> prolific.
>> What if there were a trial of some kind?
[laughter] >> Okay. I'm going to I'm going to mute all of you unless you shut up right now. I'm putting my moderate back hat on. Peace go give your statement and then once you've given >> he's accusing me of bad faith and he has no he has no basis to do that when I said ape strong together. Clearly the point there is to suggest that there are downsides to going too far and getting people who and instead of isolating individuals who can be uh chilling targets. That's what that statement meant. There's nothing bad faith about it. You just can't contend with the arguments.
>> That's that is that shows how small your mind is that you think I can't contend with that. It is a [laughter] [gasps] >> Yes, that's my strategy. I just called the other person a first. You're just too dumb to understand me. THAT'S MY STRATEGY. LET'S GO. I'm back on the Lockheed liberal side. People [laughter] thought it was bad. It is bad faith because you could say that about anything.
>> I have to let Bush respond uninterrupted. Go ahead.
>> You could say that about literally anything. It has no there is no value there. There is nowhere for that conversation to go. There is no there is no response to that. There's no analysis. That's why I said I don't even want to talk about Bishop. That was a Bishop. What was a response to you all saying there's no plausible reason why they would avoid subpoenaing everyone there?
>> No plausible less plausible.
>> Yes.
>> Well, I I don't know how you make that determination, but basically that there's no cost entailed in subpoenaing more of these people. Yes, that's my intuition.
>> Yes. So, you guys had you guys succeeded that there's no real cost. There's no significant cost in painting with and getting all these people and subpoening them. And what I responded to is actually isolating people is quite effective. A strong together. The more people you have, the more likely you're going to get them to rally up against you. That was the response there. I'm not trying to say that that's what you would I'm trying to say that it's your false contention that there is no strategic advantage to isolation. That's what I'm trying to get at and it's a responsibility.
>> What are what do they gain by isolating Hassan?
>> Of course.
>> You think that it is easier to go after an individual and not have to defend why you're going after every single person if they all have different reasons, different backgrounds and different like characters that need to be defended? Do you think it's not easier to pick the easiest weakest person who has the most reason to be attacked for other reasons like that the administration has gone after? You don't think that's easier than if you went after literally every single person? easiest person. The weakest attack. The easiest weakest person on that trip is somebody that we couldn't even name on this panel. The idea that might make no no easiest weakest in regards to they're the easiest to attack. They're the easiest target because they have all this smoke against them. Even Democrats are going against Assa for very effect. Wouldn't Wouldn't it be a chilling attack if they if they went after a bunch of non-millionaires and said Trump administration is persecuting large swats? Because that's harder for them to defend.
>> It's harder for them to defend. If you did Yes. If you did all of them. It's not. It's literally not against Hassan.
Wait, this is first of all, you can disagree with this position.
>> The entire reason they're doing this is dude, I don't even think they have any intention to like go after the like Hassan really. I truly believe this might just be Fox News.
The reason they're picking Hassan is because it's Hassan. That's why they want Hassan.
>> But what I take issue with is your notion that it's bad faith. It's bad faith to say that there could be interrupting and go after Hassan [ __ ] You've been interrupting and talking over people and using bad faith arguments since a >> guy's getting aped and he doesn't like it.
>> You got in here one bad argument, >> dude. Dude, this guy got so obliterated on the Oh, are you election Are you an election denier? He got so obliterated by that he can't handle
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
