He Thought He Could Beat Me In A Debate.

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]2003.

[00:00:01]>> Okay, uh yeah, and how the hell do you still support this maniac? Okay, especially after today uh he's announced uh >> you go.

[00:00:08]>> an harassment campaign against the women that he raped. Uh or or or ordering the deal >> my harassing my eyes right now with that hair cut.

[00:00:17]>> Okay.

[00:00:18]>> took you took a kitchen scissors and just cut the sides there, bud.

[00:00:21]>> Uh I know. No, I actually took um some hedge trimmers. You know, like the [ __ ] that you use on the trees.

[00:00:29]>> Yeah, it's not working for you, pal. Got to get a new >> I don't know, I think it is. I think it is. I think I I think it's looking great. Middle part never goes away.

[00:00:37]Listen, it's been it's been iconic since the '70s. It's been iconic since uh uh before your time and mine.

[00:00:45]I think it's looking good.

[00:00:45]>> iconic who damaged it forever this hair will now forever be >> I don't know, you have a lot to say about my hair. Do you have hair?

[00:00:54]>> I I do. I'm 23.

[00:00:56]>> [laughter] >> Doubt. I think you're bald.

[00:00:58]>> comb.

[00:00:58]>> Nope, I know I think you're bald.

[00:01:01]I think it's like an ice rink up there.

[00:01:03]I think you could use the top of your head as like a mirror.

[00:01:06]And it honestly it's kind of handy because because how many people have a mirror on them like 24/7?

[00:01:14]Right? Like that's good. That's good, you know, like people will pay good money for portable mirrors and [ __ ] No, it's just right there all the time.

[00:01:22]>> You can use the top of your head as a terrorist tactic to try and get people to speak.

[00:01:27]That's what you can use your hair for.

[00:01:29]Just get them all riled up and then just make them make them crack under pressure.

[00:01:34]That was a good all right. [laughter] That was >> It's pretty good. Why do you support Trump?

[00:01:39]>> Thanks. Thanks.

[00:01:40]Um a a lot of reasons actually. I think then I you know, I spoke to you before, so um I spoke to you like a couple months ago, but I do want to say I was listening to Parker She must have been look I told you last time I have some respect for you, but what I don't respect me being an African-American is yesterday you were speaking it. Someone was obviously claiming you racist, and I do agree you're no longer racist, but you hold on to this narrative that you only said it when you were 14. Now, I find that very disingenuous, right? Like I want to believe someone when someone tells me, "Oh, they don't steal." Or let's say someone stole from my restaurant or from my house, right? And they stole two bars of candy, but they hold on to this narrative that they only stole one.

[00:02:18]Knowing damn well that they stole two, you know, you're not telling the full truth. Does that mean like you're really sorry? You know, you got caught when you're 14. That doesn't mean you only said it when you're 14, right? So, I'd like to see, you know, be be honest. If you are genuine about being sorry about it, you should, you know, or just I don't think you need to add on the part where it's 14 you're you're 14 cuz it makes you it makes you seem better, you know, and it and it's not true. So, it's like I think you should drop that part of the narrative and just, you know, admit that you're you know, you're done you're done with you're done with those old old actions, those old ways. And I again, as an African American, I appreciate it, but I just hate to hear that first when you start it off with when I was 14. And that's a lie, you know?

[00:02:59]We all know it's a lie, you know? So, >> Okay, what's your evidence that's a lie?

[00:03:04]>> I just because you got When did you get caught? A couple years ago?

[00:03:08]>> I I I don't think that a question is evidence, okay? Evidence would be individual statements of fact.

[00:03:12]>> I'm asking you a question. When did you >> you don't you you don't need to ask me a question to provide the evidence for your belief. Because once again, evidence for a belief uh would be individual statements of fact. And a and a statement of fact can't be a question because questions can't be true or false. So, well once again, what's the evidence for your uh belief that that's a lie?

[00:03:29]>> Well, my evidence would be that you got caught recently. I think it was the past 2 years.

[00:03:35]I mean, I believe it was a clip or something of you when you're 14.

[00:03:38]Um so, that doesn't mean anytime after from from the age 14 to when you got caught, which I believe what is 20, you're telling me you didn't say it once between those ages?

[00:03:47]>> So, you're basically So, you're basically saying that because you don't have a crystal ball into my life after 14 to track every word that came out of my mouth from that point forward. And after you can't All right, sounds good. All right, yeah, yeah. What a bad argument. So, let's talk about the Trump. Why do you support Trump?

[00:04:01]>> Well, why why would you just die on the hill? Just admit the fact that it would be >> I I mean, I think that you just admitted that you have no evidence for your belief in the >> So, why don't you just clear the room with your >> Listen, if you if you were able if you were able to like provide actual evidence that something I lied about, I'd take you a lot more seriously and I'd probably want to flush out this position of yours.

[00:04:16]But, I mean, there's no evidence for your belief in the slightest. You're just essentially saying that because you don't have a crystal ball into my life to track every single word that left my mouth from the age of 14 to 21 today.

[00:04:25]But, therefore, you could just basically basically assume that, you know, I'm still slinging the N-word around when I'm off off the live. So, therefore, I'm a categorical racist liar. Yeah, I I mean, yeah, what a what a silly argument. It's obviously counter >> No, no, I'm not saying >> Something that a lot of Trump supporters will do. They'll get very emotional and launch, you know, misappropriated and baseless personal attacks at me. I mean, it happens all the time. It's, you know, something that we expect when I start my When I start my live stream, I expect very emotional Trump supporters that debate in very bad faith to come up here and make baseless arguments for rage-bait purposes to avoid a debate about why you support Trump. Listen, man, let's talk about the facts. Trump is the worst president of your life, okay? You said that you were a black American. Well, in the '70s, he was sued by the New York State Justice Department for refusing to rent to black people. In the '90s, he called all black people lazy.

[00:05:14]And even today, he's furthering racial disparities regardless if it's because he's disproportionately hurting black women through giving states the ability to ban abortion, which disproportionately disenfranchises them, or disproportionately disenfranchising black people as a whole by taking from the poor and giving to the rich, which disproportionately negatively impacts black people since they have lower net worths and lower incomes on average due to systemic racism, slavery, and its aftermath. All these things disproportionately hurt your community. Now, even on top of that, I mean, I don't think that there's a single material way you could identify Donald Trump has helped the country over the course of the last year and a half.

[00:05:45]He seems just to be breaking his promises. You know, no new wars that went out the window, reducing the price of groceries that went out the window, reducing the price of energy and gas in the first year that went out the window, stopping Russia's invasion of Ukraine that went out the window, building the wall that went out the window. And instead, he's just, you know, furthering his own personal devices like his path of conquest across across the world costing us billions. His shitty economic policy just to disenfranchise the working class to give back to the top 1% costing us billions. His illegal tariffs that literally cost Americans $92 billion out of our own pockets that we paid illegally, by the way. See, like these are all the reasons why you shouldn't support him. Of course, there's many others, too, but I I just want to know how how do you like compartmentalize these reasons in so far as why he's a terrible president in your consideration that you still support him.

[00:06:29]>> Well, I do believe economically he is sort of working to to a He's working towards a few things to help this country. But why should me or anyone else in this chat that wants to believe you believe you as an aggregator when you can't even tell the truth about certain events in your life? You're yet to denounce that.

[00:06:50]Why should we believe you as an aggregator if you can't even be truthful >> Oh, yeah, denounce your silly claim?

[00:06:55]Yeah, well, yeah, you're wrong. I did stop using illegal immigrants.

[00:06:58]>> This is not silly at all. I don't know what you think is so funny about this claim at all. It's not funny in the slightest. It's not silly at all.

[00:07:04]>> it is absolutely silly. Yeah, it's it's by nature silly because it's it's a belief that you hold with no evidence.

[00:07:09]>> You're being disingenuous, so admit it.

[00:07:11]>> I I think that you're being disingenuous. I think that you're being disingenuous. You haven't been able to provide any evidence for your claim, and you're just using a cheap way to debate about Trump.

[00:07:18]>> to use you to debate >> Like like I I I I just gave you around like I just I just I just gave you around like 30 reasons why Trump is a bad president. And and then the last time like you respond and and and then when you responded to the reasons why Trump is a bad president, you just said, "Well, I don't think he's doing too good for the economy, but I'm actually going to ignore everything else that you said and Dean, you're disingenuous." You use the N-word like that. Like no one believes you, bro. It's a shitty rage bit. If you want to rage bit me, I'd recommend like, you know, picking like a better path of something you could actually defend. doing No one's rage baiting you, says the rage baiter.

[00:07:47]>> [laughter] >> Hold on, you've done a great job the past two years to advocate for the African American community, and I just said you should just drop that part of your narrative to make yourself seem better. It is okay, we know that you said it.

[00:08:00]The The fact that you said it when you were 14, and that that that just that just like propagates the notion that propagates the notion that you've only said it when you're 14 and 14 only.

[00:08:10]>> Why would I stop saying that I used the N-word when I was 14 because that's certainly true that I used the N-word when I was 14? Like, what?

[00:08:17]>> You got caught [clears throat] when you were you got you got caught years later at the end you the video of you getting caught was you at the age of 14.

[00:08:24]What are you talking about?

[00:08:25]>> I'm just confused on I'm confused on like what you're saying I'm doing wrong.

[00:08:31]>> Bro, you got caught saying something when you were 14 at the age of 20.

[00:08:36]>> True.

[00:08:37]>> So, you're telling me that you you So, what what made you automatically stop saying that word at the age of 14? I don't understand.

[00:08:45]>> Well, I think it was actually around 15.

[00:08:47]Uh and I mean, yeah, there there there I mean, there actually is a story about why I stopped using the N-word at 15, but it's irrelevant to the purpose of the live stream, which is to talk to Trump supporters about why they support the president.

[00:08:59]I I mean, I mean, you could you could definitely find a clip out there of me You you you could definitely find a clip of of me out there talking about that story. Like, like when when all this came out like 2 years ago or so, I I definitely went over that story quite a bit.

[00:09:13]Uh like, that's fine. Like, you you could you could go out there just I'd recommend like going on like Tik Tok searching like Dean N-word or whatever.

[00:09:19]I'm sure I'm sure if you dig deep enough >> Your chat's even saying it's a work.

[00:09:22]>> I'm sure that if you like dig far I'm sure if you dig like far enough, you could find it. Um but the purpose of this live stream is to talk to people about why they support the president.

[00:09:30]Could you please Could you please respond? Could you please respond to the reasons I gave you I dropped the president?

[00:09:35]>> You It's nasty that you don't want to >> It's It's nasty I I I I I I already have. You could go find it on the internet. That's just not the purpose of this live stream. The purpose of this live stream is to debate people about why they support Trump. And And frankly, if you think that I'm doing something nasty, okay, well, that's fine. I mean, you could be a little [ __ ] snowflake and like run away to your echo chamber to, you know, uh to like, you know, uh I don't I don't I don't know, like self-loathe and uh and and hate yourself, hate me in the process because you support a rapist as president. I call you and all the other Trump supporters out for that.

[00:10:04]>> Tell you that.

[00:10:06]>> And somebody's getting very emotional because now that you understand this is a losing argument for you, you want to go back to the haircut. I just think that Mr. Baldy down here is jealous.

[00:10:13]So, do you want to respond to the reasons that I gave you in so far as uh why Trump is a bad president, or do you want to continue to go >> Bald, dude. I'm not bald like you. Like I said >> Okay, yeah, you could you could deny that you're bald, it's fine.

[00:10:22]>> Um You can deny the fact that you continue to say the word after the age of 14.

[00:10:27]>> Well, I mean, actually, yeah, I'd argue that you have just as much evidence that I continue to use that word after the age of around 14 or 15 as I do that you were bald, which would be none.

[00:10:35]But because you, it's okay apparently >> No, I just used >> to believe things without evidence. I'm going to believe that you're bald. Um Listen, [snorts] dude, Kobe, this is annoying as [ __ ] You're obviously making a fool out of yourself. Hey hey, Kobe, I'm going to put you on mute.

[00:10:48]Hush.

[00:10:50]One.

[00:10:51]Two.

[00:10:56]There we go, guys. We have to treat them like kindergarteners. That's just a part of the whole stick. It's crazy. I would be a good pre-K teacher.

[00:11:06]All right, Kobe, now that you've calmed down, that's great. Good for you, buddy.

[00:11:10]I gave you around 30 reasons why Trump is a bad president. I'd like you to respond to them. Uh you want to make this live stream about No.

[00:11:17]No, going back on me.

[00:11:19]I have to treat you like a child.

[00:11:22]>> [sighs] >> MAGA men, folks.

[00:11:26]>> [snorts] >> MAGA men.

[00:11:27]>> What was that?

[00:11:28]>> Four.

[00:11:32]We just have to have him calm down.

[00:11:34]MAGA men act like kids.

[00:11:37]I think that we should like postpone the age to like get a driver's license for MAGA men to like 25. Vote to like 30 cuz it's like they don't like mentally mature until like middle age and that's like even like a maybe. Okay, because you guys have seen like the 70 60 50-year-old MAGA men on this live stream. It's crazy.

[00:11:56]Um Okay, he's calmed down. Perfect. Thank you, buddy. Good job. I'll give you golden star if you want.

[00:12:01]Um and maybe I could tell your mom to take you out to get some ice cream after classes out, right? Uh but listen, so I gave you around 30 reasons why Trump is a bad president. I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to those. Most predominantly, I want you to respond to the breaking news of the live which is the fact that Donald Trump is now legally harassing and targeting the woman who he raped. So, Carroll was able to testify in a court, provide evidence, and convince unanimous jury of nine that he raped her. Okay? Now, the day after winning his second term and losing all of his appeals on the rape case, he has now told the DOJ to investigate E. Jean Carroll for perjury.

[00:12:39]What's perjury? Lying under oath. What are they accusing her of lying under oath about? Him raping her.

[00:12:45]Well, that's insane because her testimony led to him being found guilty.

[00:12:50]So, what's your thoughts on you and other Trump supporters electing a rapist to be president just for that rapist to then turn around and use the power vested in the presidency to attack his rape victim.

[00:13:03]>> So, I'm missing the part where he's where he harassed her by getting the DOJ to re- reinvestigate.

[00:13:12]So, what I'm saying about you is as an aggregator, you're just completely Where How is he harassing her in any way? Can you explain how this is harassment?

[00:13:20]>> Yeah, having the DOJ investigate her for perjury.

[00:13:23]>> How is that harassment?

[00:13:24]>> Because a court literally proved that she wasn't committed perjury?

[00:13:27]>> you Can you define what harassment is?

[00:13:29]>> [laughter] >> Yeah.

[00:13:30]Intentionally like attacking somebody repetitively. And of course we've seen repetitive attacks from Donald Trump starting out from his original defamation of E. Jean Carroll's character after she dropped her book to while the court case was ongoing to after the court case found him guilty to then tax on truth social before his presidency. Now with the largest attack yet to date which would be him attacking her through the DOJ trying to get her on perjury now. The reason why the DOJ investigating her for perjury is [ __ ] is because the court's already proved that she didn't perjure herself.

[00:14:02]You know, like the court that deemed her testimony as being factual. Court that held Donald Trump liable for raping her.

[00:14:09]>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. What do you mean? How did they What What do you mean? If someone lied under oath, how would How would they have gone through Well, I I I I I I I don't understand.

[00:14:17]How do you know she didn't lie under oath? That's maybe why they Why would the DOJ pick up the >> Because the jury ruled the truth.

[00:14:23]Because the jury ruled >> Okay. How many How many cases Do you know how many cases have have been have been have been have have gone have gone back on their original verdicts?

[00:14:31]>> Uh well, this one hasn't.

[00:14:33]Look look like listen. If If If like If like some court like overturned the verdicts, said that the jury got it wrong and like she was lying. And and then like the DOJ investigated her for perjury. Okay, well like I'd get it.

[00:14:45]Okay, right? At least from a legal perspective I've I'd get it. But I mean Donald Trump has appealed the outcome of this court case five times. And in every single instance he's lost that appeal.

[00:14:55]And And you're arguing that it's about to be overturned. No, it's not, buddy.

[00:14:58]I'm sorry. That's go. Can you give an argument for that? I bet you can't. I bet you're just going to go out and yap on about how ooh E. Jean Carroll crazy liar with no reason, no rhyme, no evidence whatsoever just like your frivolous attacks on me and my character.

[00:15:11]But go ahead. Make the case. Make the case >> My frivolous attacks Listen.

[00:15:15]>> that E. Jean Carroll had perjured herself. What's the argument, Colby?

[00:15:20]>> Just love hearing yourself talk. Bro.

[00:15:23]>> By the way, watch this guy. He's just going to start talking about me again.

[00:15:25]He's going to completely like forget that he's supposed to be giving an argument that E. Jean Carroll perjured herself.

[00:15:30]>> Well, I was going to answer, but you're just talking to yourself, bro.

[00:15:36]You're just talking to yourself. Little little bean, little munchkin, just yapping. Love hearing yourself talk.

[00:15:42]Look, um like I said, I don't know what what what uh Trump has on his behalf and to prove that she is wrong and I don't know um I don't I don't I don't think her E. Jean Carroll's argument was sufficient enough to prove that he did do it.

[00:15:58]Um >> Why?

[00:16:00]>> So, I I think it'd be interesting to see how how this case goes. If he is to If he's to fail under another attempt, then I think uh it's best that we just leave the case as it is and um leave it to be the verdict that it was um initially determined to be. But, if you know, there's some new findings that DOJ Like I said, I I I I don't think the DOJ would really pick up an unnecessary case or a case that doesn't have enough substance. So, the fact that they are even looking What's What's funny? Sorry.

[00:16:28]>> W- Well, because that's what the Trump DOJ is notorious for doing. So, before Donald Trump's uh second administration, the DOJ had a successful indictment rate of 97.7%.

[00:16:39]Uh they they they rarely, okay, would start an investigation in an attempt to achieve an indictment or conviction and fail. Like literally the most successful legal body on the face of the >> now to me. My narrative >> Now, Well, you see, the the the the second part is what doesn't support your narrative. Is since the beginning of Donald Trump's second administration, uh their successful indictment rate has dropped from 97.7% uh to nearly uh 70% in in just a year and a half. Because we have seen baseless, trivial indictments lobbed at Donald Trump's political opponents with no reason and no rhyme because of how truly delusional Donald Trump is. Regardless of it's Letitia James who the indictment failed against or the ex-chairman of the Fed Jerome Powell who the indictment failed against or Donald Trump's ridiculous calls for indictments against people like Obama for blatant lies and conspiracy and conspiracy theories because he's detached from reality such as the accusation that Obama is a literal demon that had wiretapped the Trump Towers that worked with the CIA to coup the government in 2016 or his similar basement charges against Biden saying that we need to indict Biden at once for the auto pen even though there's nothing illegal about an auto pen and in fact it's something that he uses too. That's his whole stick is to lob baseless allegations against individuals. I mean I I I would say that the most notorious case of this happening so far in the second administration is Kilmar Vera Garcia a man in which they falsely accused of being a human trafficker a man in which they falsely accused of being a gang member a man in which they falsely accused of being a violent criminal and then illegally deported to Siquinala Salvador to literally be tortured and beaten and then the Supreme Court ruled that he had to come back because they illegally deported him. They then argued it wasn't illegal that was quickly overturned. They had to bring him back.

[00:18:27]So then they pressed charges against him for human trafficking while still calling him a gang member. The charges for human trafficking got thrown out because there's no evidence for them less than a week ago and they haven't been able to produce a shred of evidence that he's a gang member ever since.

[00:18:41]That is the basis of the Trump administration is baseless political persecution of their opponents. Same thing with the six Democrats in Congress who he accused of treason all because they told members of the military to remember the Unicode form of justice.

[00:18:59]>> Okay. So how can First of all, do you want to sneeze or something, bro? I don't know what you're doing with your face. It's really pissing me off. How can you say it's baseless?

[00:19:06]>> [laughter] >> I'm happy I pissed you off. I'm happy I pissed you off. Good. Good. Good. Good.

[00:19:09]>> How How can you say it's baseless if even now if they have a 70 There you go, good boy. If they have like a 70% um uh succession rate, how is that baseless? It's clear that they've been um victorious obviously more times than not. Okay, how can you say that it's baseless? And even in the first position like you said, it was 92% and now you're saying all the times they've been victorious was 92%.

[00:19:32]>> that they've been victorious is just in like random trivial cases prosecuted by the federal government.

[00:19:36]>> for sure just random, right, Dean? Of course. Of course they would be.

[00:19:40]>> Can you give me a notable case against one of Donald Trump's political opponents that the DOJ has been able to successfully yield a conviction from?

[00:19:46]>> find I bet I can find one, but like I said, this is again, you as an aggregator. I probably >> No, no, do it. Find me one notable case where the Trump DOJ was able to successfully indict one of Donald Trump's political opponents and then find them guilty of a crime.

[00:19:58]>> Wait, what?

[00:19:59]No, I I I I I don't know about successfully indicting one of his political opponents.

[00:20:04]>> I know. Yeah, because every single time they've indicted one of Donald Trump's political opponents >> So the all the indictments that they take on is all against political opponents?

[00:20:11]>> No, the vast majority are like random [ __ ] cases being prosecuted at the federal level, which is exactly where that 70% successful indictment and prosecution rate comes from. The reason why it's dropped from 97.7% to 70% the first time in recorded US history, by the way, is because of the baseless and trivial accusations that Donald Trump and his admin have been lobbing at their political opponents like such as the people that have already gone over from Kilmer Brega Garcia to Letitia James to James Comey to the six Democrats in Congress and now to E. Jean Carroll. Okay. And you said, "Well, maybe we just have to wait to see like how this investigation from the DOJ plays out to see if Donald Trump has any evidence that he's guilty and that she had perjured herself." Well, we already did. We already saw that play out in the original court case that concluded in 2023 where the jury ruled that he was guilty. And then we saw it play out again in the first appeal with the local circuit court. Then we saw it play out again in a second appeal with a federal court. Then we saw it play out again in a third appeal with another federal court. And Donald Trump lost, lost, and lost. Okay, you cannot produce a single shred of evidence here that E. Jean Carroll was a liar. Meanwhile, we could prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that he raped her regardless if it's because we're pointing at her testimony that stayed consistent for 30 years, the corroboration of her testimony from four of her friends, therapist notes from the '90s indicating she was raped by Donald Trump, the testimony of the psychotherapist saying that her testimony is consistent with signs of trauma that real victims of rape would experience, the dress that she submitted to the court claiming that it was she was what she was raped in by Trump and it had DNA on it in which Donald Trump refused to test his against which means he's likely guilty or his lies such as saying that he never met her which was then proven false with a picture of them together or a second lie saying that he never raped her because she wasn't his type which was then proven false by him uh confusing the picture of his ex-wife Marla Maples to be E. Jean Carroll in her deposition or all of his character priors in which suggest that he is at a extremely heightened propensity compared to the average male to rape a woman because he's already engaged in other forms of sexual violence in the in the past and took and uh and and and taken great pride in it ranging from the sexual exploitation of beauty pageants to the credible accusation from a minor in the e-files to the other 40-plus accusations from other women and girls. Okay, we know that this man did it. And I think that your response is ultimately going to be trivial and baseless. You're just going to say, "Oh, well, I don't think it was enough." But then you're not going to explain why it's enough evidence. You're going to say, "Well, I think that Donald Trump may be successful with this indictment from the DOJ to prove that she perjured herself."

[00:22:21]But then you won't be able to give the evidence uh that she did perjure herself. And it's just going to be this back and forth between an intellect such as myself and a [ __ ] [ __ ] like you.

[00:22:31]>> [laughter] >> There you go with the insults.

[00:22:35]Um but I don't understand why you do that either. That's kind of weird. Um anyway, so wait.

[00:22:41]>> can't swim then you shouldn't have hopped in the pool. You started this live by saying that my hair looks like [ __ ] so >> your your chirps do nothing to me. It bounces off like it it's like a like a like a like a rock.

[00:22:50]It doesn't >> Good. So, what So, what? There I just just a quick question. Where this um that this happened in a a store, correct? So, were there no cameras in this mall or in the store that picked them up and going into the same area or >> Sure, good question. So, this happened in 1995 1996. So, there's a chance that in the store there I'm answering the question. You're just going to have to wait. So, this happened in 1995 1996.

[00:23:17]So, there's a chance that the store in which this occurred didn't have cameras.

[00:23:20]But if the the store did have cameras, they would have been VHS recording cameras and then those recordings are taped over like on a weekly bi-weekly basis. They don't just save all the physical VHS recordings of every camera forever. They just tape over the old ones.

[00:23:33]>> [snorts] >> So, so I mean you know the case well enough. Were there was there um was there evidence of like was that ever brought up during trial of any like evidence of there being any footage by either side?

[00:23:48]>> No, which means that there either wasn't cameras or the VHS footage was taped over. Because if there was footage of it and he did rape her, that would have been advantageous to E. Jean Carroll.

[00:23:56]And if there was footage of it and he didn't rape her, that would have been advantageous to Donald Trump.

[00:24:03]>> No, obviously [laughter] that's why that's why I asked.

[00:24:06]>> Right. So, no footage on either side.

[00:24:08]>> Okay. I mean I would actually like to look into that cuz I don't know. I feel like that's kind of that's kind of odd that it was never brought up. Well, on both sides, I mean.

[00:24:16]>> It It's It's not odd because like I said, stores that did have security >> saying it's 1995, dude? How how how old is your chat, bro? What do you mean?

[00:24:24]There were there were cameras in 1995.

[00:24:26]>> But the reason why they're saying 1995 isn't because there wasn't cameras in 1995.

[00:24:30]>> No, that's exactly why they're saying it.

[00:24:31]>> No, no, no. It's It's It's because the cameras that did exist in 1995 were once again, as I already said, you just need to listen to me, recorded by VHS tapes.

[00:24:40]And those were physical like like material tapes that they would then tape over. Listen to me. No one interrupt me.

[00:24:46]Listen to me.

[00:24:47]Listen to me. Don't interrupt me. I'm going to put you on mute. That they would like then tape over like one or two weeks later. So, the the reason why everybody he like, "Hey, bro, it's 1995 when it happened. Why are you asking if there's footage?" Well, it's because the VH the VHS tapes would literally be taped over. Okay, the footage if there was any was gone 2 weeks after it happened in 1995 or 1996.

[00:25:11]>> Um Okay, I mean I don't know how true that is. I'm pretty sure like they keep copies of them. Don't they like them I'm pretty sure they keep copies of each like that that's how that's how it was done. They would they keep like a storage unit and they would they would copy each each tape put it in another What was the thing called? The black box? What what were they called?

[00:25:28]>> Mhm.

[00:25:28]>> The cassette tape they would they would they would copy them and you know, put them in storage.

[00:25:33]>> They would only keep copies of tapes if like a crime was reported or if they suspected that a crime had been committed which would be because once again either like somebody that worked for the store like think think thought that they had saw somebody steal or like the cops came to them and said, "Can we check out your tapes?" So, those would be like the only scenarios that they would keep recordings of the tapes because digital like copies didn't exist then so it wasn't as easy as like putting it on a like a on a thumb drive. Uh it would it would like require like keeping like the material like physical VHS tape which it would be expensive and and then the companies wouldn't do that.

[00:26:09]>> Okay.

[00:26:10]Yeah, I mean like I said I I actually like to look into that. I mean why why if it was ever brought up I'm just interested to see if it was ever brought up by you know, what what happened. But um yeah, I just think I don't know.

[00:26:21]The case is like it's it's murky because um it it's I think it's like a clear that maybe they did encounter each other on one or two occasions. So, I don't know why he said he never met her. Uh maybe it was to I don't know.

[00:26:38]>> Cuz he's lying.

[00:26:39]>> I can't really tell you. I'm not in them. Well, yeah. I mean but um Yeah, I think that specific instance Well, I mean I'm not in the mind of Trump. I can't I can't answer that for you. I can't tell you.

[00:26:51]>> answer to why he lied is because he did it. And as proven by all the evidence I gave you.

[00:26:55]>> I think I think popular look I'm I'm I'm in like I said I I do have to do more I'm going to um let the case run its own due diligence and see how that sort of pans out and what new evidence >> It already did. They found him guilty.

[00:27:08]>> relax, okay? Hold on. Let me speak for more than maybe 5 seconds. There's another case being brought forth and I think on both sides, no matter what part of the narrative you're on, I'm interested to see whether or not there's new evidence that's going to be brought forward on E. Jean Carroll's side and or Donald Trump's side. And there's no there's no there's no further evidence to be brought forward then we could just end it as that. But I'm saying I'm interested to see >> end it at that after the original court case? Or after the first appeal? Or after the second appeal? Or after the third appeal? That's the thing. It is a slippery slope for you guys. You say that you'll end it at that once the court case is over.

[00:27:39]>> No, you certainly won't, okay? Because the court case is over. Uh they determined that he raped her in 2023.

[00:27:45]And then he lost his first appeal, second appeal, and third appeal. It's done. Now if like Donald Trump wants to bring forth this new investigation accusing him of uh of perjury, well all that this means is that the status quo is that he raped her unless by some [ __ ] uh satanic miracle they're able to prove otherwise, okay? Because what's the legal precedent? Innocent until proven guilty. And as it stands, Donald Trump has been proven guilty. And now today, E. Jean Carroll is innocent of perjury until proven guilty of perjury.

[00:28:17]And it is only that if E. Jean Carroll is found guilty of perjury that then Donald Trump would be innocent. I would also like to point out that there is just simply no evidence that she did perjure herself because any evidence to suggest Donald Trump's innocence would have been brought forth in the three-year discovery period of the original court case, the first appeal, the second appeal, the third appeal, the fourth appeal, or the fifth appeal.

[00:28:47]>> Okay, so if you're so confident, do you want to make a bet right now that there will be like a new like some sort of like I I like I'm saying I I just find it crazy how confident you are that this case is being brought forward by the DOJ is going to be absolutely you know, just it's unreasonable.

[00:29:03]There's no reason why it's brought forward. Do you want to make a bet that something will be brought forth that will maybe um implicate Carroll in some way. Maybe she lied about a certain testimony. Maybe you know, there's there could have been a part of her testimony that she lied about or maybe >> Where's the evidence?

[00:29:21]>> What do you mean? No no one knows, dude.

[00:29:22]The case isn't happening.

[00:29:23]>> so there's currently no evidence. So as it stands, the only evidence that exists, i.e. the ruling of a jury of nine and the outcome of five appeals is that he raped her. Thank you.

[00:29:32]>> Okay, but that has nothing to do with my point.

[00:29:34]>> is like saying, even though a bunch of evidence exists that the Earth is round, i.e. satellite imagery, mathematics, uh the the location of the Sun in reference to the location of the Earth, uh you know, like the visible stars in the northern in the in the southern uh southern hemisphere, uh you know, like uh like literal probes of like for instance, trips to the moon and back, like Artemis 2, and then the footage from those missions, uh so on and so forth to prove that the Earth is round, well, because there exists a possibility that the Earth is flat and and there's evidence to prove it, uh to contradict and dismiss anything that NASA or mathematics has been able to give us over the course of the last 2,000 years, uh even though we don't know what that evidence is, we we should still assume a position of agnosticism? No. No, that's not how we should operate in the in the world at all because the evidence that we have proves beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that he raped her and he's failed six times in the original court case then with five appeals to demonstrate otherwise. Okay, the status quo is that he's guilty of raping E.

[00:30:37]Jean Carroll. You cannot just appeal to ignorance and say that, well, because I'm ignorant of any potential knowledge or information or evidence to demonstrate otherwise, okay, that therefore I'm going to assume a position of agnosticism because assuming your worldview, we would then just be agnostic on everything. Like there's possible evidence that could exist to prove that like you're just an AI robot paid for by Russia to antagonize me and annoy my viewers. Therefore, I'm agnostic on if you are a real person or not, even though all the evidence that I do have indicates that you are a real person. Or I'm agnostic on if my girlfriend loves me or not because even though all of the evidence that exists indicates that she does love me, i.e. the great relationship that we've built up over the course of the last five or so years, the communion in which we share in love and eating together and sleeping in the same bed and and doing things together and going on dates together, so on and so forth. Well, because there's a possibility that evidence exists to prove otherwise, like it's possible that maybe somewhere on her phone she has deleted messages with her bestie saying that she hates me.

[00:31:37]Okay, well then I'm agnostic on if my girlfriend loves me or No, I wouldn't be agnostic on that cuz all the evidence I have demonstrates that she does love me and although it's possible that evidence exists to demonstrate otherwise, I don't have that evidence and it's unlikely that that evidence exists in the first place. So be because of like once again, this dialogue of thought, you cannot assume that because of the possibility of evidence to demonstrate that he didn't rape her that you don't have that therefore all of the evidence that actually exists that actually did demonstrate that he did rape her, all of the sudden you're agnostic on the subject matter. Do you get where I'm coming from?

[00:32:12]>> Yeah, bro. I just don't think you needed to throw me in the rap. It was pretty obvious what you were trying to say there. Um, sure, yeah. I mean, but like I said, um I think on both sides, like you would you would like to hear the argument, right? Like even if like we were we have an insurmountable amount of evidence to prove that the earth is round, if NASA were to come out and say that they have maybe some sort of evidence to prove otherwise, I think everyone would listen no matter what side of the uh spectrum you are on.

[00:32:38]So, that's that's simply what I'm saying in this case. Like, even though there may be an insurmountable of evidence to prove Donald Trump was was guilty in the civil court.

[00:32:47]>> Oh.

[00:32:48]>> Um I think that what What are you trying to say or >> Yeah, yeah. The the court case isn't even about perjury in the testimony of him raping her. The court case is about um where she got the funding from for hiring her lawyers.

[00:33:11]>> Okay. Well, whatever the case whatever the case is.

[00:33:15]>> Oh, damn. So, do you concede?

[00:33:19]>> Do I concede what?

[00:33:20]>> Because you just told us that well, if the DOJ is suggesting that maybe she perjured herself when she said that he raped her. Uh and and and and and then, you know, the the case goes on. No, shut up and listen to me. And and then it's ruled that like she didn't perjure herself.

[00:33:36]>> I would apologize for being incorrect.

[00:33:38]>> Okay, but but then it seems actually like it is the case. But that's not even like what this this investigation is about. This is a trivial investigation into her possibly lying about where she got the funding from.

[00:33:50]But you know, because you know, the judge was aware that she got her funding for her lawyers from Reed Hoffman.

[00:33:57]It's expected the case will be dismissed and all five appeals where he's attempted to challenge the legitimacy of the standing that, you know, he raped her have failed. And the original court ruled that he did rape her. It seems like that's a closed book. So, therefore you should believe that he raped her.

[00:34:10]And like this argument goes out the window.

[00:34:13]>> So, it's clear I mean, you don't know what the DOJ is presenting. So, I'm just going to do my own due diligence and look into it. Cuz who knows, you could probably go back in the world all once again and say that the case is about something totally different.

[00:34:23]>> So, if if if So, if the case if the case if the case was not about if the case was not about the standing of the claim that he raped her, but rather about the standing of where she got the money from to pursue the case, would you concede that he raped her?

[00:34:41]>> Um I I I think I I I have to I have to look into that. I have to look into the case a little bit more. Um but I think I'm I'm under the the belief that it's more likely than not that he did um or what was the what was the verdict that he sexually assaulted her or whatever the case was um [snorts] at this at this point in time. But like I said, I do have to look more into the evidence, look into like the the transcripts of the case, like how it went about. Um but yeah. Uh I mean I so I I would like to speak more about like the economy just so that we can get somewhere and actually speak with with substance um as opposed to going back and forth with with this this civil finding. I think it's very hard to to discourse on on civil cases. If it was a criminal case, I think we'd have a lot more of a productive dialogue. Um but it's it's very tough to to because like because civil cases civil cases rely on beyond reasonable doubt, right? But um so it's there's real there's no real hardcore evidence.

[00:35:44]Um so uh I would like to speak about um uh Trump actually is in a in a way where he's working towards um helping out the economy. Um he is sort of advocating or um feeding into his America first narrative.

[00:36:01]With that, I spoke to you about this before. Um but actually the last time I spoke, my phone died. It was about the H-1B visas.

[00:36:07]Um my phone died through our conference halfway through the conversation. So I was speaking about how he's like placing these restrictions on these companies to force them uh to look internally uh to hire uh domestic um candidates.

[00:36:23]>> Lol.

[00:36:27]>> So Yeah.

[00:36:30]>> Is a plain anything okay? Yeah, yeah, what a what a nonsense word salad. Holy.

[00:36:35]So, the first thing that you said there is that because it was a civil case, there's no damning evidence because the burden of proof is lower. So, you're right. The burden of proof is >> time. Can we just speak about the H-1B visas? I mean >> Should I not respond to the claims that you made?

[00:36:48]>> You can just respond to the claim that really matters for this conversation to move forward.

[00:36:52]>> Okay, so I should I should just like completely ignore your lies about civil cases. Cuz it's it's just simply not true to suggest that because the uh burden of proof is lower in civil court, so therefore there can't be damning evidence in a civil court >> that wasn't my That wasn't my claim at all. I said there's it's beyond reasonable doubt, which means there's no hardcore evidence to prove otherwise, which is why it was a civil One number one did the the um >> Right. So, I I did accurately represent your claim because that's what I just said you said. I said that you said that because it was a civil court case, there was no damning evidence.

[00:37:23]>> Okay. [laughter] >> At least you don't deem this not what I said. What I did say is that because it was a civil case, there's damning evidence.

[00:37:29]>> Okay.

[00:37:29]>> [laughter] >> So, yeah. That's false. Uh so, I do understand that the burden of proof in civil court cases is lower than criminal court cases. But this doesn't mean that something cannot be proved with damning evidence in a civil court case because the burden of proof is just a minimum standard, not a maximum standard. You could prove something inside of a civil court case with like direct video evidence of it or a direct like secretly recorded admission of guilt because it's still above the minimum threshold of a preponderance of the evidence. So, for you to say that because it's a civil court case >> I mean that's very >> therefore there was no damning evidence simply does not follow.

[00:38:03]>> It is very obvious. I mean otherwise there wouldn't be such thing as a civil case.

[00:38:08]Obviously like you're going to you're going to have you have to have at least some sort of like some sort of amount of evidence to to prove a certain verdict or else there would just be they would all fall under the umbrella of a criminal criminal case.

[00:38:22]>> I don't >> I'm sorry, I'm not listening to what I'm saying. My argument isn't that you need some evidence to prove something in a civil court case, but rather my argument is it doesn't follow that there can't be damning evidence in civil court cases because there absolutely can be damning [clears throat] evidence in civil court cases. So, when you say that because it was a civil court case, there was therefore no damning evidence, that doesn't follow because you could prove something in a civil court case with like direct video evidence of a crime being committed.

[00:38:50]>> Right. Okay. Even though direct video evidence is damning evidence. So, when you say that because it's a civil court case, there was therefore no damning evidence, that's just simply false.

[00:38:59]>> Right.

[00:39:00]Okay. Um so, then yeah, I guess I'll consider that for the for the sake of this conversation. Um so, like I said >> I know. I know. I know. You it's like, "Oh, Dean, I can see that squares have four sides and four 90° angles not because it's right, but rather because I want to progress the conversation along." It's just insane to me how like far [clears throat] you guys are willing to take it just to like ignore the truth. Uh yo, Full Ban, thank you so much for the $20 over on Super Chat.

[00:39:24]Thank you so much for that love, Full Ban. Let's get two of the Full Ban W's in the chat. Full Ban with the $20 says, "Yes, go ahead and tell the city I'll bet him $5,000 that they don't introduce a new show of evidence." Damn, bro, you'd be $5,000 richer. Anthony, thank you for the $10. He says, "What's good, Dean? I'm so tired of this administration. I wish we could find a way to remove him." Yeah, bro, for real.

[00:39:41]I think that Congress needs to kick his ass to the curb on God. Feisty Bot, thank you so much for the $10. He says, "That darn tissue, Dean."

[00:39:48]Didn't see that. I was looking at Tik Tok. Got it out of the view. Thank you so much for letting me know, Feisty.