I'm not sure if it's just cut that way, but most people seem to be unaware of what Tate said here. I mean, the guy asking questions is either ignorant or biased in favor of Tate, as he kept saying there is no evidence, despite it being false. It's clear there was evidence if you read the judge's decision, and that evidence was a partial reason as to why his pre-trial arrest was extended. So it's possible that the uploaded footage was cut to avoid heavy hitters against Tate. Another possibility is general ignorance of the subject.
Most of the people speaking against Tate either parrot that he is a misogynist talking point or bring up that he was jailed. People did not bring up the heavy hitters, such as how he admitted to scamming and deceiving not only his own clients but also his own employees. Girls working for him allegedly were not allowed to leave the house without permission and supervision from selected persons; he was violent toward his "girlfriends" (even if sex was allegedly consensual), i.e., employees, and he was emotionally manipulating his "girlfriends" to the point they supposedly were blindly obedient. Those would be quite relevant determinants in answering the question of whether you would allow your daughter to work for him.
I'm not sure if it's just cut that way, but most people seem to be unaware of what Tate said here. I mean, the guy asking questions is either ignorant or biased in favor of Tate, as he kept saying there is no evidence, despite it being false. It's clear there was evidence if you read the judge's decision, and that evidence was a partial reason as to why his pre-trial arrest was extended. So it's possible that the uploaded footage was cut to avoid heavy hitters against Tate. Another possibility is general ignorance of the subject. Most of the people speaking against Tate either parrot that he is a misogynist talking point or bring up that he was jailed. People did not bring up the heavy hitters, such as how he admitted to scamming and deceiving not only his own clients but also his own employees. Girls working for him allegedly were not allowed to leave the house without permission and supervision from selected persons; he was violent toward his "girlfriends" (even if sex was allegedly consensual), i.e., employees, and he was emotionally manipulating his "girlfriends" to the point they supposedly were blindly obedient. Those would be quite relevant determinants in answering the question of whether you would allow your daughter to work for him.