Permanent Bans and Political Actors with Darren Beattie
"Trust." "Safety." These are the Orwellian words used as a cover for the most aggressive censorship tactics at Big Tech companies. Darren Beattie of Revolver News joins guest host Jack Posobiec to reveal the hidden truth of these sinister forces, and expose the surprising link between censorship at Apple and a top official of the Obama administration. Plus, Jack explores Republican efforts to repeal the military's vaxx mandate, and in the wake of the latest Kanye West news, he explores another important question: When, if ever, is a permanent ban acceptable?Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
America Fest Summit Plan00:03:30
Jack Visobic filling in for Charlie Kirk here at the Charlie Kirk Show.
We've got an incredible interview here for you today with Darren Beattie talking all about whose fingerprints are really behind the trust and safety initiatives.
Also a discussion about leverage.
Who has it?
Who wields it?
And why?
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Folks, there's so much going on in our world.
People are saying, who has the power?
Who has the leverage?
Things feel like they're spinning out of control.
What are we going to do?
What's the plan forward?
Where is the still point in a chaotic world?
Well, I'm going to tell you something.
There is a still point and there is a still point coming because there is a summit.
There is a summit afoot.
There is a summit that's being planned and your attendance is requested.
And that summit is America Fest.
A meeting of the minds.
Charlie Kirk, myself, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Tim Poole, so many others.
Make sure you come because we are going to lay out the plan forward for America.
The plan for America 2024, 2025.
And maybe, by the way, a few last-minute surprises.
Producer Andrew is mentioning here a few surprises that can't quite get into yet, but they're big.
Some might say, some might even say huge.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Some surprises coming forward, but folks, make sure you come.
And we've got the promo for Amfest.
Let's play that now.
Pro-American Patriots from Sea to Shining Sea are coming together to reclaim our foundational truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Charlie Kirk here.
2022 is the year we take back America.
So let's make history again.
The movement starts here at Turning Point USA in Phoenix, Arizona.
Join us December 17th to the 20th at America Fest.
Purchase your tickets right now for the biggest conservative party in America at amfest.com.
That is amfest.com, amfest.com.
See you there.
And I love that ad, but I also want to add the thing that I would love to add to it is that this is not just a party.
It's not just a celebration.
This is going to be a working group.
And so you need to come.
As Steve would say, you got to bring your number two pencil.
Of course, as Steve would say, your number two brunzel.
He had an R in there.
I love it.
And we are going to meet and we are going to discuss the way forward for America, the way forward for the movement.
And so you need to be there.
Phoenix, Arizona.
I'm coming, by the way.
I'm bringing the family.
I'm bringing the boys.
I'm bringing Tanya Tay.
My parents will be there.
Kevin K. Poso, we've yet to confirm his attendance at this point.
Military Warning and Graham00:06:54
So I put him down.
I said, Kev, I'm going to put you on the list.
Make sure you go amfest.com, promo code pozo, get your tickets.
But I said, Kev, if you want to come, you can come for the national audience.
If you know, Kevin is my brother.
We have him on Human Events Daily all the time.
We did the trip to Israel.
We did the trip to the Holy Land, walked all the way through the lands of the Old Testament, the lands of the New Testament, broke down everything that was going on in there.
We traveled to Ukraine together and we rode the night train to Odessa, which became sort of this famous podcast that we did where I actually was able to record on the back of an old Soviet-era train traveling through some of the war-torn area between Lviv and Odessa.
We then traveled all the way forward to Mikolaev, Mikolaev, which at the time was the front before Kherson had been before the drawdown of the Russian forces in Kherson across the river.
So ton of stuff.
Kevin Posobic, my brother, my co-man, my co-co-host, my wingman, what can I say?
What can I say?
He's been, as he likes to say, he's my first follower.
But when we look out at the waterfront today, we see so much that's going on.
And one of the key points, getting back to our initial theme of leverage, is power within the United States and power within our country.
And a big story, huge story that we've seen come across right now is this defense spending bill because it's coming up with a lame duck session.
However, comma, we know this is going to be, all right, we know this is going to be one of the last pieces of legislation that comes before the Republican takeover of the House.
And that will happen on January 3rd, speaker's race.
However, what we're now seeing, what we're now seeing is news out of the House and news out of the Senate.
I've got it from my sourcing that McCarthy's there in the White House, that meeting he had with Biden.
One of the demands that he put down on the table was about the vaccine mandate for military.
And we were told that the vaccine, and specifically on the House side, we're seeing it on the Senate side as well.
Lindsey Graham's on board with this.
And, you know, we do bash Lindsey Graham on this show a lot.
If you follow me on Twitter, you know, not exactly a fan of Lindsey Graham, but he's teaming up with Rand Paul this time around.
He's teaming up with Rand Paul to get hold of the next military funding bill.
Because unless the military gets rid, that they're going to hold it up, unless the military gets rid of its vaccine mandates.
And that's actually pretty remarkable.
Graham has never once voted against cloture for a defense funding bill.
Graham himself is joking that teaming up with Rand Paul like this might be a sign of the end times.
Yeah, there's a lot of signs of that right now.
But so right now, 20 GOP senators are on board.
Here's the count.
They would need 21 more to be able to block cloture on military funding bills via filibuster.
Of course, if Graham is even open to it, it's mysterious why other Republicans are not.
And this isn't just about the rights of soldiers.
The Biden vaccine mandate really is damaging our entire military.
The military that I was a part of.
I'm a proud veteran.
But recruitment is down a lot.
In fact, according to Bloomberg, it's our worst recruiting crisis since the military went all volunteer 50 years ago.
And remember, during that span, we had two deadly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Right now, the vaccine combined with the decay of American people is beating out two point deadly and pointless wars.
We might actually be sure.
Is this number right?
The producer just sent me this number.
It can't be that huge.
23,000 troop deficit.
23,000.
This is horrific.
This is bad.
This is bad, folks.
And this shouldn't just be a COVID policy stunt.
Republicans should be serious about demanding this, by the way, for the sake of medical freedom and the sake of military readiness.
And I'm looking at it now.
The U.S., okay, they're sending me the number.
The U.S. Army fell short of its 2022 recruitment goal by 25% and recently cut its projection for its total force for this year by 10,000.
And I want to couple this, by the way, with John Mearsheimer's warning this week.
And by the way, that's the Army alone, not the whole military.
That's just the Army.
I was Navy.
John Mearsheimer and the Mearsheimer warning are very important.
I think Steve was talking about this.
We talked about it last night on Human Events Daily.
Mearsheimer is the man who in 2014 predicted the outbreak of war in Ukraine.
Okay.
However, what's he talking about now?
He's saying that the United States and NATO writ large are currently escalating crises along two axis, two fronts, a potential two-front global conflict.
Because as Mearsheimer points out, we're already in a proxy war with Russia.
We just are.
Okay, we are.
Everyone's admitted it.
And you don't even need Mearsheimer to say it.
It's very obvious.
We're actively egging on and escalating things in Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait.
Okay.
Look, I've been a Chinahawk for 15 years.
I moved there in 2016, or excuse me, in 2006.
I went to study Mandarin.
I went to work there.
Ended up living for about two years.
Then I joined the U.S. Navy afterwards.
And John Mearsheimer, like very respected foreign policy guy, old guy, been around forever, University of Chicago professor, leader of what's called the realist school of thought.
And what he says is that the unipolar moment is over.
This idea that it was the end of history, that the United States is going to be the global hegemon of the United States, our financial system, our military system, the U.S. dollar, the petrodollar, all of this, moving manufacturing to East Asia while we outsource our energy policy to the Middle East, right?
That that system would live forever, but that's done.
That's what Mearsheimer is saying.
He's saying that system is done.
And now that we are in a three great power world, three great powers, United States, Russia, and China.
We're already in a hot proxy war with one.
And we're potentially another hot war with the other.
Is he talking about World War III?
Send it a question.
Senators your comments on this.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com, the Mearsheimer warning.
Remember, this is the guy.
This is the guy who in 2014 predicted the outbreak of war, the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Rents are soaring at unprecedented highs.
If you're renting or have a friend or family member that is, now is a great time to make the move to homeownership.
Look, you got to own renting, that's great reset stuff.
Andrew Del Rey and Todd of Akian at Sierra Pacific Mortgage have helped so many people make that leap from renting to owning with lots of programs that offer first-time buyers assistance with little to no down payment needed.
Renting vs Homeownership Reset00:07:22
I encourage you right now to visit my buddies, their website.
They're great guys.
They're Christians.
They're conservatives.
They love the Lord.
AndrewNTodd.com right now.
The thing I love about these guys is it's not about the transaction.
They're helping you create a plan to help you reach your goals.
Give them a call or go to their website, andrewantodd.com.
With today's still historically low interest rates, it's easier than you think to become a homeowner.
I've relied on them and producer Andrew has as well.
I highly recommend you take action now.
And if you knew someone paying rent, tell them about Andrew and Todd.
Go to andrewandtodd.com and tell them the Charlie Kirk show sent you.
Okay, and remember, send in your emails, freedomatcharlikirk.com.
We're going to start going through those because I want to ask you guys about these.
Let's focus on two questions right now.
Let's focus on two questions.
Number one, first off, the question of power when it comes to freedom of speech over the internet.
You heard Senator Warren there.
Should one person have the power over what we are and we're not allowed to say?
And we have a specific question, and it's really, put it this way.
We have a specific question and then we have a wider question.
The specific question is, should Kanye West have been permanently banned from Twitter?
Okay.
And I'm not, I don't want to argue whether or not, you know, what he posted was controversial.
It's obviously controversial, right?
Of course, it's controversial what he posted and everything that he said yesterday, too.
But the question we have, the broader question is, should we agree with permanent bans?
Do we want this?
And, you know, we got our first email in here from Lynn saying saying something and or doing something are two different things.
How many parents have said, I'm going to kill him, but of course never do.
Free speech isn't free if someone or something says you can't.
We've lost the ability to shrug it off.
That's what too many in power want.
However, Ye does sound like he needs specific help.
That was interesting.
Let's see what our next one.
This is from Yan.
He said he should not be banned as he had not incited violence.
Many labels have been placed on him, but it just goes to show if Jesus was alive today, he would get crucified all over again.
Ye said quite clearly he loves everybody who is a human, be it the people who are against him or the people who are with him.
I don't see any hate coming from him, but I do see a lot of hate going towards him, though.
Interesting.
And so, so here's my take before was that I remember Elon saying that he didn't agree with permanent lifetime bans.
And I think that's right.
But I also do understand that, okay, if you're going to have an app, if you're going to have something that's on the app store, which by the way is a total monopoly that we need to get away with, that's actually a duopoly because you have the Apple Store and you have the Play Store at Google.
But are there going to just be, is it going to be a complete free-for-all on Twitter?
Well, no.
Of course, there are certain things that are legal that you have to get rid of.
And there are certain content guidelines that are required by many areas like the EU.
So if you're going to, if you're going to have something like that, then it needs to be specifically outlined, needs to be specifically outlined.
But at the same time, ALX, who is going to be coming up, I'm going to steal his thunder yet.
He's coming up later on the show.
But this is, he's got an idea for us.
He's got an op-ed that he wrote in the Washington Times a little while back with where he talked about a potential phased system, whereby if you do end up breaking one of the rules, you do end up breaking one of the guidelines that you can still get your account back.
And look, obviously, Elon's facing pressure as well, right?
So when you look at Twitter, you have to understand Elon's running it as a business.
And so his pressure is advertisers, the EU threats.
They're valid.
However, the EU bureaucrats are threatening to ban Twitter if they don't censor more.
Why should the U.S. put up with this?
Right.
And this is something, by the way, let's go back to the leverage question, because if we have leverage, right?
Our Congress has leverage too.
Why are we paying for Europe's defense?
Why are we paying for the proxy war in Ukraine if they're going to turn around and tell our companies what they can and can't do?
How about you buzz off Euros because we're the United States of America and this is how we decide?
Who are you to tell our companies what they can and can't do and who they can and can't have on their platforms?
I don't like that power dynamic either.
Okay, I don't like it at all.
And so I would, you know, the Republicans in Congress or anyone in Congress who has a backbone, has any spine whatsoever, show your leverage.
Show your leverage.
Say, okay, well, if you guys want to go and handle your own defense, that's fine.
Go ahead and do it.
But of course, if we're going to pull back, sorry about that.
Sorry about the cold, cold winter that you guys have put yourselves in because you outsourced your energy policy to a crazy young girl who has no idea what she's talking about.
And now you don't have any way to heat your homes and the Germans are chopping down the forest like it's the Middle Ages again.
All right.
You put yourself in this situation, not us, not us.
So don't come to us trying to tell us how it is that we are supposed to conduct ourselves, our companies, how they are supposed to conduct ourselves.
Who are you?
Who are you?
Buzz off.
Buzz off.
Don't like that energy at all.
And again, this, by the way, this weekend on human events, we've got a huge special for you guys, myself, Matt Tierman, all about Brazil, the uprisings in Brazil and the CCP, what's coming on there.
Next up, Darren Beattie, a bombshell news story exposing more of the partisan tampering of Eric Holder when it comes to Apple, when it comes to what I call the disinformation archipelago.
These NGOs, these shadowy, sinister groups that operate outside the confines of our government and yet come in the same way the Europeans are trying to come in and tell us who can and can't on the internet.
This is the new, the new MAGA, right?
The new MAGA, Meta, Apple, Google, and Amazon, the new MAGA that's out there.
I don't know if I like that MAGA.
I'm going to stick with the OG MAGA.
I've been OG MAGA since 2015.
I don't know if I like this new MAGA.
Let's get rid of them.
Buzz off.
You can all buzz off.
For us, it's just MAGA forever.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Look, you've helped build the wonderful My Pillow into the incredible company that is today.
And I got to tell you, the things that they have, like the six-piece towel set, the two bath towels, the two hand towels, the two washclaws, game changer.
The bed sheets, boom, knocked down to $29.98.
But look, orders placed now through Christmas.
We'll have an extended money-back guarantee through March 1st.
It's an amazing way to end your year and do your Christmas shopping and support the wonderful, the amazing, patriotic Mike Lindell.
Just go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square and use promo code Kirk.
Call 800-875-0425 and use promo code Kirk.
That's mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
The bed sheets are marked down as low as $29.98.
And believe me when I say this, you'll get a great night's sleep.
Mike Lindell is a great friend, a patriot, someone I really respect.
Mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
That is mypillow.com.
Support this show and Mike Lindell.
Mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
And we have Darren Beatty, editor, publisher, founder, Revolver News, is coming up right here for us with an excellent story about Eric Holder.
Arbitrary Banning and Elon00:09:42
But Darren, I got to ask you first: the Kanye West permanent ban.
So we're talking about that today and we're talking about the question of leverage and power in America, leverage and power over Twitter.
What do you make of the Kanye West permanent ban?
Let's ask that before we get into this Eric Holder situation.
Well, we'll have to see whether it's actually permanent.
I mean, there is a special advantage to having a direct line to Elon, and it's clear that Kanye or Ye or whatever, whatever he's called, he has that direct line.
And so I think deep down, you know, Elon, just like Jack Dorsey, you know, nobody believes in sort of permanent punishment without any opportunity for redemption.
So we'll just have to see how it plays out.
As to the policy itself, I mean, it certainly contradicts Elon's previously stated preference that basically we go by what legal speech is.
So assuming that Kanye said nothing illegal, which I don't think he did, he shouldn't be banned for it.
But it's a practical matter.
We live in a practical world.
Elon is far more practical, I think, than a lot of people imagine.
And it could very well just be the practical, messy reality that Elon's done a tremendous amount for Twitter already.
And he needs to offer a couple sacrifices to the censors in order to keep up what he's been doing, at least at these initial stages.
And I think we can all probably agree that Ye was certainly testing the limits and making things difficult for Elon.
So maybe it's just as a matter of practical reality, that's what Elon had to do, even though it violates his stated preference of just saying, okay, if it's legal speech, it should be allowed on Twitter, at least for American users.
Do you think it could be argued that this banning specifically is actually less about content and more about timing?
In what sense?
Well, in the sense that he's just purchased the thing.
He's just getting it under his reins, so to speak.
He's really in this situation.
However, this is a decisive climactic period.
And with his tweet, of course, Elon with his mess around and find out tweet, he seemed upset, obviously.
To your point, he seemed personally upset.
Well, he's personally, yeah, I think he's personally upset because I think he has a personal relationship with Ye, and I think they got along great.
And, you know, based on his public statements, again, you know, we can, in theory, support free speech, but based on his public statements, Ye would make things pretty damn difficult for Elon.
He put Elon in a very difficult position.
Right, right.
My point, I guess, is, let's say this happened six months from now, right?
Would it have been the same situation?
Would it have been as decisive for Elon?
We'll have to see how it plays out.
You know, Elon could be in a worse position in six months, depending on how things equilibriate.
That's still very much an unwritten story.
But I think your basic point is extremely valid.
And the difference between Elon and Ye is very instructive, like irrespective of all the stuff that he's saying.
But Ye is seemingly on a kind of kamikaze mission, whereas Elon is not trying to be a kamikaze.
Ye is actually trying to build something sustainable.
And in the early stages of doing that, I mean, frankly, I think he's already gone a lot farther and a lot harder than I would have ever imagined in these initial stages without building up the infrastructure.
And it seems like at least initially his first real test was how is he going to negotiate things with Apple?
That was a real lever point the regime had against him.
And it looks like for now, at least, he was able to smooth things over.
He was able to say, look, I'm not going to back down from this.
So if you want to have this fight, we'll have this fight.
He met with Tim Cook, and it looks like the Apple lever is neutralized, at least for the time being.
So I think he's doing an excellent job under the circumstances.
What's your take?
What's your sense of this other take that's been out there as well of the idea of Musk the monarch, Elon I of Twitter, that he has these policies, but then when it comes to someone like the Alex Jones, where he said he's not going to bring him back and he meant he brought up his own son and a situation that personally had affected him, here you're pointing out that obviously there is a personal direct situation with Kanye.
So is that one way to look at it as well, that we may get more of Elon I type situations where there's one set of rules for sort of the common user, but there may be these sort of, I don't know, idiosyncratic bans along personal whims?
Well, I mean, I think that's unavoidable in any kind of regime.
It's just the question of how transparent it is.
And I think it's more transparent under Elon's tutelage.
But as we've seen a little glimpse of what happens behind the curtain and, you know, Twitter under previous management, which is far more censorious, it's the same kind of deal.
It's just, you know, the government saying, oh, you got to get this person.
And, you know, but ultimately it's people making these decisions on the basis of arbitrary standards.
And I guess you could advocate some kind of principle to make it less arbitrary.
But even those principles would have to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.
And as I kind of mentioned on my last appearance on Tim Pool, I think if we're looking to maximize speech and freedom on Twitter, the seemingly arbitrary approach can actually probably get us further than principles that have to be kind of neutrally applied everywhere.
Because unless Elon's willing to go First Amendment standard, which I don't think is tenable as a practical matter in this early stage, instead of just saying, okay, in Alex Jones's specific case, I'm banning him, he'd have to come up with a principle.
And that net would entail banning a bunch of other people along with Alex Jones.
So if you actually look at it, I think we might be better off with the kind of the arbitrary standard plus transparency to go with it, which we didn't have under the previous.
I certainly agree with you that having the transparency of Elon, just telling you, just tell, I am banning this person and here is why.
Even yesterday, you know, and I've been on Twitter for way too much and far too long, but he even posted something and said, hey, we are conducting a bot ban.
You may lose followers.
Twitter has never said that before, ever.
You would wake up and followers would be gone.
You have no idea what's going on.
So I do agree with you that it's been far more transparent than this sort of Kafka-esque, you know, labyrinthine process of I actually love in Kafka's trial in the original German, the title is Der Process.
That's just so perfect.
Yes, Der Process, because that's what we had before.
We had Der Process, and you had never, even in the novel, Kafka's never actually told what the crime is that he's being charged with.
And at the very end, he's led off to execution.
No, it's a perfect point.
That's basically what it was before.
It's a perfect point.
Before, what we had was an arbitrariness without transparency and therefore without accountability.
And at least like with Elon making these decisions, and again, I think he's pretty close to limiting the concessions to the regime to the, you know, the bare minimum of what he has to offer.
But even in those cases, it's very clear what's going on.
And so there is a form of accountability to Elon for what he's doing.
And, you know, even, yeah, the bot ban thing, it's like, you know, if Twitter were to just do that before, it could help to sort of clarify a lot of things.
People aren't thinking, oh, they're, I'm losing followers because of this or that.
Okay, well, you're getting rid of spam bots.
So I think he's really approached it from a kind of sensible, he's taken a sensible approach, and it's a difficult thing.
He's playing with for the highest stakes.
And so I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and see how things work out over the course of the next six months or so.
I appreciate that.
No, let's get into a little bit, though, about their process and their process is dare punishment, because you have a new story up at Revolver that's basically all about how this sausage was being made, not just to Twitter, but Apple and others.
And an interesting name that I think everyone will be familiar with that I don't even, but I don't think people knew they were associated.
He was associated with what you and I have referred to in the past as the disinformation archipelago.
And we did a great episode.
I think it's actually still our number one episode at Human Events Daily on Rumble.
Went absolutely viral talking about all of this.
Margaret Richardson's Partisan Role00:07:49
Tell us about your new piece.
Well, there was this recent kerfuffle with Apple.
Apple has insane, a really obscene amount of leverage over everything on the internet, including Twitter, any kind of app.
And, you know, it begs a question because, you know, Yoel Roth, the former head of trust and safety, was calling for, you know, the regime, calling for Apple to use its leverage to basically kneecap Twitter and say, well, who's the trust and safety equivalent and Apple who would play a critical role in this decision-making process?
Now, the current person there has zero online footprint other than a lesbian wedding registry.
Zero, which is amazing.
Someone of that level having zero online footprint.
But her predecessor, who was in charge during the critical months leading up to and during the 2020 election and the whole aftermath involving the January 6th censorship blanket, this is someone that we were able to find out about.
And this person just happens to be Eric Holder's right-hand woman.
And Eric Holder, the Eric Holder himself, apparently was involved in this trust and safety department during the 2020 election.
Well, he was involved by proxy, by inference, because the story is Margaret Richardson, the woman who was head of trust and safety, was basically Eric Holder's right hand throughout the entirety of his tenure in the Obama regime.
She was, you know, it's partisan enough.
She was part of the Women for Obama.
She joined the presidential transition committee and then went straight to work as Eric Holder's counselor at the Department of Justice in January 2009.
And she remained with Holder throughout the entire regime, going all the way up to Eric Holder's chief of staff.
And then just to give a sense of how connected she was to Holder, she followed him everywhere in post-administration appointments.
She followed him to Airbnb and to Covington, the law firm.
Like she was everywhere with him.
So this is the person that we need to pay attention to.
The 2020 election, trust and safety.
I love the names, by the way.
Trust and safety.
I feel like, sure, you could trust us.
It's amazing.
I digress.
Please continue what you were telling us about Margaret Richardson, this person, and why did she have the level of influence?
And specifically, what did she use this influence and again, leverage for?
No, it's a great question.
And yes, in case anyone doesn't know, trust and safety is sort of the Orwellian label whereby many major tech companies sort of conduct their censorship, content moderation, disinformation type operations.
Yeah, the Ministry of Trust and Safety.
Exactly.
Sometimes it's called trust and safety.
There's another word that all of these people love to use, ironically, integrity.
Trust and integrity.
There are variations, but the standard version is trust and safety.
And it's amazing when you actually look at the people who are placed in these positions because you would think companies at this level would at least try to maintain appearances.
They would at least be, so to speak, optics pilled and have people who conduct themselves with the pretense of a kind of disinterested, nonpartisan, Non-profit.
Have taken a marketing class or something exactly.
And just to give you a sense of how ridiculous is so, the the recently departed head of trust and safety for Twitter yes, um Yoel, who has no kind of distinguished background to speak of at all, but for his much celebrated dissertation.
I'm not making this up.
The guy wrote a dissertation on the gay dating app Grinder and this guy goes from that to heading trust and safety on Twitter, which gives you a sense of how ridiculous it is.
And the case of Apple, which is arguably even more ridiculous and sinister, it was run by this woman, Margaret Richardson.
And again, Apple is like the biggest company in the entire world by market cap.
They have a market cap of like $2.4 trillion.
It's mind-boggling what a huge and serious company this is.
And of all the people on the planet that they could have chosen to be the public face of their content moderation decision making, they choose a woman who was on the Obama campaign as a woman for Obama.
And of all the people that she was associated with the Obama administration, she's associated with as the right-hand woman by his side as of January 2009, Eric Holder, arguably the most partisan and aggressive hack in the entire Obama apparatus.
And this is who's making the critical censorship decisions for Apple.
It really just exposes the entire sham of trust and safety.
They don't even bother to fake it.
They pick people like this.
And, you know, it's one thing you see how partisan she is with the censorship.
But let's think about the trust version too.
People forget about the scandals that Eric Holder is involved in.
I think as one of the few cabinet officials to be held in contempt of Congress, he was the guy behind Fast and Furious gun running operation.
Margaret Richardson was by his side while the entire Fast and Furious thing was conducted and then blew up in Eric Holder's face.
That doesn't sound like a trustworthy person to me.
And so if you go to this woman's Twitter and it's just like littered with, you know, she's retweeting Michelle Obama's tweets about George Floyd.
It's like you just can't make it up.
And it's so egregious to think that someone who's this aggressively and nakedly partisan would be placed in that kind of position at the world's largest and most powerful company.
I mean, you take someone like that and have them in charge and incredible work, by the way.
And everyone should go to Revolver because, you know, we've discovered, you've discovered another revolver in a sense, but in this case, it's a revolving door, a revolving door.
But instead of it's not just the bankers going into government, which we saw in the Obama administration, particularly with Goldman Sachs, we're now seeing political actors going into tech, going back to tech, going back into government, in and out and in and out the entire time.
It's like a, you know, but, you know, they're still, they're still all agents of the foot clan, you know, right at this point.
They're still all working as maybe that's what Kanye was trying to show us yesterday with his mask, you know.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.