The Growing Threat of a Digital Coup by the Tech Tyrants (Ep 1363)
n this episode, I address the media meltdown over Trump’s recovery from coronavirus. I also discuss the real story behind the explosive new revelations in the Spygate case. They’re all caught. And they know it.
I also discuss the troubling possibility of a digital coup by Big Tech. This is a threat to our Republic. I interview Allum Bokhari about his new book “#DELETED: Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election“ https://www.amazon.com/dp/154605930X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UiqEFbDQMJBTK
News Picks:
Please pick up a copy of my new book about the Obama “fixer” and the deep-state plot to take out Trump. It’s out today! Pick it up here.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642936596/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_zfhFFbC2F1C8T
Washington Post columnist totally melts down as Trump recovers from coronavirus.
President Trump leaves the hospital and some hilarious memes sprout.
Don’t buy the Secret Service stories about Trump. Here’s the real story.
Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, a little different background on my show today.
We're up in New York having that medical procedure done tomorrow on my neck.
So we will have a show tomorrow, though.
We're going to be recording a little later tonight.
So the show will Unless something breaks at about five o'clock tomorrow, Wednesday morning, we'll have a show.
I've got some really good stuff.
I've taken a whole bunch of notes.
Also with today's show, we got a lot for you.
It's loaded.
I got an interview with Alan Bakari about tech tyranny.
He wrote a book exposing Facebook, Twitter.
He has insiders there who gave him some really troubling information.
That'll be towards the end of the show.
I've also got an intro in the beginning about some new Spygate stuff.
You know, a lot of you've emailed me and I appreciate it about, hey, why don't you take a vacation?
And honestly, folks, I'm just being candid with you.
I just don't want to.
I enjoy the show, I enjoy being with you, and I enjoy exposing this stuff.
So I appreciate all your goodwill, your Twitter, Parler, Facebook, and emails.
It really does mean the world to me.
We'll always keep you updated.
Paula will put something out on Facebook probably tomorrow too, so thank you.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
Protect your online activity today from prying eyeballs.
Get a VPN.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
I would welcome in producer Joe, but he is listening from Maryland given that we're in a hotel room up in New York.
I just don't have another line for Joe, so it's just me and Paula sitting right over there helping me produce the show.
Folks, also one bit of news before I get to our spot in the show today.
My new book comes out.
Unfortunately, a series of unfortunate events.
I won't be doing much media on it this week, hopefully next week.
But as always, if you'd like to pick it up, I'd appreciate it.
It's called Follow the Money.
It's all about the Obama fixer.
You know, the Olivia Pope from Scandal type character Obama had in the White House, this FBI agent, all of these players you haven't heard about, Catherine Rumler, Anthony Ferranti, who basically were key figures in the Spygate scandal, and you haven't heard much about them.
There's also a Soros angle in the beginning with Ukraine that's going to blow your mind.
Soros, this FBI woman, Karen Greenaway.
All kinds of stuff you haven't heard about.
Check it out.
Follow The Money, out today, available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and bookstores today, everywhere.
So again, I apologize for not doing more media about it.
We'll do it next week.
Obviously, this medical situation took precedence.
All right, I want to get to this first, right after this spot.
People freaking out in the media.
First, I have a supercut from the great Tom Gravion, Tom Elliott at Gravion, excuse me, of the media freaking out because Donald Trump appears to have recovered, at least now.
Fingers are still crossed.
Prayers still up from the coronavirus.
We'll see how that goes.
Before we get to that, today's show brought to you by... Oh, Max, forgive me.
I got to read off the screen.
We have like 20 computers here.
If you're obsessed with cryo-free CBD like we are, the pain relief roll-on, it's insanely popular with me and my family.
You know, when you have arthritis pain and things like that, try their new product, Cryo-Free's Advanced Joint Defense.
It's got an ingredient called NEM.
It relieves joint discomfort and soreness in seven days or less.
We love this stuff.
I'd kind of be lost without it.
I have really brutal arthritis.
Matter of fact, I was in for pre-op testing yesterday.
We're trying to take blood.
She's like, get a straight in your arm.
I'm like, I can't.
That's all it goes.
It doesn't straighten anymore.
I'm really sorry.
You have to jam something in there.
We use it all the time.
I use it sometimes twice a day.
You get 100% premium quality.
Muscles overuse and aging.
We use it all the time.
I use it sometimes twice a day.
The rollout.
The best part is the CBD powered supplement contains absolutely no THC and our friends
at Omax make sure it's third party tested so you get 100% premium quality you can trust.
Omax is offering my listeners a limited time offer of 20% off their introductory pricing
on Omax cryo-free supplements.
The roll-on is spectacular.
They're Cryo-Free's advanced joint defense.
Again, spectacular products here.
They'll give you free shipping as well.
The discount also applies towards any product sitewide through the end of the month.
Just go to omax, O-M-A-X, health.com today.
That's omaxhealth.com and enter code BONGINO to take advantage of this incredible savings today.
That's omaxhealth.com.
Enter promo code BONGINO to get 20% off OMAX Cryo Freeze Advanced Joint Defense and SightWide.
It's science-backed, it's CBD-based formula, it's a breakthrough in joint health
and a must for anyone dealing with stiffness, joint pain, and for me, I use it for my arthritis.
OMAXhealth.com, enter code Bongino today, take advantage of their savings.
That's OMAXhealth.com, code Bongino to get 20% off and SightWide.
Don't let muscle soreness continue to be an excuse for living an active lifestyle.
Go to OMAXhealth.com and feel relief faster.
All right, I'd say, Producer Joe, let's go with the bell, but there is no bell.
So ding, ding.
I'm going to do my own bell.
Let's get right to it.
So President Trump, as many of you know, sadly caught coronavirus.
It's now what's five, six days, seven days after the diagnosis, roughly.
I don't know.
I'm not really sure when he was diagnosed.
It appears it happened Thursday night.
And he appears to be doing better.
Headed back to the White House yesterday, landed on Marine One, went up to the balcony and let the American people know that he's recovering.
Again, let's hope it stays that way.
I don't want to get ahead of my skis on this.
It's a serious virus.
It's a serious health situation.
But every American, regardless of your political affiliation or stripe or whatever your ideological leanings are, should be content and happy that the President of the United States is not, in fact, dying.
Not the media.
They seem furious that President Trump not only seems to be recovering, but made a triumphant return back to the White House yesterday.
Meanwhile, you know, if this was Obama doing it, he would be on Mount Rushmore tomorrow.
They would have an emergency laser cutting operation into the hills, into the rock.
to put Obama, matter of fact, they would add Obama on top of the other presidents at Mount Rushmore,
on top, just to make sure everybody knew that he was in fact the monarch. He's the golden calf,
we should all go and genuflect. But because it's Trump, here's the reaction by the absolutely
ridiculous mainstream media, totally melted down, now that Trump appears to be getting better.
Check this ridiculosity out. President Trump wrote on Twitter,
don't be afraid of COVID, don't let it dominate your life.
Almost 210,000 Americans are dead.
Speaking of outrageous, this outrageous tweet.
Oh my goodness, Nicole, when I saw that Trump, I mean, I literally was...
overwhelmed.
And now we see this tweet, which is heartless.
It is cruel.
Jake, this is this is so disrespectful.
I'm not even sure I can I can speak about this.
It's incredibly, incredibly disrespectful.
What does that mean?
Don't be afraid of it.
I mean, first of all, it's it's a contagious disease that kills people.
There's nowhere to even begin.
It's gross.
It's such a distressing moment.
It's just so horrible, so destructive to say I feel better than I have in 20 years.
That he's saying this is so disrespectful.
The president says it's no big deal.
I mean, it's outrageous.
It is insulting to the people who have lost loved ones.
It is insulting to every American who wears a mask.
I mean, it's disgraceful, Wolf.
Absurd.
Don't tell your supporters don't be afraid of COVID.
Everyone should be afraid of COVID.
It's okay to be afraid of COVID and it's okay that it's dominating your life because it has dominated your life.
So I took a few notes on this to make sure I got some key points out to get past the frustration of having to deal with this juvenile kindergarten-like stupidity all the time.
So Trump's recovering and the media is devastated.
Trump said afterwards in what I thought was a rather good speech from the balcony up there on the second floor of the White House, you know, not to be afraid.
I don't understand where the controversy is in that message.
Do they want you to be afraid?
The answer, I think, obviously with the media is yes.
And I thought maybe the best way to explain this is imagine saying this.
Pretend it's not Trump because the media obviously can't get away from its own bias when it comes to Trump and are content to make fools out of themselves on the air.
Proudly so.
I think generations from now will look back on this moment and the laughter and the hysterical commentary will be about the media, not Trump.
Imagine saying this about any other crisis.
Imagine being in a war, God forbid, World War II, a really catastrophic human event like that, and the message from FDR and Churchill being, be afraid, be very afraid, be terrified, huddled in your homes.
Imagine that.
Now, you're probably sitting there in the background thinking, that's absurd, that's ridiculous.
No one would ever do that.
Fear leads to panic.
Panic leads to irrational behavior.
Fear doesn't help.
I mean, when does fear help you?
I'm not talking about concern.
I'm talking about fear.
Fear, typically overwhelming fear, leads to panic.
Panic leads to paralysis.
Paralysis leads to inaction.
Inaction leads to poor decisions.
That's why during war, during crises in the past, viral outbreaks, whatever they are, there's been an effort to tell the American people, don't be afraid, don't panic, be concerned, follow the science.
But no.
Follow the science, follow common sense, public health procedures.
That's not what they want now.
The media wants fear because there's an election coming up, so they're genuinely terrified themselves that Trump's message, don't be afraid, Don't be afraid.
Be concerned.
Wash your hands.
Do what you need to do, but don't be afraid.
They're genuinely concerned that that's going to take hold, because they want you afraid, because they want it to influence your decision-making, because they're full-time Democrat activists, and it's disgusting.
I can't imagine a time in American history where the bravest, most entrepreneurial, prosperous country in the history of humankind, the United States of America, Who have left their dead on the battlefields in foreign countries as we gave the land back, we took back for those foreign countries.
I can't imagine the prevailing message of the day being, be afraid.
Be very afraid.
All the time.
That's just not us.
And it's not Trump.
And that drives the media crazy.
All right, moving on, because I got this blocking, and again, we got the interview.
Please don't skip out on the interview.
This interview at the end of my show today, it's lengthy, it's about 45 minutes.
It is worth your time.
What Facebook insiders and other tech people are telling the Breitbart technology writer, Alan Bakari, and he put in his new book is really, really fascinating stuff.
All right, let me move on.
So there've been some breaks in the Spygate case I wanted to get on the air today and talk about, because they're really important.
You know, I really adore Maria Bartiromo from Fox.
She is one of the few true journalists left who has done some real homework and digging on the Spygate case.
She's known from the beginning.
She has impeccable sources.
And I suspect some of her sources, maybe some of my sources or vice versa, whatever, it doesn't really matter because I'm hearing the same thing she is.
She did an interview with Jim Jordan.
I just want to play the first half where she mentioned something critical, because this is what I'm hearing too.
Let me get the bottom line up front.
Everyone knew, ladies and gentlemen, everyone knew that this collusion hoax from the beginning, from the beginnings of 2016, was a hoax and that Hillary had made it up.
Everyone knew.
The real scandal here always is not that the information about Trump colluding with the Russians was fake.
Everybody knew that.
And Maria Bartiromo brings up a great point in this piece.
I'm not justifying grotesque Hillary Clinton's horrendous, disgusting behavior.
There may be some criminal liability from people in her campaign too.
I'm not sure.
I'm simply suggesting to you, the scandalous part of this, if you had to rank them, it's not just that Hillary's a loser, we know that, and that she was going to make up a collusion charge.
It's that the FBI went along with it and weaponized themselves to help Hillary do it.
That's on the top of the totem pole.
Maria Bartiromo knows this, so she brings up two points in this cut I want you to listen for.
Number one, that she knows everybody was read in that this collusion thing was a hoax and that Hillary made it up.
Number one, huge point.
And number two, our current CIA director, Gina Haspel, what the hell is she up to?
Remember where she was before this?
She was over in London with the CIA in London while this whole Spygate scandal was going on.
That's an important point.
Listen to this cut.
Listen for those two takeaways.
I'll explain why they matter in a minute.
Look, you can't say that Hillary Clinton should go to jail for this.
It's not that.
This is the FBI.
Anybody can say anything about their opponent.
And that's what Hillary Clinton was doing.
But the fact that the FBI was complicit, that she was able to get the U.S.
government intelligence agencies to work with her.
And we know that the CIA and the FBI were both involved in trying to take down Trump.
What do you make of these sources telling me and also telling the Federalists that current CIA Director Gina Haspel is trying to stop any more declassification of documentation?
Remember, while Brennan was running around trying to come up with stories against Trump, she was running the CIA in London.
So, she knows what I know.
I think, again, some of our sources may be the same.
There are apparently a treasure trove of documents that whistleblowers, finally, people in the intel community came forward and have pushed in front of certain lawmakers and other people's eyeballs.
This is new information, ladies and gentlemen.
So for those of you in the past saying, where were the whistleblowers?
Where were these FBI or CIA people that knew this was going wrong?
The answer is, I don't know.
Why they didn't come forward sooner?
I don't know.
It was their patriotic duty to do so.
The bottom line is apparently some of them are coming forward now.
There appears to be an evidence trail, paperwork, actual paperwork indicating this.
Big takeaway here.
Brennan and the FBI leaders, Comey and them, knew obviously Clinton made up the collusion hoax.
Brennan apparently covered his tracks.
There's apparently a bunch of documentation that Brennan was trying to pass the buck to the FBI.
He knew the collusion hoax was fake, but was Seeding it like he was watering a plant and then constantly passing the buck to the FBI saying, hey, it's not my job to investigate this domestic stuff.
So Brennan, what I think exists out there from my sources is a series of information that acts like the Susan Rice email.
That Brennan wrote some documents that act like that January 5th Susan Rice email she wrote to herself, excuse me, right before the inauguration.
Where Susan Rice wrote to herself in an email, hey, Obama told us to do everything by the book, remember that?
There appears to be a series of those that Brennan did as well, where Brennan wrote, say, documents trying to cover his own butt, knowing he was advancing the collusion hoax, knowing it was fake, but passing it off on the FBI.
Does that make sense, Paula?
You sure?
All right, I always need an ombudsman for the show because I don't know if I'm explaining it well.
So that's number one.
What's that?
Yeah, can you use your thumb?
Yeah, did that get in the screen?
The thumbs up?
Did Paula's thumb?
Some of you don't believe she actually exists.
Paula's thumb actually made it in the screen.
That's very nice.
So that's it.
There you go.
Thumbs up.
Apparently there are actual documents that I'm hearing are not smoking guns.
I'm hearing they're nuclear bombs.
That there's no spinning them.
That they basically admit to the conspiracy.
Hillary's making this up.
This collusion hoax and that there are notes in there indicating they knew it was made up.
Brennan pushed it anyway, but then pushed it off on the FBI.
So, hey, it's not my responsibility.
You guys have to investigate this domestic stuff.
You dig?
Brennan appears to have covered his tracks a bit.
We'll see what that means in the long run.
Again, my information's good, but in many ways limited because I'm obviously not on any of these committees and I don't have access to the classified documents.
But I've never let you down with sources, right?
Now, part two of that.
So that's part one.
I think me and Marie are hearing the same thing, that the documents underlying John Ratcliffe's letter are absolutely devastating.
Part number two, Gina Haspel.
Gina Haspel is the current CIA director.
I'm hearing she's in the way.
That the people who've seen these documents and the evidence that everybody knew this was a scam from the start and that Brennan tried to push it off on the FBI, that the declassifications are being blocked by Gina Haspel.
In some way, she doesn't have authority really to do that, but she's... I'm hearing from someone, Paul Sperry put this out in a tweet, that there may be a grey male situation.
You know what grey male is?
It's like black male, but it's grey.
That people in the intelligence community may be saying, you really wouldn't want this to leak out now, would you?
Because if this leaked out, it could damage national security.
And you wouldn't want to be accused of damaging national security before an election, right, Mr. Trump?
You get it?
You dig?
The problem is it wouldn't damage national security at all.
This is a threat.
I'm hearing from sources that Gina Haspel and her CIA are getting in the way here of a declassification.
Now, why would Gina Haspel from the CIA be interested in making all this information go away?
Remember, it's very simple.
Hillary made it up.
Brennan knew she made it up.
Passed it off to the FBI, who investigated a made-up collusion charge just to hammer Trump.
Don't ever forget it.
Bottom line up front, it's super simple.
Well, why would Haspel get in the way?
Well, Haspel was one of the head CIA officials and was in London as all of this was going on and being formulated.
Now, why does that matter?
Because ladies and gentlemen, this whole thing went down in the beginnings in London.
George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign advisor at the time, he was a low-level guy.
But the FBI alleges this whole case started about fake collusion because Papadopoulos met with an Australian diplomat in a bar in London and said that basically the Russians may have some kind of dirt on Hillary.
That meeting happened in London.
The date is important.
May 10th.
You following me?
She followed.
Thumbs up.
Again.
Where's the thumb?
We need to see the thumb.
Where is it?
All right, thumb.
There you go.
Thumbs up.
May 10th, London.
The whole thing's alleged to have begun when Papadopoulos says to Downer, Papadopoulos from the Trump campaign, hey, the Russians may have dirt on Hillary.
Of course, that whole conversation is disputed.
Well, what else happens in the United Kingdom?
Well, what's really fascinating about this is Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier alleging the collusion between Russia and Trump that Hillary used.
He used to be a UK agent.
He worked for the UK intelligence services.
There's another interesting angle, no?
But here's where it gets really fascinating.
Let me show you this article from The Guardian.
Check this out.
Again, this is not a conservative newspaper here.
This is The Guardian in the UK, wrote this article.
British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia.
April 13th, 2017.
It says that the GCHQ, which is a British intel agency, is said to have alerted U.S.
agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015.
So just follow me here.
Maria Bartiromo and others, me included, are hearing that the current CIA director Gina Haspel is blocking declassification of information that would blow the spy gate thing wide open.
How they framed Trump for a fake collusion charge.
Gina Haspel was in London as the framing happened.
The framing started with George Papadopoulos in May of 2016.
The British newspapers are already reporting that the British, where current CIA Director Gina Haspel worked, were reporting on Trump's activities as early as 2015.
The spy they use to fabricate and give the framing collusion charges, the bull- Sorry, did I just say that?
Well, Joe, you're gonna have to bleep that out.
The bull-blank collusion charges, that they, in fact, use a UK agent.
Mark the timeline.
I can beep that out for the radio.
Steele was a UK agent.
The Guardian knew about this the whole time.
Now, here's where it gets really interesting.
I want to show you an email, and I want to give a big, huge hat tip to our great friend on Twitter, UndercoverHuber, who does some of the finest investigative work out there.
I actually retweeted this today, because this thread is going to become very important, very fast, according to my sources.
So Papadopoulos meets Downer on May 10th.
The current CIA director was in London at the time.
Papadopoulos meets Downer in London.
This is where the frame job begins.
Who else was in London on May 10th?
Let me show you this email from the number one official in the FBI.
He works right under Andy McCabe and Comey for counterintelligence.
His name was Bill Prystep.
Where was he the week of May 10, 2016 when this framing was begun?
Oh, oh, oh, look at this!
Look at his email from pre-step, E.W.
Counterintelligence Division, FBI, writing to Andy McCabe about mid-year exam.
Sir, I will be out of town next week, and so I wanted to provide you my initial thoughts.
Sent, Friday, May 6th, 2016.
You may say, all right, Dan, kind of a reach, right, Paula?
That's what you're saying?
He said he's out of town.
He didn't say he was in London May 10th when George Papadopoulos was framed in order to advance the collusion hoax everybody knew was a hoax.
Uh, no, he didn't in that email, but someone else did in a text.
Of course, I always produce the evidence.
So let me show you that text.
Look at the date on this one.
Oh, oh, May 4th, 2016.
Peter Stroke, who worked directly under Bill Preistep.
Hey, going back to that memo, he texts his girlfriend this.
Going back to that memo, just remember Jones wants something soon, tonight or tomorrow.
I don't know if Bill will read it before he gets back from London next week.
You like that?
Yeah, I rarely get sound effects from Paula.
She was like, ooh.
Well, that's a whole different thing.
I'll have to leave that for a weekend show.
But still, you get my point.
What the hell was the head of FBI counterintelligence doing in London where the current CIA director, Gina Haspel, used to work on the same week George Papadopoulos was framed for a collusion hoax with Russia based on a meeting with an Australian diplomat?
What was she doing?
What was he doing over there?
You're going to tell me with a straight face, Gina Haspel didn't know about it?
Ladies and gentlemen, give me a break.
It all went down in London.
I've been telling you this forever.
The British were onto this.
They know they're onto this.
They were involved in this in the beginning.
Haspel knew about it and they're blocking it.
Disgraceful.
All right.
A couple more quick things.
We'll get to the interview.
Please spread this show around because the Spygate stuff, unfortunately, with the news cycle, we can't seem to break through.
We need it to break through.
We need it to break through.
This is only the most important story of our time.
So Mark Meadows, the president's current chief of staff, a former congressman from North Carolina and an excellent man and a personal friend, I might add.
Mark Meadows knows what's up, and he knows that Gina Haspel and others don't want you to see these notes indicating that President Trump was framed and everybody knew it.
There's not a smoking gun.
Again, this is a nuclear missile here.
This is a MOAB, the mother of all bombs.
They don't want this information out.
President Trump knows what it is.
So does Meadows.
Here was Mark Meadows, a brief cut.
He's on Fox and Friends and he just casually drops this in that the president just recovered from coronavirus or is on the way to recovery.
I want to be precise.
I want to get ahead of myself.
It's very important, but he's on the way to recovery.
Thank the Lord.
And one of the first things he tells Meadows to do isn't get the stimulus, get all this other stuff, because he understands the importance of what I'm telling you.
The president knows exactly what's going on.
Listen to what Meadows says is one of the first things the president told him to do.
Check this out.
Good morning, nice to be with you and obviously this is an important day as the president continues to improve and is ready to get back to a normal work schedule.
Already this morning we've already had a couple of discussions on items that he wants to get done.
Candidly, he's already tasked me with getting some declassification rolling.
In a follow-up to some of the requests that Devin Nunes and others have made.
Interesting, huh?
How he just slid that in there.
Seems almost inconsequential the way he says it.
Again, tell me again how the president's so stupid.
This is all going on.
I get this all the time.
Oh, he doesn't know what's going on.
This is so over his head.
He doesn't understand the gravity of it.
No, he understands exactly what's going on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the swamp is deep.
The deep state is real.
Again, read my new book.
This is probably my last book.
I keep saying that, but it probably is.
I only write books when I feel like I have something to say.
These people have been embedded like ticks for generations.
You think this is going to be easy?
The president knows exactly what's going on.
We need those notes.
They spell out the whole conspiracy to defraud the FISA court and frame the president from the start.
And everybody, listen to me when I tell you this, everybody knows they're caught.
That's why McCabe's refusing to testify up on Capitol Hill.
That's why Comey panicked the other day on Capitol Hill and said he didn't know anything.
That's why Haspel's panicking and doesn't want these notes declassified.
What the hell was the FBI doing in London in May of 2016 when the president was framed and George Papadopoulos was used to do the framing?
That is the key question right now.
One more cut and we'll get onto my interview here.
And folks, forgive me for the, the show is going to be a little bit kind of a jigsaw puzzle-y today.
It's because we taped the interview a few days ago.
And if I can just be straight with you, cause you're my audience and I love y'all and I don't like spinning your wheels because of the gravity of the situation Paul and I are going through right now.
We were just going to run the interview today.
We, you know, we thought it was, and it's a great interview.
I'm very proud of it.
Alan Bakari does a great job.
Um, we were just going to do that, but, uh, I'm, I'm, I felt like I owed you this.
I really do.
I, I, I love you guys.
And, uh, I, this information has to get out there.
So we're kind of just sticking it ahead of the interview.
The interview was intended to be a standalone show as it runs, but I can't leave you spinning out there with the Spygate stuff.
It's not fair to the audience.
Okay.
One final cut and then we'll move on to that, uh, the interview.
The great Devin Nunes, who is just a terrific guy and has done a great job.
The country owes him a debt of gratitude for exposing the Spygate scandal and not letting up.
Devin Nunes was also on Maria Bartiromo's show.
This was about a week ago or so.
always lays out and sums up exactly what's going on.
I want you to listen to this because the Congressman Meadows, I mean, it's the chief of staff, as you just heard in that clip, he's like, hey, the president wants to push for this stuff Devin Nunes is looking at.
Well, let's have Devin Nunes tell you himself what he's looking at.
Check this out.
So essentially what you had is you had these sick fantasies that were in these proto dossiers that then they hired the Russian spy and the British spy to make it look like it was real to cover up what the Clinton campaign was doing.
And so now there's a bunch of underlying evidence that I've only seen a little bit of this week.
I think there's a lot more of it.
I will also say this, if you ask of other information that I think we need to see, We need to see we have this FBI agent 302 came out about his recollection of everything that had happened.
So the Russian spy that the Democrats hired that actually worked for a left wing think tank called the Brookings Institute.
We need to see he was interviewed three times.
And in fact, he was even given supposedly he was given a get out of jail free card because he testified.
Now, when he testified, he said, I don't have anything.
At least that's what we're being told by Horowitz and others.
The American public needs to see the three reports that we know about, at least from the Democrats, Russian spy that they hired.
So that's additional documents that we need to see.
Hmm.
A couple of takeaways from there.
Number one, Nunes reiterates for the umpteenth time that this was always fake.
There was never any collusion.
There was never a shred of collusion.
There's no hint of collusion.
This was always a Teddy Ruxpin fairy tale.
You put a quarter in Christopher Steele's back, he'd tell you what you want.
Hillary made the whole thing up.
Point number one.
That's obvious.
I think we've hammered that enough.
Second, that because the information was fake, Hillary Clinton's team needed to make it appear real for the media.
So that's why Christopher Steele from the UK, London Connection again, London Connection again, that Christopher Steele who used to work the Russia desk for United Kingdom's intelligence services, the only reason Christopher Steele was hired.
Third takeaway, Christopher Steele had one primary subsource that he used for all his information, a guy by the name of Danchenko that worked at the Brookings Institute in the United States that was alleged to be a Russian spy, alleged, and to be a national security threat, quote, by the FBI.
Well, if he was feeding the information to Steele and the information was all made up, well, who made it up?
Did Steele make it up or did Danchenko make it up?
Well, there's an interesting way to find that out.
You could interview Danchenko.
Oh, oh, they already did the FBI three times.
What exactly did Danchenko tell them?
Did Danchenko know that the Russians knew this was made up?
And were the Russians using this situation themselves?
Think about the double and triple, not double cross, triple cross and quadruple cross you could do on people here.
If the Russians found out early, which it's highly likely, and I'm hearing from highly credible sources that they did, that Hillary Clinton was going to make up a story, totally make up a story, about Donald Trump colluding with the Russians to impact the election, what better way to sow domestic disturbance in the United States than to feed the United States into the United States, Russian disinformation designed to advance that narrative, knowing this dunce Hillary Clinton would use it.
Talk about a double, triple, quadruple cross right there.
Did Danchenko know about that?
What did Danchenko know?
Did our agencies, our intel agencies, intercept Russian information with the Russians talking about how stupid Hillary Clinton and others were to create this narrative and how they would leverage it?
Oh, I think that may be in some of those notes.
Or those 302s from the FBI who interviewed Danchenko.
Stay tuned, folks.
It's about to get really hairy.
All right, thanks again.
We're gonna get to my interview here with Alam Bakari from Breitbart News.
He's one of their tech writers.
He does a great job.
Breitbart does a terrific job over there.
Alam wrote a book called Defeated.
Please, listen to this interview.
It is really eye-opening about what the tech industry is doing to shut you down and censor your free speech.
And I'd like to add again, my book's out today.
Really appreciate it.
Sorry to keep mentioning it, but I put a lot of work into it.
It's called Follow the Money.
Uh, it discusses the interrogo.
Thank you, Paula.
There's a cover right there for those of you watching on rumble.
Uh, it's the shocking deep state connections and the anti-Trump cabal.
And believe me, they are shocking because some of the stuff you're going to read in this book, I promise you're not seeing anywhere else.
It's about players, the Obama fixer, Ferrante, other people behind the scenes.
You haven't heard the Soros connection and others, um, that get lost in the shuffle of Spygate.
There's one chapter in here on the Obama fixer, Rumbler, that you've heard some of it in the show before, it's all in one spot, I promise it's gonna blow your mind.
Check it out, available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookstores everywhere today.
All right, stay tuned for my interview with Mr. Alan Bakari from Bright Partners.
All right, I want to welcome to Dan Bongino's show a very special guest.
Mr. Alam Bakhari has a new book out called Hashtag Deleted.
Big text battle to erase the Trump movement and steal the election.
You never see books that say the opposite, by the way.
Big text battle against Biden.
It's just kind of weird how that always happens.
Alam, thanks for joining us.
Really appreciate it.
Hi, Dan.
Great to be on the show.
It's an honor.
So I saw you on the Tucker Carlson show last week and you were incredible.
You were talking about your book again, hashtag deleted available now folks, please check it out.
And you had mentioned so many, I really, I wanted the interview to keep going on and on and on, but you know, you only have a few short minutes.
Now we're going to go on for about 45 minutes and you're going to let us know how badly social media and these big tech companies are trying to combat the MAGA movement with President Trump.
So why don't we just start with a simple question?
Give us the big picture.
How exactly are these social media big tech companies, how exactly are they going after the president and the MAGA movement?
Well, I'm sure many of your listeners will be familiar with all the high-profile bands of prominent conservatives.
You know, we've seen so many kicked off these platforms in the past four years.
But what's more terrifying is the stuff going on behind the scenes, the stuff that they don't want you to know about.
And I've spent the past few years talking to whistleblowers inside the Silicon Valley
companies, inside big tech, who have helped lift the lid on that.
And what they've really developed is quite terrifying.
It's a way of almost turning down the volume on entire political movements.
Just to explain briefly how this system works of turning down the volume on political movements.
So, say, you know, a prominent conservative gets banned and they have a million followers.
Their followers may not get banned, but it'll affect them, because one of the signals that these big tech companies look for when they're, you know, ranking or downranking certain accounts is, you know, Who are you following?
Are you following accounts known for posting hate speech?
Are you following accounts known for posting misinformation or conspiracy theories, or any of the other made-up terms that they use to censor and punish the political right?
So, that's really a formula not just for censoring one or two people, but for censoring entire political movements.
And you can't really tell it's happening.
Because what happens when you make a post on Facebook or Twitter is that post is given a ranking.
It's given a score by the companies.
And that score determines if it's going to show up at the top of people's feeds or if it's going to be buried where no one will see it.
And that affects absolutely everyone.
It's being done by algorithms.
So there's no escape from it.
If you're talking in a manner that's similar to what they call Trolls or misinformers or purveyors of hate speech, you're going to be downgraded.
You're going to go down in the rankings and you will not be able to go viral and gain momentum in the same way that a left-wing commentator might.
So the playing field is totally tilted, but it's tilted for everyone, not just one or two people who get banned.
So if you're, say, this is what I always found odd about this.
If you're, say, a left-winger, some radical leftist, and you're following, say, Adam Goldman from the New York Times, who's been a propagandist for the collusion hoax forever, I mean, a debunked conspiracy theory.
Are your insiders telling you that those people are getting downranked too, or is this almost exclusively a conservative phenomenon where they call things conspiracy theories that aren't?
Like, say, the Spygate scandal, which was real.
That's a great question.
And I'll tell you what one of my Facebook sources told me about these efforts against so-called misinformation, which, by the way, they conveniently sprang up right after President Trump got elected.
So apparently misinformation on social media platforms was totally fine for both terms of President Obama.
But as soon as Trump wins, suddenly misinformation and fake news is a really big problem that they have to address right now.
And what my Facebook source told me was, of course, I mean, you can almost guess this, the people who pushed hardest for these efforts to fight so-called fake news and so-called misinformation were the most anti-Trump people at these companies.
And these are the people who then joined those initiatives and led them and are essentially now in charge of determining what counts as misinformation, what counts counts as a conspiracy theory and what doesn't.
And that's why you don't see people like Rachel Maddow, who for the last three years has been saying Vladimir Putin
is blackmailing Donald Trump.
You don't get her tagged as a conspiracy theorist.
But a perfectly reasonable, solid right-wing theorist like Spygate that you've covered extensively,
they do get tagged as conspiracy theorists.
And by the way, because this will be particularly interesting to you and your listeners because you've covered Spygate so closely, many of the people in charge of these so-called anti-disinformation campaigns are from the national security state, they're from the deep state.
So, for example, General Stanley McChrystal is involved with a really advanced program to use AI to tackle so-called Russian disinformation campaigns, and we recently found someone at Facebook One of their so-called misinformation managers.
And by the way, this will really highlight what the Deep State has become.
On the one hand, her LinkedIn profile said she'd been at the CIA for 10 years, including under all of John Brennan's time as director.
And she also had a huge Black Lives Matter banner at the top of her profile.
So it's not just the Deep State, it's the woke Deep State.
Yeah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.
They leave their politics outside the office, I'm absolutely sure.
I'm obviously being sarcastic here.
You just said something, you piqued my interest.
Again, we're talking about Alan Bakari, author of the great new book, Hashtag Deleted, Big Text Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
A terrifying title, terrifying commentary, and we're only six minutes in.
So, Stanley McChrystal, I've been following this story pretty intensely.
I've been following the work of Julie Kelly, Michael Anton, and others who've been writing about the Democrats' plan, the radical left's plan post-election.
If Joe Biden doesn't win, which would leave, obviously, in a binary equation, Trump the winner.
For basically a coup after the election.
Most of it's their words too, not mine.
They're planning for a street fight, not a legal one, and other things.
But I've been following the Transition Integrity Project and Defeat Disinformation, which is a group Stanley McChrystal, who you just mentioned, has been consulting with.
What I find odd, Alam, is they're using some of the same techniques, these military and intelligence officials like the one you just cited working in the intelligence community, some of the same techniques to combat President Trump that they use overseas to foment revolutions in foreign countries.
These color revolutions.
I mean, this sounds unbelievably anti-American, And possibly a touch of treason in this thing.
I mean, trying to take out leaders using insurgency tactics meant for overseas.
Yeah, I almost regret using the title of my book that I did, because I just considered in the past few weeks that an even better title might have been The Digital Coup, because that's what we're seeing.
We're seeing these platforms weaponized to unseat a president by the same people who are mobilizing the judiciary, mobilizing the deep state, mobilizing every other resource they can to unseat this president via democratic means or not.
Most of the sources I interviewed in my book are from Silicon Valley.
They're from big tech.
But I did interview one source from inside the government who's followed all this stuff very closely.
He supports the president's agenda, by the way.
He's not part of the deep state, but he observes them very closely.
And he summed it up very eloquently, I thought.
He said that under President Obama, America actually pushed the ideal of Internet freedom, of the free and open Internet.
Because under Obama, it was very useful to them overseas, in places like Egypt, in places like Syria, and all these other regimes that they wanted to destabilize.
They promoted Internet freedom there because it allowed their American-funded activists to create instability in these regimes they were targeting.
So they saw Internet freedom as a tool of regime change abroad.
This is what my source said, not what I'm saying.
But then, my source said, when Donald Trump won, when we saw the rise of Brexit, they suddenly realized, oh no, these same technologies, this same thing, Internet freedom, it can be used to regime change the Western elites, the Western foreign policy elites, and we can't have that.
And that's when you saw everyone turning against Internet freedom here in America.
That's when you saw these so-called anti-disinformation projects spring up.
Yeah, you know, by the way, the Digital Coup, given the success of hashtag deleted, I know it's going to blow up after this and other terrific interviews you've done.
There's your sequel.
You don't even have to think of a new title.
Digital Coup.
Folks, get ready for it.
Buy his book now, but get ready for the Digital Coup.
Hashtag Digital Coup.
There's the sequel for that.
So in regards to this, the Obama administration's fascination with social media and others, You know, I remember specifically listening to C-SPAN after the Obama election, where he won re-election, excuse me.
And I don't know if it was Jim Messino or who it was, but it was a higher up on the campaign.
And they were talking about how they had used Facebook tools, their dashboard.
They had gone behind the scenes to micro-target voters, to get out the vote, to promote messaging campaigns.
Basically the same kind of thing Cambridge Analytica was accused of doing for the Trump team, but it only became a scandal when Trump did it.
I mean, I'm sure you can elaborate on that a bit, but don't you find it odd that it's only troublesome when Republicans learn how to use technology too?
Actually, no, if you give me one minute, I'm going to find the name of a sort of Obama campaign almost whistleblower who told us more about that.
Let me find one minute.
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
So we got this story in 2018.
Obama campaign staffer says Facebook allowed them to harvest masses of data.
So this person is called Carol Davidson, and she was like one of the top people in Obama's digital campaign.
She said that Facebook allowed, and this is this is far beyond Cambridge Analytic, allowed them to access the entire social graph of Facebook.
And what the social graph is, it's not just like the Facebook users who sign up to a particular app, it's all of their friends as well.
So almost every American who used Facebook in 2012, they had their data harvested by the Obama campaign.
And Facebook actually helped them do it.
Davidson said they even ...came to the offices after the election and said they allowed the Obama campaign to get away with things they wouldn't have allowed other people to get away with because they were on Obama's side.
That's a massive, massive story, and completely ignored by the mainstream media that was instead completely focused on Cambridge Analytica, which was basically doing a smaller-scale version of what Obama was in 2012.
I mean, not that I don't want to get sidetracked with a media story.
I want to stay focused on your book for obvious reasons.
It's a great piece of work.
But there is a media story here, too.
How, again, these things are only scandals when Republicans do them.
I mean, we could start, look at the Black Lives Matter rallies.
Obviously viruses don't know the difference between a rally and inauguration speech or anything else.
The Black Lives Matter rallies, the story was totally ignored that these could be viral super spreader events.
Nobody touched it.
Matter of fact in New York City you were banned from even asking about it if you were a health professional in some respects.
But then again, when the Republicans held events at airports and open air for President Trump, it became a big, huge scandal.
But you see this as well with social media.
I'm telling you, I heard that.
I know you know what I'm talking about.
I heard that C-SPAN speech where they were openly bragging how smart they were with Facebook, got access to the dashboard, voter turnout like never before.
And then again, Trump does it on a milder level and next thing you know, it's an international scandal and the media plays right along.
And if it isn't for guys like you, we would never even know about any of this.
You know, there's a whole chapter in my book about the post-election panic that was driven in large part by the media, which actually invented this term, fake news, that we hadn't ever heard of before as a way to demonize conservative media.
Of course, Trump then very cleverly took the phrase and started using it against them.
They weren't expecting that.
But it was a total panic.
And their target was, from the beginning, Facebook.
It was against social networks.
They wanted them to exercise more censorship.
That's where their pressure was And one of the things my book does is that it compares the post-2012 headlines to the post-2016 headlines about Facebook.
And one of the post-2012 headlines, I'm not making this up, is Obama, Facebook, and the Power of Friendship.
And it's all about how Obama used Facebook to help win the White House.
But of course, after Trump wins, it's all about how Facebook has allowed disinformation and hyper-partisanship and fake news and how Mark Zuckerberg needs to take responsibility.
In fact, Mark Zuckerberg initially thought this was just a momentary panic that would just blow over.
He said, no, of course, fake news didn't help swing the election for Trump.
But eventually, the pressure was so great, not just from the media, but also from pressure groups like Media Matters, that he had to cave in.
Yeah, yeah, media matters.
You know, a bunch of basement-dwelling s'mores roasters in their mommies' basements that sit there all day and follow my show.
They are the most pathetic group out there, I must say.
But that's a whole different story, you don't have to comment on that.
But one thing before we take a quick break here, we're talking again to Alan Bakari, author of the great book, Hashtag Deleted, Big Text Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
A real must-read right now.
You're right.
The magic of Trump, in many respects, people forget that that term fake news was meant to attack Trump.
In other words, that the Russians and others were planting fake news stories to help Trump get elected.
And Donald Trump, through the magic of his showmanship and his ability to flip a narrative, turned around and made fake news about CNN, which is where Which is what everybody really associates it with now, which is really just the marketing power of a guy who's not from politics, but was just a great marketer.
We're talking again, Alan Bakari.
We will be right back on the other side of this break with his new book, Hashtag Deleted.
Social media, big tech, folks.
This is a must-listen to show.
Please spread it around.
We'll be right back.
Hope you're enjoying my interview with Mr. Alan Bakari.
We have another sponsor joining the show today, our friends at Omaha Steaks.
Right now, you can get a gourmet assortment of bestsellers with an exclusive offer just for my listeners.
Go to omahasteaks.com, enter the code BONGINO in the search bar, and for this week, Omaha Steaks will add two pounds of their delicious Outstanding premium ground beef, free with your order.
My wife likes to make empanadas with it.
It is spectacular!
Delicious!
My mouth waters when I read about it.
My favorite also is their Butcher's Best Sellers Package, which includes the famous bacon-wrapped filet mignon, smoky sweet bacon, fork-tender filet mignon.
Absolutely delicioso!
Go to OmahaSteaks.com, enter code BONGINO in the search bar for exclusive offers not available anywhere else.
And don't forget, when you order today, Omaha Steaks will add two pounds of premium ground beef free.
Make burgers out of it, empanadas like my wife, you will love it.
You're not gonna go anywhere else for food.
Omaha Steaks has been bringing people together for over 100 years.
Enjoy family, enjoy friends, enjoy the best steak and meats of your life.
OmahaSteaks.com, enter promo code BONGINO in the search bar.
Back to my interview with Mr. Alan Bakari.
All right, welcoming back Alam Bakari, author of the new book, Hashtag Deleted.
It's really just a manifesto on big tech and social media's war, not just on Trump, but on all of us.
Free speech, conservatism, and elsewhere.
So, Alam, I saw you on Tucker's show again, as I mentioned in the beginning last week, and you had mentioned something I had never heard of before, and you were insistent that we all commit this term to memory.
You were talking about artificial intelligence, the use of it by big tech, To align their goals with critical race theory.
In other words, white privilege, white people, you're inherently racist, which is racist in and of itself.
Tell everybody the term, why we need to know about it, and I gotta tell you, it scared the hell out of me, so the floor's yours.
Well, machine learning fairness is the term invented by big tech and academia to describe an attempt to merge the fields of computer science with critical race theory, with far-left feminism, with every kind of woke academic field you can imagine.
Of course, these fields are based on pure myths and fantasies, but what they want to do is embed those myths and fantasies and those assumptions into computer science.
And here's why that's so dangerous.
An algorithm, at its core, is basically just a machine for recognizing patterns and spitting out conclusions.
Right?
I would actually say algorithms are on their own.
If you've had a... If, for example, imagine a truly unbiased algorithm that just looks at patterns in data and reaches conclusions, I think that would be a very right-wing algorithm.
Because if you just look dispassionately at data and look at patterns, you often find
very politically incorrect conclusions about things like Islamic terrorism or crime or
women in the workforce.
The facts don't support the left on so many important political questions.
So that's why they're so determined to make sure that they control the most influential
algorithms in the world, the ones in Silicon Valley.
They want to embed their own factual assumptions into them so that they end up reinforcing left-wing narratives and not challenging them.
And that's why they've created machine learning fairness.
And to break that down even further into some concrete examples, these are the algorithms that will be deciding what counts as hate speech, what counts as fake news.
They'll be deciding whose political movement is allowed to gain momentum and whose isn't.
They'll even decide whose businesses are successful, because algorithms also determine who, for example, appears on the front page of Google, which is, of course, critical for the success of many businesses now.
So, algorithms will determine almost everything we can imagine.
They'll pick winners and losers across every level of society, from politics to business,
and the people in charge of them, the people with their thumbs on the scale of the most
powerful technologies ever created, their crazy critical race theories, people who believe
in conclusions of gender studies, the most insane racist people you can imagine, who
are totally indoctrinated, who are totally ideologically blinkered, that they're the
ones running the show.
And this has profound consequences, not just for politics and society and political discourse here in America, but also all around the world.
You have to remember.
Platforms like Facebook and Google aren't just dominant in America.
They're dominant in places like Britain, like Italy, France, Germany.
They're dominant in Brazil.
They're dominant in so many places.
So we've somehow arrived in a situation where a handful of critical race theorists in the San Francisco Bay Area have their thumbs on the scale of democracy, not just here, But all around the world, they get to pick which political movements get to be successful and which ones are going to fail.
I'm a student of history, a huge history nerd.
I've seen a similar example in history where so much power over political discourse and the outcome of elections has fallen into the hands of so few people.
And what a group of people, Dan.
These are the most insane people you can imagine.
They have the most totalitarian view of politics you can think of.
Completely intolerant.
Completely racist, as you mentioned.
And they're running the show.
They're running the technologies that will control our world.
I mean, this is really terrifying stuff.
Sorry, I had to turn my head, my TV on in the background.
You didn't hear that, did you, Paula, coming over?
See, I thought Alam was worried during the break.
He's like, am I allowed to look down at my phone?
I'm like, you do whatever, brother.
It's a Dan Bongino show.
There are no rules here.
This is like the old school wrestling on Saturday morning.
There's no fourth wall here.
We do everything and talk about everything we want.
This scares me.
Yeah, obviously.
And again, folks, full disclosure, as many of you know, I am a part owner of both Parler and Rumble, alternatives to these big tech companies.
I should have put that out there earlier, but, you know, many of you listening to my show already know that.
But this hate speech, I'm using the dreaded air quotes there, concerns me.
And it sounds like it deeply concerns you.
I mean, you have a whole section in your book on it.
So this hate speech thing you mentioned with machine learning, fairness, and the ability to detect, you know, again, dreaded air quotes, hate speech here is really Disturbing.
If this example's wrong, stop me and correct me, but let's just say, throw it out there, if you're on Facebook or Twitter three, four, five years in the future, and this machine learning fairness gets implemented, and say you put up a Facebook post that says something like, listen, the wage gap between men and women is not 70 cents to the dollar.
When you factor in other factors there, it's actually just four or five cents or less.
That's a myth.
Can you be banned from Facebook?
I mean, are you going to be fact-checked?
What happens?
I mean, I'm not asking you to be the Stygian Witches from Clash of the Titans and predict the future, but where are they going with this?
Are they going to ban you, take the post down, put a little disclaimer on it?
Well, I would argue that the technology to do that is already in place.
There's a whole chapter in my book, Chapter Six, about how these machine learning systems are already running and operational.
In fact, if you go through YouTube's transparency reports on censorship—well, they don't call it censorship, they call it enforcing community guidelines—but if you go through the transparency reports, You'll see that the vast majority of the videos they take down, that they remove these days, is done by machines.
It's not done by humans.
So these algorithms are already very much in place and they're scanning absolutely everything.
I want to be clear here.
Absolutely everything you post on the internet, whether it's on one of these platforms,
whether you're creating a website, is going to be assigned a numerical value
by the tech giants.
So say you create a website, Google is gonna give that website a numerical value
to determine its so-called quality.
And the way the so-called quality score, they call it a quality score, used to be determined was,
you know, does the website have spam?
Is it relevant to the search?
Does it contain malware and unsafe software?
Those are the sort of, you know, pretty objective measures it used to use.
But now, of course, added into those quality scores are things like, does it contain hate speech?
Does it contain misinformation?
Does it contain fake news?
And those new criteria are only expanding.
So there will come a point, I think, where statements like the one you mentioned,
if they're not censored altogether, are gonna be severely down-ranked in search engines
when no one can find them, and equally so on people's Facebook feeds
and Twitter feeds and Instagram feeds.
And we're actually already seeing conservatives getting banned from social media just for posting facts.
I think it was Andy Ngo a while back, earlier this year, Got locked out of Twitter just for repeating FBI crime statistics.
Yeah, I remember that.
Yeah, we've seen some of this over at Rumble, where I'm a part owner of the company.
Rumble has been a more than viable competitor to YouTube way before I got involved.
But if you, there's a little trick we like to talk about at Rumble when we talk about how YouTube, you know, that's owned by Google, how they prevent competitors from even being seen.
If you actually go to Google and Google Rumble.com dog videos, you know what the first two pages of searches come up with?
YouTube videos.
Meanwhile, Rumble.com.
If you think I'm messing with you folks, try this.
This is how this works.
You can't find a Rumble video even when you put in Rumble.com dog videos.
Put in Rumble.com Dan Bongino.
Watch what happens.
You'll get all the YouTube videos first.
So it is scary, but just getting into YouTube for a minute.
I've had experience with this.
I have an account with YouTube.
It's relatively successful.
The show does well over there.
It does better on Rumble now, thankfully.
But we've seen this over and over with demonetization and people pressuring YouTube and Google to just basically wipe people clean.
We saw it with the infamous incident with Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza, who had some personal beef Mazza went on this Twitter tirade and basically got Steven Crowder for a time, a conservative commentator, got his account almost fully demonetized so he couldn't make any money on YouTube.
This is really frightening stuff as well.
It certainly is.
This is the financial element of all this censorship.
At the same time that more of people's businesses, more of their livelihoods, is moving online, it's increasingly difficult, for example, to set up a successful publishing operation without having a Facebook presence, for example.
And there are some people who earn their entire livelihoods just from Facebook, just from Instagram, just from these social media platforms.
At the same time that that huge historical change is happening, there have been no protections put in place for anyone using these platforms.
It's always boggled my mind that you could run a hot dog stand that rents out a corner of a parking lot, and the owner of that parking lot would still most likely have to get a court order before they could evict you.
Even if you'd legitimately done something wrong, they couldn't just evict you because they didn't like the slogan on your hat or your political beliefs or things like that.
There are very strict rules for how and when you can evict someone.
But you could own a million-dollar Facebook page, a million-dollar YouTube account, a million-dollar Instagram account, and you have absolutely no recourse in the courts.
They're virtually impossible to take these companies to court, even if they've wrongfully terminated your account and harmed your livelihood.
In fact, there are examples cited in my book, in the chapter on Facebook, where entire businesses have gone bust because of an algorithm change by Facebook.
They literally push a button in Silicon Valley and suddenly a hundred people lose their jobs.
That's exactly what happened to a website I talk about in the chapter on Facebook was called Little Things.
And it wasn't even a political website.
It was just a harmless viral website that posted stories about cute cats and dogs and things of that nature.
Facebook changed their algorithm.
Boom, bust, 100 employees gone.
That's an insane situation for businesses to be in, for consumers to be in.
And it's a real failure on the part of policymakers that they haven't stepped in to protect people from this because
it occurs in no other industry.
Yeah, no, it is troubling.
I agree.
I mean, alamwest.com, you know, the former congressman had a website, obviously eponymously named alamwest.com, and they were great.
They were one of the highlights of the conservative early internet movement there, getting out there.
And then all of a sudden, Facebook changed the algorithm.
Boom.
I mean, crushed the website overnight.
Now, I've got some personal experience with this.
You know, our Facebook pages, if you go to Facebook's Top Ten, it's a Twitter account, they use CrowdTangle to determine the most popular posts that day.
Both me and Ben Shapiro, the Hodge twins, David Harris and others frequently appear on that Top Ten, thanks to our terrific audience.
And all of a sudden, Facebook's Top Ten account is managed, by the way, by a guy who just doesn't really like conservatives.
And his whole agenda is to show how conservatives are somehow like manipulating Facebook.
I don't know how we're doing that because the rules change constantly on Facebook and we don't even know what to manipulate.
All I do is put up clips from my show which people like.
But that goes to show you one of the focuses of your book is the media pressure campaign that the media really doesn't like competition for content.
They need the game rigged.
It's amazing to me that conservative media is doing as well as it is on Facebook, despite the censorship, despite the constant algorithmic manipulation.
I mean, you know, Breitbart News had a super viral video taken down a while back.
So many other examples.
The Hodgetwins you mentioned, they almost had their account shut down a while ago.
And this is happening to the top conservative influencers on Facebook, you know, Breitbart News, the Hodgetwins.
These are not small entities.
And then the people who've been banned altogether, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones.
You may disagree with them, think they go too far, but these were some of Donald Trump's biggest supporters.
Huge, huge followings.
So the fact that conservative media is still succeeding on Facebook despite all of this just makes you think how much momentum they've actually taken away from the conservative movement.
If that allowed all those other people to remain on the platform, The left would barely exist.
They cannot compete on an even playing field.
They can't even compete when the game is rigged against conservatives, as it is today.
So they still complain that Facebook is somehow favoring the right, even though they've banned some of the right's biggest influencers.
It's insane.
I got a call the other day from a writer at Politico and he was asking me basically, you know, what the MacGuffin is, what the secret sauce is for my Facebook page.
Why are you guys always in the top 10?
And I said to him, I don't, I don't think you get this.
And I wasn't trying, he was actually a very nice guy.
I don't know if he was biased or not.
I really don't care.
I don't do a lot of interviews, but he seemed genuine in his curiosity.
And I said, the fact that you're asking that question shows you don't get it.
There is no MacGuffin.
There is a conservative content creator, me.
I say things on a podcast.
The podcast is popular.
We're number two behind Ben Shapiro.
I'm not patting myself on the back.
I'm just telling you the numbers.
People like the content.
So the fact that they like it on Facebook is not a MacGuffin.
But he's stunned by that!
You get what I'm saying, Alan?
He can't believe it!
Because he may have had a bias there, obviously, and he's like, no way!
You guys are all crazy!
This is impossible!
People could like you!
There's got to be a MacGuffin!
What are you doing?
Yeah, they assume the game must be rigged somehow because people don't like what they're selling.
It's the same with all these woke Hollywood movies that fail, and then the directors of the movies turn around and call everyone bigots and misogynists for not going to see their movie.
It's exactly the same thing.
I mean, you have to remember how much advantages these tech companies are giving mainstream media.
They're not rigging the game in favor of conservatives.
They're rigging the game the other way.
There was a story just the other day.
Google is going to put $1 billion into funding media organizations over the next few years.
A billion dollars.
Imagine that.
I work for Breitbart News.
I'm not privy to their financials, but I'm pretty sure we don't have a billion dollars.
These companies are given so many advantages by the tech companies, and they're still struggling to compete with conservative media.
Just imagine if they didn't have all those advantages.
They'd be dead.
They'd be gone.
All right, we're going to take a quick break.
We're talking to author Alam Bakhari.
He wrote the terrific new book.
A real must read for this cycle, folks.
Hashtag deleted.
Big text battle to erase the Trump movement and steal the election.
Certainly a book for The Times right now.
Read it now before the election so you know what's going on.
We'll be right back.
Thanks for tuning in to my interview with Alan Bakari, author of the book Defeated.
I really appreciate it.
We have another sponsor today, our friends at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Ladies and gentlemen, the pandemic didn't just test our country's economic endurance.
It really exposed how living an unhealthy lifestyle can expose you too.
That's why I recommend and I use Field of Greens by BrickHouse Nutrition every single day.
While other health products boast about having one vegetable, Field of Greens is packed with 12 clinically researched, delicious, essential, clean fruits and vegetables, plus green tea, ginger, turmeric, and beets.
This powerful combination not only supports heart health, it supports a healthy immune system, metabolism, blood pressure, and digestion.
My wife and I...
are candidly addicted to it.
We love it.
It's never been a time more important for me to be healthy, either.
Feel the greens.
This is not a supplement.
This is real food.
You know who I know?
Look on the back in their nutrition label.
You know what it says?
Nutrition facts.
It doesn't say supplement facts, because it's real, wholesome, healthy fruits and vegetables.
What do you do with it?
Put one scoop in water, stir, and you're done.
I put it in kombucha.
That's my new thing, and I love it.
Why?
What do you tell it?
It's good that way.
You don't like it?
I love it that way.
What do you put it in?
She uses water, my wife, I like it.
Sometimes I put it in some VA too.
So why settle for one vegetable when you can have the entire field of greens?
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Get 15% off your first order using promo code Dan.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's no time to mess around with your health.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go with field of greens.
We all know healthy fruits and vegetables are the best way to power a healthy lifestyle.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Use promo code Dan.
Get those vegetables in one scoop.
I take it twice a day.
It's delicious.
Now back to my interview with Alam Bakhari.
All right, welcoming back Alam Bakhari, author of Hashtag Deleted, Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election, a real serious concern right now.
We were talking before the break a bit about how the game is obviously rigged, how the left-wing media, they just haven't been able to compete on a fair playing field when it comes to content creation.
And Alam, I think of things like Air America, Which was their effort to create a liberal terrestrial radio network.
And it failed terribly because people just didn't really care.
The content was terrible.
But having said that, they can compete when they produce good content.
Look at podcasting.
The number one podcast out there, NPR, The New York Times.
I'm not saying ideologically good.
I want my audience to be, you know what my politics are.
Let's leave that out.
But the content they produce there is clearly appealing.
It's on demand.
You have to go to Apple Podcasts and hit play.
It's not like on the radio dial and you just tune in.
You have to get it and go want it.
So they can do well when they produce things people seem to want.
Again, NPR, New York Times being an example.
So I just don't get it.
I mean, this is kind of like whiny, I'm taking my toys and leaving the sandbox stuff, isn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
And I don't think they understand that Facebook is actually quite a conservative platform.
The people on Facebook tend to, you know, be slightly older than the people on, say, Twitter or Instagram.
They tend to have more conservative views.
So it's not surprising to me that conservative media is succeeding there.
I think they'd be succeeding even more if it wasn't for all the censorship and the people getting banned and covertly suppressed.
You know, I also want to bring up briefly another platform that's been in the news recently, and this isn't covered in my book because it's a very new issue, but I think it's very important.
TikTok.
So the Chinese-owned social media platform was on the verge of being banned altogether from the United States by President Trump because you don't want the Chinese communist regime stealing everyone's data, especially stealing the data of young people.
He used a platform.
Which seems perfectly reasonable.
But what concerned me was the fact that the administration did not impose any sort of free speech requirement on the deal.
So they didn't tell Oracle or Microsoft or any of the other companies bidding for TikTok that you're going to have to make a legally binding commitment to allow users to opt out of the filtering of Of political speech, if they want to.
So I think more could be done to pressure these companies by the administration.
But at the same time, the administration has been making some huge strides recently.
I want to be balanced in the story here and get your listeners the full picture.
I do think internet freedom is on the ballot in November because the Trump administration, they've nominated a new FCC commissioner who's very good in the question of social media censorship.
They've got an official at the NTIA who's moving forward on Donald Trump's executive order designed to tackle social media censorship.
And that guy's also very good.
He's actually sued Twitter in the past over free speech.
His name's Adam Kandeib.
So the Trump administration is finally starting to get moving on this issue.
They could potentially rein in the tech giants if they're allowed a second term.
But I really think this is the last chance, because if Joe Biden gets in, he's going to weaponize the federal government and pressure these companies to censor even more.
So I think that's something to consider as we move towards November, that Internet freedom is going to be on the ballot.
There's probably more the Trump administration could be doing, especially around deals like the TikTok merger.
But make no mistake, the Biden administration would be a disaster for internet free speech.
Yeah, preaching to the choir on that one.
Let me ask you something.
Your book is extensively sourced, Insiders in the Big Tech Community.
This is a question I've had for a long time, and maybe you can kind of be a lighthouse in the fog here.
I don't get Facebook at all.
I understand how it works.
Obviously, my page is very popular thanks to a terrific audience.
I get how to use Facebook, but I don't get Facebook.
And here's what I mean.
You know, listen, I'm an open book to my audience.
My Facebook page earns a lot of money.
A lot.
Like a ridiculous amount of money.
Facebook takes a good chunk of that.
So if we're one of their top revenue generators, I mean a basically seven-figure account for them, Why the hell would you constantly attack these people?
It's almost like you have this business that sells widgets, your biggest consumer buys millions of dollars in widgets every year, and one day you find out he voted for someone in an election, you're like, hey, hey, beat it!
No widgets for me!
Go support my widget competitor!
Instead, you'd scratch your head like, is this guy really that stupid?
So my question to you is, does Facebook get this?
Are they really this dumb that they're going to go down this road and purge the conservatives, the Hodge twins, me, Ben Shapiro, who are generating lots of money for them and a lot of attention as well?
I honestly think that these companies have in some ways become so powerful and so market dominating they have no serious competition and so wealthy that it's It's no longer in their own best interest to be that wealthy and powerful, because they're going to undermine the success of their products, going to undermine what's popular.
Again, to go back to the media's involvement here, one of the stories we broke at Breitbart News a couple of years ago was how the top ten results when you search for abortion on YouTube, quite a few of them were from conservative creators like Ben Shapiro, like LifeSite News.
Sources like that.
But what happened was a journalist from Slate went and complained to Google, said, look what happens when you search for abortion.
It's all these pro-life videos.
Well, yeah, those were the most popular videos on the search.
But within hours of that journalist contacting Google, they'd added the search term to a file.
And this is not my word for the file.
This is their word for the file, that YouTube controversial query blacklist.
They call it a blacklist.
And when they added the term to that file, all of those pro-life videos left the top ten and were replaced by the BBC, BuzzFeed, Vice News, you know, the usual suspects.
So they will, for political reasons, they will actually undermine their most popular content, the content that people want to watch, the content that people want to read.
In order to appease ideologically motivated people inside their own companies, pressure groups from outside, and of course, the mainstream media.
This is insane.
I mean, this is, you know, CNN was once the dominant player in cable news as well.
And I'll never forget, I was a secret service agent at the time and at a graduation ceremony since past Roger Ailes, he spoke there.
He had known someone and they asked him to come in and speak at the ceremony.
This was years ago when Fox was just gathering momentum.
And he said something I never forgotten.
It was beautiful in its simplicity.
Someone asked him, You know, what was the genius behind the thinking when you guys created Fox News?
And he said, we had this bold idea to appeal to a small sliver of America called 51% of America.
In other words, like 51% of America roughly wants fair and balanced news and nobody had thought to do a fair and balanced news network.
That's why I disagree with you a little bit that there isn't competition.
Granted, I have a vested interest in saying otherwise, but I believe it's going to be a slow burn.
It's not going to be easy.
These are almost monopolistic players now.
I agree with you there.
But I think, Alam, that 51% of people who really get pissed off about tech censorship They're going to figure it out eventually as they get more tech savvy that there are alternatives.
There's obviously there's Parler, there's DuckDuckGo, there's Rumble, you know, I have an interest in those two.
And this whole idea, once a viable competitor starts to appear, all these cutesy ideas like, oh, let's do a woke boardroom and let's suppress abortion videos aren't as appetizing anymore.
I mean, I'll give you an example right now.
Look at the Spotify situation with Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan was a hundred million dollar deal to get an exclusive on his videos on Spotify.
Joe Rogan is the most popular podcaster probably in the world.
And Spotify employees are basically nuclear bombing the company saying if we can't sanction his stuff, that's it.
We're going to strike and basically destroy this whole deal.
Insane.
It is insane.
It's good to support competitors, no doubt, and Rumble's doing amazing, Parler is doing very well.
I've got an interview with the Parler CEO coming up in the next few weeks, actually.
It's tough.
It's very tough for competitors because these Silicon Valley giants who dominate the marketplace, they almost work together to shut out the competition.
One of the examples I cite at the very start of my book, I try and get readers to imagine what it would be like to face this kind of censorship in 1968. So I describe, you know, typewriters stopping
working and saying you're banned from using the typewriter for using hate
speech.
You're banned from using the phones. The newsstands have banned
newspapers for too much fake news. And also the mailing service refusing to carry hate speech.
And if you try and set up a competing mailing service, they ban you from the roads.
And this is what's happening to competitors on social media.
The so-called roads that get competing products to consumers are the smartphones.
Smartphones are controlled by Apple and Google.
99% of all smartphone operating services worldwide are Apple or Google.
And again and again we've seen them ban apps that simply offer, you know, a First Amendment social network.
Both app stores banned Gab.com, for example, another competitor to the social networks.
And I believe they've gone after... Yeah, they got thrown right off.
Yep, and I believe they've gone on for BitChute as well.
We've also seen hosting providers, you know, the people who give you, who rent you space to host a web server, to host your website.
DNS providers, they're the services that give you your web address, your URL.
They've kicked people off for so-called hate speech as well.
So, I'm not saying competition is impossible, it's just extremely tough and an uphill battle.
We should definitely support competitors, but we should also support, I think, Just some basic consumer and business fairness protections to be imposed on these companies.
It's blatant interference with the competition.
It's blatant election interference as well.
And all these things are areas where I think Congress and the federal government are more than justified in regulating.
Folks, we're going to take one more final break.
We're talking to the author of a terrific new book, Mr. Alan Bakari, author of Hashtag Deleted, Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
Critical read at this time.
We'll be right back.
As always, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your patience.
I hope you're enjoying this interview with Mr. Alam Bakhari.
I certainly am.
We have our last sponsor, our good friends at Patriot Mobile.
Leftist corporations like Verizon have empowered radicals to tear our country apart, and they fund their efforts, most recently sending 10 million to Al Sharpton and others.
You know that?
It started with impeachment.
We moved on to exploiting the pandemic, and then they followed it with violent riots.
Now they're threatening violence over the Supreme Court seat.
Outrageous.
Patriot Mobile shares your values, my values, and they won't send you hard-earned money to aid in the destruction of America or fund Planned Parenthood.
Get the same nationwide service and support a company that loves America, shares your values, and supports our police.
Switching is easy.
Keep your phone number, bring your own phone, or buy a new one.
Now they have the best offer yet.
Get a free month of service or a free phone plus free activation with the offer code DAN.
Don't wait.
Just go to patriotmobile.com slash Dan, or call the U.S.-based customer service team at 972-PATRIOT.
That's 972-PATRIOT.
Veterans and first responders save even more, so please make the switch today.
Patriotmobile.com slash Dan, go to patriotmobile.com slash Dan, or call 972-PATRIOT.
Don't wait.
Now back to the closing segment of my interview with Alam Bakhari, author of the new book, Defeated.
Welcoming back again, Mr. Alan Bakari, author of the great new book, Hashtag Deleted, Big Text Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
Just an incredible read.
You know, Alan, before the break, before I had to swat that fly, for those of you watching on video, if you want to see my moves about six minutes ago, with cat-like precision, I swatted a fly right in front of the screen.
So check it out, rumble.com slash Bongino.
A competitor to YouTube, by the way.
Let me ask you this.
This worries me, because what you said before is absolutely correct.
As an owner of two of these companies, there are choke points everywhere that until you get on the ownership side of competitors to Twitter and Facebook and YouTube, you don't see the roadblocks.
One of them is the App Store.
There's always a threat in the Apple App Store, the Google App Store, you know, that if you don't do something that You know, they like, and you're a conservative-leaning company, whatever it may be, which we're not, we're a free speech company, that they'll throw you off.
There's also the threat, like you said, of server farms tossing you off, making you find a new server company.
So my question is, Do you think the solution, along with basic consumer fairness laws, which I agree with, I'm with you on that, but you think the solution as well, I mean, me and you obviously being free marketeers, is listen, we're just going to have to rewrite a conservative economy.
Financial processing companies for credit cards, conservative server farms, and I don't even mean, I should say free speech conservative farms, but building a whole infrastructure so that there is an alternative economy.
I've been recommending this for years because then we won't have to worry.
I think there should definitely be competition, but I don't think it should just be competition.
I think there should also be some common-sense rule changes and regulations to go along with that.
And, you know, I know conservatives think regulation is kind of a dirty word, but sometimes you need it.
Keep in mind it was Republicans, a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought the big oil companies under control in America and the big railroad companies under control at the turn of the 19th century.
So, you know, it's been the case before that private corporations have become so large and so powerful that they pose a threat to freedom independently of the government, and government has enacted to check their power.
That's perfectly in line with what Teddy Roosevelt did.
It's perfectly in line with what happened to Mar-Bell in the post-war period, because it was just a monopoly that dominated the competition.
Here's my fear, and I didn't realize this again until I got on the management ownership side.
We don't have at Parler, obviously, the assets Twitter does and a full-staff legal department that can fight legal fights all day.
We're okay, we're doing all right, but we just don't.
Twitter's a $20-plus billion market cap company.
So what I worry about is, as competition does emerge, you obviously have Gab, you have Parler, you have other outfits too.
It's not just us.
We're happy to, you know, do it, but there are other people out there.
Say you change Section 230, which would redefine some of these places if they engage in editorializing as publishers rather than platforms.
I don't mean to get too deep in the weeds, But we run into a problem, too, there.
And the problem is this.
Let's say on Parler you have a post that's obviously sensitive.
Say it's, God forbid, the murder of a police officer and some imagery.
We don't want to ban that.
That's not what we do.
But we realize that you probably just don't want it to scroll automatically.
There may be kids on the platform.
So you may want to put a little sensitive content thing.
The problem we have, Alam, again playing devil's advocate because you have a lot of expertise in this, is then we could potentially be sued by putting a sensitive label for editorializing on that content when really in reality we're just engaging in kind of basic consumer protections.
We're not banning anything.
We just want people to be warned and we don't have the legal staff there To fight back, whereas Twitter does.
And I think that's why these platforms aren't fighting as vigorously against 230 changes as you think they are.
I almost think some of them are welcoming it because they'd be like, hey, screw it.
We can fight these legal battles all day.
And all these other little, you know, ankle biter companies trying to creep up on us, they'd be out of business.
You've hit the nail on the head there.
The danger with regulation always is that the whole process will be controlled by special interests that will use it to shut out the competition even further.
And we have to be really careful with Section 230 reform.
I support some Section 230 reform, but I'm very much opposed to others.
I know that a lot of it is driven by lobbyists in the big entertainment companies who want
to be able to sue social networks.
And the people who will be hurt hardest by that will be, of course, the smaller social
networks.
So we have to be very careful about it.
We shouldn't just demand—some people say, "Hashtag abolish Section 230."
No, no, no.
We need to reform it sensibly and carefully so as not to hurt the competition.
So Josh Hawley has a good workaround for this.
His Section 230 bill only applies to companies that are of a very high market cap.
So the reformers would not apply to Rumble, to Parler, to any of the smaller competitors.
That's a good formula that I think can be used for all kinds of regulations.
Only apply them to the dominant players.
Only apply them to companies over a certain market cap.
By the way, you mentioned filtering obscene content.
I'm not opposed to filtering obscene content, but one of the things I would like to see as part of the Section 230 reform suggestions — because, like you said, some of them have just been silly.
Some of them have suggested creating a body in the federal government that will determine what is and what isn't neutral, what is and what isn't politically neutral.
That's just going to be a mess.
Let's be clear about that.
But a very simple thing that could be done is clearly define what is a platform and what isn't.
And I think one of the most obvious things — it's been obvious to me for a while that they can put in there — is that platforms are allowed to create filters on constitutionally protected speech, but those filters have to be opt-out.
And if you don't make them opt-out, if you don't make them optional to the user, Then you're not a platform anymore and you can be sued.
So...
This is not a particularly onerous regulation in my view, because tech companies have had this technology for since forever.
Every time you go on Google search, you'll see a little button in the top corner, safe search.
You turn that button on and you won't see any obscene search results.
That's perfectly fine.
No one's opposed to that.
But the user can decide whether to turn it on or off.
That is critical.
They haven't given users that option when it comes to things like hate speech and fake news and misinformation, even though they could.
Because ultimately, they care more about controlling political discourse right now.
They care more about censoring the Trump movement than they do about giving true choice to consumers.
And I think that has to be part of the definition of a platform.
You're a platform if you give users the ability to opt out of your filters.
I think that's a very easy fix to the problem.
That's a great idea.
I'm sorry, I tried not to interrupt.
This is such a good idea, I don't want to lose this point.
Because we've had a problem, again, on Parler, speaking from personal experience, where people understanding the whole aversion in the United States towards legitimate hate speech.
I mean, you know what it is when you see it.
You know, neo-Nazi stuff, racist stuff.
You get it.
It's obvious, right?
What we've had a problem with is liberals taking advantage of our natural aversion to that in this great country.
Who come over to Parler, they set up fake accounts, they literally put up swastikas, Iron Cross, all kinds of like Nazi symbols.
They're fake accounts!
And they'll say, they'll open the account and then they'll send the link to someone in the liberal media and go, look, look, this is a neo-Nazi website.
And we're like, we can't clean this stuff off fast enough.
So I like your idea of letting the user do that themselves.
Like, let them filter this, because we can't.
We just don't have enough people.
We got crushed when Parler got a head of steam with fake accounts from some of the same IPs setting up, like, Hitler's cousin, Joey Hitler, Donny Hitler, Tony Hitler.
And we're like, holy Moses.
It was fake.
All of it was fake.
And it really upset us.
I gotta run.
I just want to ask you an exit question.
This has been a spectacular interview.
Your insight here is amazing.
Again, Alan Bakari, author of Hashtag Deleted.
Pick it up today.
Big text battle to erase the Trump movement and steal the election.
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookstores everywhere.
Do you see, as I interviewed President Trump not that long ago on this show, do you see the likelihood, let's say he wins re-election, do you see any likelihood of Twitter or Facebook knowing that he's leveraged those platforms in a fair and honest way, like anyone else could, but he was just good at it, do you see any likelihood that they ban him from these platforms altogether?
You know, I think if President Trump wins, the situation will improve dramatically.
I don't think the problem of censorship will go away altogether, but I think it will improve.
Over the past six months, the Trump administration has been making some really impressive staffing changes, some really impressive appointments, people who really understand the Section 230 issue, understand Internet freedom.
People like Adam Kandeya at NTIA, I mentioned him earlier, he actually agrees with me about User filtering, user-controlled filtering.
So that was great to hear.
I asked him that at a recent press conference.
The new FCC appointee, Nathan Symington, also.
I know a little less about him, but I hear he's very good on the issue of social media censorship.
He's certainly better than the person he replaced, Michael O'Reilly.
If he gets confirmed, that'll be excellent news.
I think tech companies will see the way things are going in the Trump administration.
They'll see that they won't be able to get away with this stuff so easily anymore.
And they will act accordingly.
I may not be right in that prediction, but we'll certainly see progress on this issue.
Rapid progress, I think.
And we certainly won't see that in the Biden administration.
It's good to hear some optimism.
I mean, seriously, this has been an ongoing fight with me as an activist and as, again, a business associate with some of these companies.
It's good to hear that optimism in your voice that we could finally turn this ship around.
Folks, listen, that gives you two calls to action at the end of the show.
You heard what Alan just said, so you better go out and vote, my words.
Get out there and vote, because if we get Joe Biden in there, you're going to see an ongoing disaster.
And action item number two, go pick out Alan Bakari's terrific new book, again, Hashtag Deleted, Big Text Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
We'll put a link to it in the show notes.
Paula, what did you think of that?
I'm sorry, before you go, is Paula getting a head nod?
That's a head nod.
If my wife likes it, it's good.
It's not only good if she's doing like the double head nod, it's really good because she's a tech person or something.
