All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2021 - Epoch Times
20:07
Who's Next To Get Canceled On Twitter? | Larry Elder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let me get this straight.
Twitter has permanently banned President Donald Trump because he insists that the election was stolen, the word he keeps using.
Same word Hillary's used for four years, but Trump has been banned permanently?
If you're going to ban Donald Trump, I've got some candidates from the left you might want to consider banning for lies they've pushed.
But first, let's talk about Trump.
"After close review of recent tweets from the real Donald Trump account and the context around them, specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter, we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement Wow.
Now, in President's long, raucous, and fiery speech, an hour or so before the siege at the Capitol building, he said this.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity, of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country.
And as I am recording this video, Democrats are voting to impeach President Trump a second time because of what happened on January 6th.
Alan Dershowitz is a Democrat who twice voted for Barack Obama.
It will not go to trial.
All the Democrats can do is impeach the president in the House of Representatives.
For that, all you need is a majority vote.
You don't have to take evidence.
There are no lawyers involved.
But the case cannot come for trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial.
Until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m.
on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office.
And the Constitution specifically says the president shall be removed from office upon impeachment, etc.
It doesn't say the former president.
Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.
The jurisdiction is limited to a And so there won't be a trial.
But what I worry about deeply is the impact of impeachment on the First Amendment.
For a hundred years, the Supreme Court and other courts have struggled to develop a jurisprudence which distinguishes between advocacy and incitement.
And in the leading case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court basically said That what President Trump said on Wednesday, as much as I disapprove of it and many people disapprove of it on its merits, is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
It comes within core political speech.
And to impeach a president for having exercised his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution.
It would lie around like a loaded weapon.
Ready to be used by either party against the other party.
And that's not what impeachment or the 25th Amendment were intended to be.
And another Democrat, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington Law School, said this.
Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong.
I also oppose the challenges to electoral votes in Congress, but his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the Criminal Code.
It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court." End of quote.
Okay, Twitter, how far do you want to take this game?
Let's take the lie that is often repeated that President Trump said there were good Nazis and bad Nazis on both sides in Charlottesville.
And of course, he said no such thing.
He said the opposite.
And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.
Even CNN's Jake Tapper ultimately admitted that the president said no such thing.
Now elsewhere in those remarks, the president did condemn neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
So he's not saying that the neo-Nazis and white supremacists are very fine people.
Well, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have repeated that Charlottesville lie, posted it on social media.
They haven't gotten canceled.
Hillary Clinton has for four years claimed that the election was stolen.
She hasn't been canceled.
I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president.
He knows.
He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did.
And I take responsibility for those parts of it that I should.
But Jane, it was like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.
And so I know that he knows that this wasn't on the level.
Now this Russian interference lie that Hillary has pushed?
has caused 78% of Democrats to believe, falsely, that but for Russian interference, Trump never would have gotten elected.
Here is what Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, Jay Johnson, said about this.
I know of no evidence that through cyber intrusions, votes were altered or suppressed in some way.
And Hillary, only weeks before the election, told Joe Biden, if it's a close election, do not concede under any circumstances.
You know, Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.
Hillary, not canceled.
What about Spike Lee?
Why should he be cancelled?
Well, Spike Lee says that he believes that government scientists invented AIDS in order to pursue genocide against blacks.
He ain't the only one who said it.
Will Smith, too.
I read that you felt that the government was deliberately spraying coal germs in subways, was deliberately trying to make people ill With the AIDS virus, this is pretty serious stuff.
Do you really feel that?
Well, that's a good question.
Well, I'm with Barbara Walters now.
Oh, that's a serious one.
Okay, so I got it now because people are going to chase me after this.
People are going to chase me.
I believe that it is quite highly possible that the AIDS virus is a result of genetic warfare testing.
By American agents?
Absolutely.
Well, why?
Am I a conspiracy theorist?
I'm a conspiracy theorist, aren't I?
And Lee also pushed that conspiracy theory that the government under George W. Bush intentionally blew up levies during Hurricane Katrina.
I kid you not.
And this past Saturday, Louis Farrakhan did a kind of a reunion of the Million Man March.
I don't think we got a million people this time.
But he was saying last Saturday in Washington that he thinks that the federal government, there was a conspiracy to actually blow up those levies so that they would flood the poor black districts in New Orleans.
I have to tell you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
I don't believe it.
But when you see some of the things that have gone on in this country...
Exactly.
It's not far-fetched.
And also, I'd like to say, it's not necessarily blow it up, but the residents of that ward, they believe that.
There was a Hurricane Betsy in 1965.
They felt the same thing happen, where a choice had to be made One neighborhood, we got to save one neighborhood and flood another hood, flood another neighborhood.
Look, if we're in L.A. That's been done before.
If we're in L.A. and there's an emergency situation, we call from Beverly Hills, we call from Compton.
Which one are the cops coming to first?
Not far-fetched?
I was in New Orleans right after the hurricane, in the Ninth Ward.
And while I didn't hear anybody say the levy was blown up by the federal government, I did interview a bunch of people who were stuck there who said they believed this was part of a conspiracy to rid New Orleans of black people.
They honestly believed that.
I didn't argue with them.
I just listened to what they said, and I felt bad for them.
So as you sit here, who is someone who is rich and has options, and are watched by people who are poor and have no options, it seems to me it's your responsibility, your obligation to tell them the truth.
And you know the truth, which is the federal government did not blow up those levies.
So don't feed the paranoia and the craziness.
How is that feeding the paranoia?
Because you're saying it's entirely possible.
Well, you know perfectly well it's not entirely possible.
How is that possible?
The federal government blew up the levies.
A, there's no, zero evidence.
B, it's difficult to blow up a levy.
C, there were news cameras all around and nobody saw it.
I mean, let's be real here.
Why would they do it?
Because nobody saw it means it couldn't have happened.
Now, Will Smith is not on Twitter, but Spike Lee, sure as hell he is, hasn't been canceled.
What about Joe Biden's numerous, divisive civil rights lies?
When I was 17 years old, like many of you, I participated in sit-ins to desegregate the restaurants and movie houses of Wilmington, Delaware.
I came out of the civil rights movement.
movement.
I was one of those guys that sat in and marched and all that stuff.
During the 60s, I was, in fact, very concerned about the civil rights movement.
I was not an activist.
I worked at an all-black swimming pool in the east side of Wilmington, Delaware.
I was involved.
I was involved in what they were thinking, what they were feeling.
I was involved, but I was not out marching.
I was not down in Selma.
I was not anywhere else.
I was a suburbanite kid who got a dose of exposure to what was happening to black Americans.
But I'm in my own city.
You know, when I was a teenager in Delaware, for real, I got involved in the civil rights movement.
We have the eighth largest black population in America.
Most people don't know that.
And I'd go to 8 o'clock mass, then I'd go to Reverend Herring's church where we'd meet in order to organize and figure where we were going to go, whether we were going to desegregate the Rialto movie theater or what we were going to do.
I got my education, for real, in the black church.
And that's not hyperbole, it's a fact.
But I got my education, Reverend Doc, in the black church.
Not a joke.
Because when we used to get organized on Sundays to go out and desegregate movie theaters and things like that, we'd do it through the black church.
And the New York Times reports, quote, more than once, advisors had gently reminded Mr.
Biden of the problem with this formulation.
He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement.
And more than once, Mr.
Biden assured them that he understood and kept telling the story anyway.
Joe Biden?
That counsel, despite his numerous divisive, racially tinged lies, this brings us to former Senator Harry Reid.
When we're talking about trust, we need to look no further than the person that Mitt Romney wants to, that my friend, the Republican leader, wants to be President of the United States.
He's refused to release his tax returns, as we know.
If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns.
So, the word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years.
Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't.
And then bragged about it.
So no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch brothers, because some people have even called it McCarthyite.
Well, they call it whatever they want.
Romney didn't win, did he?
In 2012, another lie was told about Mitt Romney.
This by an ABC reporter named Jonathan Karl.
He said that an auto mechanic making $75,000 has a higher effective federal income tax rate Then Mitt Romney.
Now, I interviewed Jonathan Karl later on, when the election was over, and I brought it up.
And I said, that is only true if you don't compare like to like.
Mitt Romney is married.
If the auto mechanic is married, Mitt Romney has kids.
Assume the auto mechanic has kids.
Mitt Romney has a house.
Assume the auto mechanic has a house.
And he took the standard deductions.
The auto mechanic's effective federal income tax rate is substantially lower than Romney's.
And Carl said, well, I'll look into that and I'll get back to you.
never got back to me.
Jonathan Carl's Twitter account, healthy and alive.
Thank you.
Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, hasn't canceled him.
This brings us to Stacey Abrams, the woman who ran for governor of Georgia and lost and claims the only reason she lost was because of voter suppression.
This year, more than 200 years into Georgia's democratic experiment, the state failed its voters.
You see, despite a record high population in Georgia, more than a million citizens found their names stripped from the roles by the Secretary of State, including a 92-year-old civil rights activist who had cast her ballot in the same neighborhood since 1968.
Tens of thousands hung in limbo, rejected due to human error and a system of suppression that had already proven its bias.
Well, USA Today fact-checked it.
While Abrams has maintained the 2018 gubernatorial election was unfair and tainted by voter suppression, there's no empirical evidence that the now Governor Kemp stole the election from her.
We rate the claim partly false.
Why only partly false?
Well, it looks like when it comes to Democrats and the left, they grade on the curve.
Now, what about this bodacious lie pushed by Black Lives Matter that the police are engaging in systemic racism?
The studies don't show that.
If anything, the studies show the police are more hesitant, more reluctant to pull the trigger on a black suspect than a white suspect, as we have shown in some of our other videos.
Has Black Lives Matter been banned from Twitter?
Please!
Now, what about the big lie that President George W. Bush lied us into the Iraq War?
A reporter named Ron Fournier, who at the time was the Associated Press Washington, D.C. bureau chief, publicly said, George W. Bush lied us into the Iraq War, end of quote.
It so angered Judge Lawrence Silverman, the co-chair of the Rob Silverman Commission that was set up to look into the intel leading up to the war.
Judge Silverman wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the lie that was pushed by Mr.
Fournier.
I find this shocking.
I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-2005 to serve as co-chair of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction, a bipartisan body sometimes referred to as the Rob Silverman Commission.
I am keenly aware of both the intel provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary cause in going to war.
The Intelligence Community's 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, a belief it held with 90% confidence.
That's about as certain as the intel community gets on any subject.
Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.
There's no question about that.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to made in the development We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.
There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or whether it's a matter of less than that.
And so there's much we don't know.
Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community.
And I think that the president is approaching this in the right fashion.
Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?
I doubt it.
I can support the president.
I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security.
Now, co-chair Judge Lawrence Silverman said, I wrote to Ron Fournier.
I recently wrote to Ron Fournier protesting his accusation.
His response in an email was to reiterate that an objective reading of the events leads to only one conclusion, the administration misinterpreted, distorted, and in some cases lied about the intelligence." Although Mr.
Fournier referred to evidence supporting his view, he did not cite any, and I don't believe there is, Any.
This is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact with potentially dire consequences.
I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany, that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been stabbed in the back by politicians.
Some time in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action.
It would be tragic if at such a moment the president's credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier." And last time I checked, Mr.
Fournier, very active Twitter account, hasn't been banned.
So Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, if you're watching this video and you should, who are you going to cancel next?
Maybe even me.
I'm Larry Elder, and we've got a country to save.
I'll see you next time.
By the way, I've lost 100,000 followers in Twitter in about four days.
Was it something I said?
▲
Export Selection