Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 8, 2021 - Epoch Times

22:17

Twitter Suspends Man Who Exposed CNN; Big Lawsuit Coming | Facts Matter

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	Yesterday, four congressional Democrats introduced this new bill, which would expand the Supreme Court and add four new justices.
	However, they say that this is absolutely not court packing.
	Meanwhile, Project Veritas released the second part of their exposed CNN series.
	This time, it's an undercover video centered around how CNN used the COVID death toll to drive up their ratings.
	However, if you go on over to James O'Keefe's Twitter page right now to watch it, you won't be able to.
	Because soon after that video was released, Twitter permanently suspended his account.
	And lastly, over at Ohio State University, the president over there has announced a new initiative that will, among several other things, focus on hiring new, diverse professors.
	Meaning, essentially, they will not be straight white men.
	Now, is that even legal?
	Well, let's go through that together.
	This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
	Now let's begin today's discussion with a question.
	If you increase the number of Supreme Court justices, but you don't call it court packing, then is it really packing the court?
	Well, now is the time that we have to find out.
	Because just yesterday, four congressional Democrats introduced a bill to expand the Supreme Court and add four new justices.
	In fact, this is it right here.
	It's only two pages long.
	It's not very long at all.
	And it is called the Judiciary Act of 2021.
	And it would add four more justices to the bench, chosen, naturally, according to the U.S. Constitution, by Joe Biden.
	Now, while many people argue that this is an act of court packing, Jerry Nadler, on the other hand, has a different take on it.
	Here's what he said.
	Now, what he's referring to there is the fact that President Trump was able to fill three Supreme Court seats, and at the moment, the conservative wing of the court has a 6-3 majority.
	Here's how Senator Ed Markey, who is a Democrat from Massachusetts and another co-sponsor of this proposal, here's how he described it.
	Republicans stole the court's majority with Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation completing their crime spree.
	This legislation will restore the court's balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy.
	And when he says restoring the balance, he likely means that if they were to add four new seats to the Supreme Court under Joe Biden, then the court would go from a 6-3 conservative majority to a 7-6 liberal majority.
	However, this is very unlikely to happen, because even within the Democratic Party, this was not taken very well.
	In fact, Nancy Pelosi, in speaking about this proposal, here's what she said.
	I have no plans to bring it to the floor.
	And instead, she voiced support for that commission that was set up by Joe Biden to study possible changes to the court.
	However, she did not rule it out entirely, saying that I don't know that that's a good idea or a bad idea.
	It's a big step.
	It's not out of the question.
	It has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago.
	And the growth of our country, the size of the country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, et cetera, might necessitate such a thing.
	Now, the White House has not made any comments on this proposed bill.
	However, we here at the Epoch Times dug up another video from a few years back of Joe Biden giving us his thoughts on the notion of court packing.
	Take a look.
	And remember this old adage about power Corrupts in absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
	Corrupted by power, in my view, unveiled his court-packing plan.
	He wanted to increase the number of justices to 15, allowing himself to nominate those additional judges.
	He took an act of courage and the part of his own party to If you would like to read more about this effort to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court bench for yourself, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
	And by the way, while you're down there looking for that link, take a quick moment to smash that like button.
	Because it honestly goes without saying that videos that are like this are routinely censored by big tech giants like YouTube.
	In fact, if you were watching our premiere on Wednesday, two days ago, this episode had a ton of problems during the premiere.
	I've never even seen anything like it.
	As we were premiering the episode, not just me, but almost everybody in the chat was saying that the video was continuously crashing on them every few seconds.
	I've never seen anything like that on YouTube.
	Now, I'm not saying necessarily that that was censorship by YouTube.
	However, on that episode, we were talking about some sensitive topics, at least according to YouTube standards.
	We were discussing vaccine passports.
	And the video was crashing every few seconds.
	Now, again, we don't know whether that was an intentional thing that YouTube did or not, but...
	It does seem to be the case that across the board, big tech censorship platforms are routinely censoring people that talk openly, honestly, and transparently about what is happening in this world.
	However, when you smash that like button that's below this video, you are forcing the YouTube algorithm to share this video out to potentially thousands of more people, letting the truth be known far and wide.
	And now let's talk a bit about Project Veritas.
	In our previous episode, we already discussed how Project Veritas released an undercover hidden camera video which showed a technical director over at CNN discuss how they produce content during the 2020 election which hurt President Trump and helped get Joe Biden elected.
	Now that video clip was only part one of the broader Exposed CNN series.
	And the very next day, Project Veritas released part two, which showed the same CNN director discussing how they pushed COVID death numbers in order to get better ratings.
	Take a look.
	COVID, gangbusters are great at us.
	Gangbusters are great at us, right?
	Which is why we constantly have a death toll on the side.
	Let's make it higher.
	Like, why isn't it high enough, you know, today?
	Like, it would make our point better if it was higher.
	It's fear.
	Like, fear really drives numbers.
	Fear is the thing that keeps you tuned in.
	It's literally a red phone ring.
	Like, this special red phone ring.
	Yeah.
	And they pick it up, and this producer picks it up.
	And you're like, ma, ma, ma, ma, ma, ma.
	And every so often they put it on speaker.
	And it's like the head of the network being like, There's nothing that you're doing right now that makes me want to stick.
	Put the numbers back up, because that's the most enticing thing that we have.
	Now, while this technical director did not name any names, he did refer to the head of the network, which likely refers to CNN's chairman, Jeff Zucker.
	Now, another thing that this director talked about on hidden camera was how CNN handled Asian hate crimes when the perpetrator was black.
	Take a look.
	I was trying to do some Lisa trying to like Asian hate like people are getting attacked on a bunch of men that have been attacking Asian.
	So I'm like, what are you doing?
	We're trying to like help like the BLM and like, we're going to like, I mean, it's individuals.
	It's not a people, you know?
	That's not good, the optics are bad, I'm not kidding.
	These little things like that are enough to set back movements.
	I haven't seen anything about focusing on the color of people's skin that aren't white.
	They just aren't saying anything.
	And so this undercover video, once it was published and made public, became immensely popular, and it spread like wildfire.
	In fact, within just a few hours, the video got over one million views just on James O'Keefe's Twitter page alone.
	However, if you go on over to his Twitter page now, you will not see this video.
	In fact, you won't see anything.
	That's because yesterday, Twitter permanently suspended James O'Keefe from their platform.
	Why?
	Well, as an official explanation, they sent him an email saying, in part, your account has been permanently suspended for violating Twitter rules, specifically their rules in regards to fake accounts.
	You may not register or create fake and misleading accounts or use multiple accounts to manipulate Twitter conversations.
	And at the very bottom it says, this account will not be reinstated.
	Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we actually reached out to James O'Keefe and over the phone, here's what he told us.
	I don't know what they think, that I'm a Russian bot?
	I don't know what they're talking about.
	We just did the CNN thing for three days.
	I guess we are too effective.
	And then later on that very same day, yesterday, he texted us a statement saying that he will sue Twitter for defamation.
	Here's what that statement said.
	I'm suing Twitter for defamation because they said I, James O'Keefe, operated fake accounts.
	This is false.
	This is defamatory, and they will pay.
	Section 230 may have protected them before, but it will not protect them from me.
	The complaint will be filed on Monday.
	And this is something that's really worth stopping and considering for a moment.
	James O'Keefe published an undercover video in which it shows a CNN director exposed how CNN produces what he himself called propaganda.
	The video goes viral, because obviously it's very interesting, and then, in a magical coincidence of timing, Twitter discovers that actually, behind the scenes, James O'Keefe is running some sort of fake account operation, which is grounds to suspend him from the platform altogether.
	Now that is amazing timing.
	Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to Twitter for comment, but we have yet to hear back.
	Regardless, with this new lawsuit, there are likely to be many more details to come in the very near future.
	And by the way, this lawsuit against Twitter will not be the only lawsuit that Project Veritas is currently engaged in.
	In fact, a few months back, they also sued the New York Times, also for defamation.
	And in that lawsuit, Project Veritas recently won a critical battle.
	That's because what happened was that the New York Times filed a motion to have the entire case dismissed.
	But after reviewing the facts, a New York Supreme Court judge ruled that the case will continue.
	The judge also ruled that the New York Times spread deceptive claims about Project Veritas and inserted sentences into their stories that were opinions.
	Despite the fact that these articles were billed as being straight news.
	As a part of his decision, here's what the judge wrote.
	Now, interjects an opinion in a news article, and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion, it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader that it is an opinion.
	Now, to give you an idea of what that New York Times article actually wrote about Project Veritas, let's examine two sentences in that article.
	They wrote that conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas.
	The video claimed, without name sources or verifiable evidence, that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally.
	Now, in these sentences are two claims.
	One is that the video was deceptive, and the second was that the video did not have any verifiable evidence.
	Now, the New York Times argued that these two claims were opinions, which were incapable of being judged true or false.
	But the judge, the Supreme Court judge in the case, did not agree.
	He said that the way this article was presented, presented these statements as facts, and it made readers believe that these were statements of fact rather than opinion.
	Here's what he wrote.
	Stating that the video is deceptive, and stating without verifiable evidence in a factual way in a news article certainly presents the statement as fact, not opinion.
	Then, the lawyers for the New York Times, they tried a different argument.
	They said that the New York Times actually did demonstrate that the video was deceptive because they cited other news outlets as well as other fact-checkers who said that it was, that the video was deceptive.
	However, the judge did not buy that argument.
	He said that regardless of how many people say something, it does not necessarily make it true.
	Here's what he wrote.
	Polling does not decide truth, nor speak to evidence, and defendants have not met their burden to prove that the reporting by Veritas in the video is deceptive.
	Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to the lawyer who represents the New York Times in this case for comment, and he told us to reach out directly to the New York Times, which we did, but have not heard back yet.
	Regardless, as to what the next step in this case will be, well, here's what Project Veritas said in a statement.
	This ruling means that Project Veritas will now be able to put New York Times reporter Maggie Astor and New York Times executive editor Dean Backwood under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions.
	Project Veritas will record these depositions and expose them for the world to see.
	And so, it looks like Project Veritas will be having their hands pretty full not only with this lawsuit, but also with this new upcoming one against Twitter.
	If you would like to read more about this case, about the upcoming Twitter case, or if you would like to watch part two of that exposed CNN undercover video series, all those links will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
	Now, before we move on over and discuss how Facebook is also censoring America, specifically stories about how the co-founder of BLM bought up millions of dollars in real estate, I would like to take a quick moment and introduce our sponsor for today's episode, and I will do so from the sound booth.
	That's right.
	The sponsor of today's episode is American Hartford Gold, which is a company run by Patriots.
	That's why they sponsor a program like ours.
	And actually, they're also my personal gold and silver bullion dealer.
	I just got my recent order from them in the mail.
	Now, if you are worried about the economic situation in America, with these trillions of dollars in stimulus packages, these trillions amounts of dollars that the Fed has pumped into our economy by buying up all these assets, or our national debt ballooning to what it has and seemingly no one talking about it, Well, so am I. And by the way, I don't give you any financial advice, but I'll tell you what I do.
	And for the last four and a half years, I've been buying up physical gold and silver every single month.
	Just every single month, I allocate a portion of my salary to buying physical gold, like this gold one-ounce coin or this silver 10-ounce bar.
	I don't know if you can see it.
	It's quite beautiful.
	That's what I do.
	I buy it, and I believe it's probably one of the best hedges against inflation that you can get.
	It had value 5,000 years ago, it has value today, and it'll have value, in my opinion, well into the future.
	Now, American Heart for Gold is a great company.
	They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	They have just super, super friendly customer service staff, so when you call them, they'll answer all your questions, they'll help you out.
	And also, their waiting music is actually a speech from Ronald Reagan, which is very cool, I think.
	And they have some of the best rates out there in the market in terms of gold and silver.
	So, if you want to check them out, the link will be in the description box below this video.
	And actually, right now, they're offering a special where, depending on how much you buy, they'll actually throw in $1,500 of free silver into your order.
	So, that's great.
	So you can either click on the link in the description box below or you can call 866-242-2352 or you can text Roman to 65532.
	American Heart for Gold, thank you so much for sponsoring our episode.
	And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
	And now while we are on the topic of big tech censorship, let's talk a little bit about Facebook because they also got into the action as well.
	Yesterday, Facebook blocked all of their users from being able to share an article from the New York Post.
	Specifically, it was this article here, which detailed how one of the co-founders of BLM has been buying up a lot of real estate recently, including at least one mansion.
	If you try to share that story on Facebook right now, this is the message that you get.
	It says that you cannot share it because that post goes against Facebook's community standards.
	Now let's back up here for a moment and discuss what this article is all about.
	Now, as justification for why this article is newsworthy, here's what the New York Post said in a statement.
	The $3.2 million real estate spending spree of a BLM co-founder is newsworthy for two reasons.
	One, she's an avowed Marxist, and as a public figure, it's legitimate to question whether she's practicing what she preaches.
	And secondly, as the article details, the finances of Black Lives Matter are opaque, a mixture of for-profits and tax-free non-profits, and they don't reveal how much its executives are paid.
	Now, after that article was published, the co-founder of BLM, she accused the New York Post of being abusive and putting her at risk, the assumption being that people would be able to find her to find where she lives.
	However, it's worth noting that while the New York Post article does have some pictures of the properties that she bought, it does not include their addresses.
	And, according to the New York Post, all of the information was compiled from public records.
	But still, Facebook decided to ban the story because supposedly it violated their privacy and personal information policies.
	However, the New York Post is accusing Facebook of not acting as a platform and instead making clear editorial decisions.
	Here is part of their statement.
	This decision is so arbitrary as to be laughable.
	Does Facebook know how many newspapers, magazine, and websites highlight the real estate purchases of the rich and famous?
	The next time People magazine covers Kim Kardashian's latest mansion purchase, will it violate any community standards?
	How about running a picture of the resort Ted Cruz is staying at?
	No, this rule has not been and will not be applied in any fair manner.
	And by the way, it's also worth noting that Facebook is not only blocking the New York Post.
	Just this morning, the Daily Mail also reported that Facebook will not allow their story, also about this BLM co-founder's real estate purchases, to be shared.
	It looks like on Facebook you can donate to BLM, but you can't read the story.
	Regardless, if you would like to dive deeper into this Facebook censorship story, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
	However, wherever there are challenges, such as big tech censorship, there are usually opportunities.
	And as an example of that, Mike Lindell, the owner of MyPillow, is launching his own free speech social media platform, and it will launch this upcoming Monday.
	He called his new platform Frank, and he says that its mission is to provide a place for free speech as laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
	During a video statement where he made this announcement, here's what he said: "On Monday morning at 9am, we're going to have the biggest launch.
	It's like a YouTube/Twitter combination.
	You've never seen anything like it.
	You're not going to have to worry about what you're saying and worry about being able to speak out freely." However, he did mention certain caveats with things like threats of violence and foul language not permitted on his platform.
	Here's what he said.
	You don't get to use the four swear words, the C-word, the N-word, the F-word, or God's name in vain.
	He also mentioned that this new platform will be using his own servers, and that means they will not be subject to censorship by big tech companies like Amazon or Google.
	And so, we'll have to wait to see until Monday what this platform ultimately looks like.
	And now, let's talk a bit about what's happening over in Ohio, specifically at Ohio State University.
	According to the president of that university, they are planning to hire 50 additional professors who focus on social and racial justice.
	And this is, by the way, part of our broader initiative, which is estimated to cost the school several million dollars every year.
	During a speech, the university professor, who is a woman by the name of Christina Johnson, she announced something that she called the RAISE initiative, with RAISE being an acronym which stands for RAISE, Inclusion, and Social Equity.
	Now, in that same speech, Ms.
	Johnson said that the university's current overall plan is to hire a minimum of 350 new faculty members.
	And out of those, 150 will come from this new social justice raise initiative.
	And out of those 150, they will be broken down into two categories.
	One-third of the new professors will be what she calls scientists, artists, and scholars whose work addresses social equity and racial disparities in fields such as healthcare, education, justice, etc.
	And then the other two-thirds of these new professors will be from what she said underrepresented in BIPOC communities.
	And BIPOC, by the way, if you don't know, stands for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
	So basically, these professors can be anything other than straight, white men.
	Now, this decision was praised by the school's chief diversity officer who said that this provides the university with an opportunity for the university to produce a groundswell in terms of diversifying the faculty.
	Diverse faculty attracts diverse students.
	Now, it's unclear whether they also will have a quota on hiring conservative professors.
	They didn't mention that as being part of the groups of interest.
	Although, when you look at the statistics for professors across this country, conservatives seem to be an underrepresented minority as well.
	Regardless, there is something worth noting here, and that is the question of legality.
	Can a school like this, particularly Ohio State University, which is a public university, make hiring decisions based on race, gender, or ethnicity?
	Well, we here at the Epoch Times, we spoke to a professor out in Michigan about this topic, and he told us that if Ohio State discriminates in their hiring practices, as they indicated that they will, that will be in violation of not only their own policies, but also federal civil rights laws.
	Specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendment.
	And for your reference, by the way, Title IX prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, while Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
	Here's what this professor told us.
	It's my opinion that OSU, which is Ohio State University, would be in violation of federal civil rights laws if they make hiring decisions for their race initiative by giving preferences to faculty candidates on the basis of sex, color, race, ethnicity, etc.
	He then followed up a statement by saying that Ohio State is either unaware of federal civil rights laws or it thinks that it's above the law.
	Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we actually reached out to Ohio State University's Diversity Department for comment, but they have yet to get back to us.
	Regardless, if you would like to read more about this development over at Ohio State, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
	And now lastly, as we already mentioned in several other videos, on the very same day that Joe Biden was sworn into office, YouTube made the unilateral decision to demonetize our program.
	We can now no longer run any ads before, during, or after facts matter, and the Super Chat feature has just been disabled.
	They effectively cut off our ability to advertise, and again, if you were on our premiere two days ago, it looks like they might be throttling our video as well.
	However, I'll throw a link into the description box below this video to a page where you can subscribe to the Epoch Times.
	It only costs a few dollars every month, but by subscribing, not only will you be supporting honest, independent journalism, but you will also get unfettered access to all of our reports, all of our investigations, our opinion content, our infographic, all of our documentaries.
	And if anything ever happens here on YouTube, you will get continuous access to Facts Matter, Crossroads, American Thought Leaders, and our other video programs as well.
	Again, that link will be in the description box below this video.
	I hope you click on it, I hope you subscribe, and I hope that you join us on this journey of exploring truth and tradition through honest journalism.
	Now, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm, subscribe to this YouTube channel in order to get honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while you still can.
	And by the way, we will continue to publish here on YouTube for as long as people watch videos on YouTube, as long as we don't get kicked off.
	It's just what we'll do.
	And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times.

▲