Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, The U.S.
Supreme Court today decided one of its most important and consequential cases involving the U.S.
presidential election—arguably its most important such decision since a 2002 ruling in Bush v. Gore that ended all recounts in Florida and effectively made George W. Bush the winner over Al Gore.
The court today, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, overturned the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, a court composed entirely of Democratic Party judges which, in December, had banned Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot on the ground that he was guilty of insurrection, a crime with which he has never been charged, let alone convicted, and thus ineligible to run under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
All nine justices today, including liberal judges Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Katonji Brown-Jackson, Today's ruling not only overturns Colorado's attempt to ban Trump from the ballot, but presumably several other instances where Democratic state officials or state judges banned Trump for similar reasons.
The most recent being a low-level judge in Chicago who often, when not banning Donald Trump from the ballot, hears traffic violation cases.
On one ancillary issue, whether the banning of a candidate on 14th Amendment grounds can only be decided by Congress rather than acts of the executive branch, the court did divide along typical ideological lines, although with Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal judges who argued that once it was determined that states are barred from banning candidates, as all nine justices agreed, there was no reason to go beyond that and decide any other questions, including whether only Congress could make such a determination.
But as Coney Barrett pointed out in her short concurrent opinion, quote, our differences on the court today are far less important than our unanimity.
All nine judges agree on the outcome of this case.
That is the message Americans should take home.
We'll review today's ruling, its substance and its implications, And we'll take a look back at how many self-described illegal experts and neutral journalists were so insistent that Colorado had so clearly decided this question correctly, only for it to be completely and summarily shot down by a unanimous Supreme Court, only for it to be completely and summarily shot down by a unanimous Supreme Court, something very rare these All of this points to two of the most destructive pathologies in our media class.
One is the complete lack of accountability.
When journalists and their chosen experts and pundits get caught lying for partisan ends or masquerading their ideological expertise, which are really ideological opinions as neutral expertise, there's virtually never any accountability or even acknowledgement making journalism and punditry among the most accountability-free professions in this country.
Then speaking of pundit-free accountability, when Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace the secular liberal saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an accusatory theme instantly emerged about her in establishment liberal discourse.
It was clear, this framework held, that Coney Barrett had accepted a corrupt arrangement, namely that Trump would put her on the Supreme Court.
in exchange for her explicit commitment to rule in his favor and keep him in power in case he lost the 2020 election.
You may not remember that, but you can find article after article and cable show after cable show making that accusation explicit.
Since then, Justice Coney Barrett has, in fact, had more than a dozen opportunities to intervene on the court and help keep Trump in power, and she refrained from doing so every single time.
In fact, just today, she again sided with liberal justices, not for the first time, and clearly on principle, In other words, she has proven to be the exact opposite of what establishment media liberals casually maligned her as being when she was picked by Trump to go to the court.
Do you think there will be a single one of those people reconsidering their accusations and retracting them in light of her actual conduct?
To ask the question is to answer it, and to reveal so much about why your media class deserves all the trust, distrust, and contempt they have attracted.
And finally, there's another subtle yet more pernicious aspect revealed by all of this, namely the way in which most expertise in the United States has been sacrificed at the altar of partisan agendas and ideological fervor, particularly in the Trump era, degrading this expertise from what it should be and actually could be at its best.
An apolitical means of understanding complex issues and instead turning it into yet another untrustworthy political weapon completely crippled as a useful tool.
It is not just what was said about Colorado's ruling by legal experts that demonstrates this, but several related episodes that happened recently, which we will cover in full in order to illustrate the point that we're making.
Before we get to all of that, a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers of this show to download the Rumble app.
It works both on your smart TV and your telephone.
If you do so, you can follow the programs you most love to watch on the Rumble platform.
And if you do that, then you can activate notifications, which we hope you will.
Which means that the minute this show or any other show on Rumble begins broadcasting live on the platform, you will receive a link to your email or text or however you want so that you don't have to wait around if shows are late.
You don't have to try and remember which show starts at which time.
You just click on the link when the show starts airing live and can click over and start watching.
That really helps the live numbers for the Rumble show, which in turn helps Rumble as a free speech platform.
As another reminder, System Update is also available on podcast form.
You can listen to every episode on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms 12 hours after each episode is broadcast live here on Rumble.
If you rate, review, and follow the shows on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform.
There we have our live interactive after show designed to take your questions and comment on your feedback and critiques.
That after show is available only for members of our local community.
And if you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but also to the various interactive features we have where we can take your questions and I can respond to as many questions and critiques as I can.
It's also the place where we publish our original journalism and the transcripts for every program that we broadcast here We publish professionalized transcripts there.
It's the place we publish our original journalism first and the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here.
Simply click on the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Many Democrats have been making it explicitly clear that they believe the number one political issue that will help them win the 2024 election are not things like inflation or job security or the border or the war in Ukraine or the war in Gaza or anything else like that.
They believe it is that people will turn to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is the only bulwark, the only safeguard, the only guardian to protect American democracy from assault.
And among the many problems with this hypothesis, including the fact that of all the things Americans worry about most, they're going to go to the polls and yet again vote based on what happened four years earlier on January 6th, which is what one leading Democrat insisted would happen today.
It is very difficult for a party such as the Democratic Party to insist that they are the safeguards, the guarantors of democratic values, when they are simultaneously the party That is having their political opponents routinely censored from the internet, including having Donald Trump censored from the internet, having negative reporting about Joe Biden censored before the 2020 election based on a CIA lie that it was Russian disinformation.
Censorship doesn't seem to be a value typically associated by Americans with preserving democracy, nor does trying to have your primary political opponent, who all posts show is leading,
In the presidential race, having him put in prison and desperately trying to accomplish that before the election, and what particularly does not seem compatible with the attempt to proclaim the Democratic Party the saviors of American democracy, is this ongoing attempt over many months to try and ban Donald Trump from the ballot to prevent Americans from voting for him if they wish to.
Based on the theory that he was guilty of a crime with which he has never actually been charged, let alone convicted, which is the crime of insurrection.
This theory began in sort of the most extremist liberal resistance precincts, people like Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe bringing it to MSNBC and then writing articles about it in the Atlantic.
And yet, like so much these days, it's spread throughout all of liberal media, even though it was long considered a preposterous and a fringe idea, the idea that you could ban Trump from the ballot, even though he's not been convicted of Or even charged with a crime.
It's so intuitively repellent to anybody who believes in basic democratic values.
And yet they were able to not only bring lawsuits around the country alleging this theory, but they got the Colorado Supreme Court, a court full of Democratic Party appointed judges.
All seven of them are Democratic appointed judges.
And by a four to three ruling, which means the ruling was a step too far, even for three Democratic judges, they ruled that Trump could actually be banned from the ballot, must be banned from the ballot on the grounds that he was an insurrectionist.
And after that, multiple Democratic Party officials in other states looking to make a name for themselves, liberal judges in other states followed suit and also banned Trump from the ballot.
It was clear that this was going to go to the Supreme Court.
An oral argument was held about a month ago and we covered it at the time and it was clear then that the judges, almost all of them, were hostile to the argument that Trump could be banned by Colorado.
And we said at the time we thought it was going to be a unanimous ruling against him.
If anything, maybe that the state of Colorado would get one judge who I thought could be Captain Jackson Brown, but I didn't even think they would get her, and it turns out they didn't.
Today the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 ruling rejecting pretty aggressively The ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court and ruling that states have no ability, no power to ban federal candidates, candidates for federal office from appearing on the ballot on the grounds of the 14th Amendment.
Here's the New York Times headline, Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on the Colorado ballot.
The justice ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow states to bar the former president from the ballot.
The justices gave different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.
And that is not quite true, that the justices gave different reasons.
They actually all agreed on not only the fact that states have no power to ban presidential candidates individually one by one from their ballots, they also agreed on the rationale for it.
The only thing they disagreed on was what Amy Coney Barrett in that quote we read to you described as a very kind of trivial and ancillary issue in the scheme of things, namely whether or not once the court decided unanimously that states have no power to ban a presidential candidate like Donald Trump.
Five of the justices on the court, the conservative justices except Amy Coney Barrett, went on beyond that ruling to say only Congress has the power to execute the 14th Amendment.
And the liberal justices wanting to preserve the ability perhaps of the executive branch of the Justice Department of other agencies under the control of the president to also implement the 14th Amendment objected to the fact that the court did not need to go beyond The ruling on which they all agreed that states had no power, and those five justices went on to say only Congress does, and the liberal justices with Amy Coney Barrett objected and said, this ruling is unnecessary.
It shouldn't be part of the ruling.
We should just all agree that Colorado got this wrong, that states cannot ban a presidential candidate.
But on the core issue, the issue that was the one that mattered, the issue that liberal pundits and lawyers and legal experts spent the last several months trying to convince people was a viable, valid argument.
In fact, the stronger one, the court united with, I would say, a pretty strong contempt For the argument, it appeared an oral argument as we reported at the time.
We took you through some of the exchanges with the judges.
I said at the time I had rarely seen so much hostility, open hostility, on the part of Supreme Court justices to the lawyer representing Colorado when advancing that position.
It turned out that's how this ruling was formed.
Now, it's not a long ruling and we're going to just show you the key highlights because we think it's important to understand the substance of a ruling, not just the outcome.
So here from the Supreme Court ruling today, March 4th, there you see the title of the ruling.
It's Trump versus Anderson.
Norma Anderson is one of the plaintiffs that they recruited in Colorado.
The lawsuit was organized by a liberal advocacy group called CRU.
But because they needed independent and Republican voters, since they're the only ones withstanding to sue, they got, you know, never-Trump types who were willing to be used that way.
But it was really a liberal lawsuit, a Democratic Party liberal lawsuit.
And here's what the majority in the Supreme Court said.
In fact, this is the full court speaking.
Quote, this case raises the question whether the state, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
We conclude that, quote, states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.
The respondents, meaning the state of Colorado, nonetheless maintain that states may enforce Section 3 against candidates or federal office, but the text of the 14th Amendment on its face does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the states.
The terms of the amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.
In other words, when the 14th Amendment was enacted, it provided an enforcement mechanism.
Section 5 says that Congress shall enforce the provisions of Article 14, not that the state shall.
In other words, you need Congress to say that the president committed an insurrection and therefore should be banned from the ballot.
The court went on, quote, nor have the respondents identified any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office holders or candidates in the years following ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Such a lack of historical precedent is generally, quote, a telling indication of a, quote, severe constitutional problem with the asserted power.
They went on, quote, but the notion that the Constitution grants the states freer reign than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible.
State enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the presidency would raise heightened concerns.
Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views on the merits, but from variations in a state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations.
Some states might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of evidence, Well, others might require a heightened showing, meaning if you allow states to do this, you're just going to get a huge hodgepodge of decisions, different conflicting decisions from states, not just because they might see it differently, but because they all have different rules for how to make these determinations.
And there's no way to have a federal election with certain states ruling that a candidate can't appear, other states ruling that it's fine.
This is reserved solely for the federal level because it's a federal election, said the court.
Quote, certain evidence, like the congressional report on which the lower courts relied here, might be admissible in some states, but inadmissible, hearsay, in others.
The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct, perhaps even the same factual record.
So essentially, the majority said that the text of the Constitution, the way it's structured, leave no doubt.
That states are unauthorized to ban candidates for federal office, certainly including the presidency, and that is a practical matter.
It's absurd to think that it could work that way because you would get this mismatch, this hodgepodge of all these different rulings, and it violates principles of federalism, the idea that we have a state system and a federal system so state courts can Rule that certain candidates can't appear on ballots because they violate the state constitution if they're running for state office, but that is not within the power of the states under the constitution to do, but only the federal government.
They all agreed on that proposition.
All nine of the judges, including Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson.
Now, as I said, they did disagree on this one issue.
And the dissent, or actually it was a concurrence because whenever they agree on the result, there's no dissent.
Dissents are only when they disagree on the outcome of the case.
They all agreed on the outcome of the case.
Maybe that Colorado was wrong and that Trump should appear on the ballot.
They disagreed on how far the ruling should go with these liberal judges citing what often is a conservative legal principle.
That once you decide a case and affirm a principle that is enough to resolve the case, you should never go further, because you're overstepping the authority of the court.
The court has the authority only to resolve the case before it.
And once it does, it shouldn't go any further.
So the argument is, once you decide that states have no power to ban federal candidates, that's the end of the discussion.
And there's nothing else for the court to do.
And therefore, when the court went further, And said only Congress has this right.
That was a ruling that was unnecessary to the disposition of the case.
And Justice Barrett agreed with those three liberal judges on this issue.
But she wrote a concurring opinion to emphasize that this should not affect how this decision is perceived.
And I think this was very wise what she did.
Obviously, when a court is ruling on a presidential election, That is when passions are at the highest.
And she emphasizes the importance of what the court did, which is not divide along partisan or ideological lines, but decided unanimously, which is so important for the legitimacy of the court as a nonpolitical actor.
And this is what she wrote to kind of emphasize the importance of the agreement here, not the disagreement.
Quote, I joined parts one and two B of the court's opinion.
I agree that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates.
That principle is sufficient to resolve this case and I would decide no more than that.
This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law and state court.
It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
The majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with a choice of how to respond.
In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.
The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance.
Writings on the court should turn down the national temperature, not up.
For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity.
All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case.
That is the message Americans should take home.
So I think it was a very principled decision.
That is a jurisprudential principle that Amy Coney Barrett and other conservative judges typically apply in other cases, which is the court should be humble and modest and restrained in what it rules.
It shouldn't rule beyond what's necessary to resolve the case.
But then she also said how important it is that this was unanimous.
And it was kind of unfortunate to create this sideshow of a disagreement when on the most important question, namely whether Colorado had any right to ban Trump, everyone on the court agrees it wasn't.
To describe the reaction of the corporate media to this ruling today as one drowning in despair and emotional distress and depression is to understate the case.
In fact, right before we went online, I put in the chat what I thought was an appropriate warning, which is that for people who suffer from anxiety disorders or depressive disorders, watching the videos we're about to show you might actually be triggering to your condition because it's so emotionally distraught that it could leave you kind of depressed and anxious by having watched these people go on TV and break down emotionally over the fact that the Supreme Court, not just the Supreme Court,
But liberal heroes like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and Kataji Brown-Jackson actually ruled that Trump belongs in the democratic process.
Here is the CNN segment that is very similar to many of them.
I just think it was notable because here you have Dana Bash, a longtime congressional correspondent for CNN whose voice is cracking.
She's clearly on the verge of tears.
And they kind of conclude the segment with a desperate plea for Congress to do something to save us from having to allow Americans to vote for Trump.
Watch how full of despair they are here.
Um, you know, look, unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be.
Now, she starts off by saying, unfortunately, this might actually be what the founders wanted, this rule.
Why is that unfortunate?
Dana B. Bash is supposed to be a neutral news reporter, not to have partisan preferences.
You would only say, unfortunately.
If you are desperate to have Donald Trump banned from the ballot.
Now, of course, everyone knows CNN hates Trump and its neutral reporters don't make any bones about that.
So she begins her ruling by saying, look, this may be right on the merits.
And of course, none of them said this previously.
But she's saying, unfortunate.
Now, I want you to listen to her voice and to her emoting here.
You know, look, unfortunately for America, The court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be.
They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents, to be able to make the rules of the laws.
That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues, they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues.
I agree it's very unlikely, close to impossible, that Congress will take action.
But this is now a fair question that Manu Raju and Melanies Nona should be asking members of Congress.
Are you willing to pass legislation that would give us rules for how this works?
It could only be in the future, by the way.
Now, I'm just so fascinated by this comment she made here.
You know, look, unfortunately for America, Who is she speaking for there when she says this ruling is unfortunate for America?
Every single poll in the last month or two months shows that Americans support Donald Trump more than Joe Biden, including this last New York Times Siena poll that was extremely bad news for Joe Biden.
It not only showed Trump winning by five points, but also Key Democratic Party constituencies, including Latino voters and black voters, especially working class ones, migrating more and more to Trump to the point where Trump has an advantage now with Latinos.
And according to this last poll, one out of every four black voters intend to vote for Trump who vote.
And even if the numbers aren't quite as great as that for black voters, and a lot of polls have shown that they are, clearly the trend is for non-white voters to migrate away from the Democratic Party to Trump, even though the corporate media has spent eight years now with one message.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is a white nationalist.
Trump hates non-white people.
And just think about how much Americans have tuned these people out that you have Latino voters in and black voters in, Muslim voters and Asian voters going to vote for the white nationalists.
They obviously don't have any faith and trust in these people.
And so not only does she admit that she's desperate for Trump to be kept off the ballot, unfortunately for America, the court may be right here.
How is it unfortunate for America that the person who's leading the polls as the preferred candidate to be the president by the American citizenry, how is it unfortunate for America that he will actually be on the ballot?
Now, here is just a kind of supercut that was compiled by the site, the media watchdog site Newsbusters.
That just has some completely unhinged comments from the liberal cable outlets, journalists, activists, politicians, and just in a level of kind of desperation that is difficult to measure.
Remember, these people have spent weeks now ingesting very scary polls showing Trump in the lead.
And their only hope is either that Trump gets convicted and imprisoned before the election, and that's why they're so upset that the Supreme Court has decided to undertake the question of whether Trump has immunity because it may delay the trial and not allow them to have the trial before the election.
They don't even make any bones about the fact that this is a legal issue.
They want this trial before the election.
And that's why they're extra horrified about the mess that the prosecutor in Atlanta, Fannie Willis, has made of that case, because arguably that was their strongest case.
That the things he did in Georgia were improper.
They're going to get an Atlanta jury for it.
And then it turns out she is having a sexual affair with the prosecutor she chose, who's getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the state while she's dating him, that's redounding to her benefit.
I mean, the credibility of that case is destroyed, whether she's disqualified or not.
And it's all on hold as well.
So all of their tactics are running out.
You have leftist and Muslim voters insisting they will not vote for Biden under any circumstances because of their anger over his support for Israel and the war in Gaza.
And they were hoping the courts would save them.
And here's what they were doing and saying today when they're realizing that, at least on this case, they won't.
We've learned that it was a 9-0 decision ruling that Donald Trump can be on the ballot in Colorado and other states.
I'm not confident that that will produce a result that's good for American democracy.
This is actually what I had been concerned about.
I had been concerned that should it go to the Supreme Court, they would rule this way.
I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.
My next guest says Donald Trump is still an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
Do you have confidence in the Supreme Court?
Do you think this court is partisan?
The court itself may have overstepped.
The court went way further than it needed to go.
Our colleague Melissa Murray has called this Supreme Court the YOLO Court.
The criticism of the court is that they're playing interference.
Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that has had this many opportunities to interfere in the election.
The headline here is that this is a Not since Bush vs. Gore have we seen a court with the opportunities to interfere in the election.
They're angry because the courts have not interfered in the election.
They're the ones who want the court to interfere in the election.
They're the ones who want the court to ban Trump from the ballot.
And the court has repeatedly refused to intervene, even When Trump was trying to remain in power for all the accusations that Amy Coney Barrett was there to keep Trump in office, the Supreme Court repeatedly refused to intervene in that conflict, letting all the lower court's rulings against Trump stand.
And now they're refusing to intervene in the election by banning Trump from the ballot, and they're casting this as the Supreme Court interfering in the election.
Unanimous ruling, but if you scratch the surface just a little... This is a 5-4 ruling.
I'm part of it.
This is actually a 5-4 decision.
It's 5-4.
Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it, so it's a win for them.
He's on the ballot, and voters will vote, and he looks like he's headed to become the Republican nominee for president.
You can't save a people from themselves.
If they're determined to reelect him after he organized that insurrection, then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that.
At the end of the day, that's all they're left with.
All they're left with is, look, we spent eight years calling Trump every name in the book.
A fascist, a racist, a right nationalist, a dictator.
And we're now doing everything we can to prevent Americans from voting for him, but it seems like we're losing.
And ultimately they're going to say that the reason they lost, they'll probably claim Russia interfered and they'll blame leftists for voting for a third party candidate or whatever.
That's always part of the script.
But what they're really going to have to do is what they're already doing.
And you heard that there is, look, the American people are just stupid and they get what they deserve.
We told them who Trump is and they don't believe it because they're too dumb.
They're too malicious.
They don't trust us.
And all they're left with doing is heaping blame on American citizens for coming to the conclusion that these people are scumbags, that these institutions of media are radically corrupted, that not only don't they deserve trust or faith, they deserve contempt and scorn.
And these people know this, and they're watching their impotence.
And so all they're left to do is lash out at the American citizen for refusing to follow the lead of their superiors, these people.
And instead, they're furious that they're exercising their independent judgment.
And all they're left to do is try and prevent Americans from doing that by putting Trump in prison and or removing them from the ballot.
it and every time that tactic fails a little bit more they get more and more emotionally desperate we are always delighted to talk about one of our earliest uh and most loyal sponsors which is field of greens uh and it's based on the idea that in this modern world and we've done a lot of reporting on this there's been a lot of reporting on this
it deserves a lot more attention that there are all kinds of emotional and mental health problems that people suffer not even necessarily grave ones but just kind of anxiety problems problems sleeping problems with pain problems with addiction And what so often happens is that if you go to a doctor with any of these problems, they can only see you for a few minutes at a time, and they'll just start prescribing medication.
And we have a population that is just overwhelmingly medicated, just more and more narcotics, narcotics, legal narcotics.
Given, and what Field of Greens is designed to do is to give you a way to be healthy organically, because whatever else is true, you need vitamins and fruit and nutrients and vegetables.
And in modern life, especially with all these medications, it's often difficult to get them.
And Field of Greens has engaged in a very scientific process to create a powder drink with all kinds of great flavors, that you can drink so that you will ingest the natural, healthy, non-medicinal, organic substances that the earth produces to make your body function better.
They're geared toward your cardiovascular system or to your respiratory system and toward to crucial organs like your liver and your kidney and your abdominal system.
And we've taken it, I've taken it, and it makes me feel better.
You can feel the effects of it.
Every person who's tried it, we've gotten overwhelmingly positive feedback.
And if you go to FieldOfGreens.com and use the promo code Glenn, you get 15% off your first order, as well as free shipping.
15% off your first order and free shipping if you go to fieldofgreens.com and use the promo code CLEN.
One of the things I've been writing about the longest, I think, is how accountability-free of a profession journalism, is how accountability-free of a profession journalism, media, and punditry are.
I've talked about many times how the people who got caught lying most flagrantly in the run-up to the Iraq War have been promoted and rewarded.
The people who got the financial crisis all wrong Ended up with no accountability to people who lied repeatedly about Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop before the election to help Biden.
Never even accounted for what they did.
You can just have people constantly making authoritative statements that prove to be false.
And because of how fragmented and politicized our media is, where you just have liberal outlets over here with exclusively liberal audience that only want to hear what they, what flatters their preconceptions.
And so if they're told things that make them feel good, even if they turn out to be lies, they don't actually want these media outlets to apologize or retract.
They believe they're doing their job, which is the broader partisan war of trying to make sure that Donald Trump's not elected.
And so here you have a Supreme Court ruling by nine to zero, barely giving any minimal credence to this theory that Colorado has the right to ban Trump from the ballot.
And it was preceded by months of supposed legal scholars, the leading legal scholars in our country, trying to convince people that this is just a viable argument.
This is a persuasive, compelling argument.
The better argument, the right argument, the constitutionally required one.
Here from CNN in August of 2023, quote, legal scholars increasingly raise a constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from the presidency.
Quote, the latest salvo came Saturday in the Atlantic Magazine from liberal law professor Lawrence Tribe and Jane Michael Littig, the former federal appellate judge and prominent conservative, who argued the 14th Amendment disqualifies the former president from returning to the Oval Office.
Quote, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment were not fools.
They realized that if the people who tried to overturn the country, who tried to get rid of our peaceful transitions of power, are again put in power, that would be the end of the nation, the end of democracy, tribe told CNN's Casey Hunt on State of the Union on Sunday.
Luddick, who's become a strong critic of Trump's actions after the election, called for officials to look carefully at his qualifications for being on the ballot.
This was a theory pretty much invented out of whole cloth by these anti-Trump legal experts masquerading their obviously political agenda, their nakedly anti-Trump agenda, Under this noble elevated guise of legal scholarship, even though their legal scholarship turned out to be crap, they couldn't get one vote on the Supreme Court for it, not even from the most devoted liberal justices.
Here was Lawrence Tribe just last month, February 9th, on MSNBC talking about this case.
And Professor Tribe, I've been waiting all day just to turn your microphone on.
The floor is yours, Professor.
Thank you, Lawrence.
I was very proud of that last answer that my former student, Jason Murray, gave.
He's exactly right.
There's nothing undemocratic or anti-democratic about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In many ways, it's the most democratic provision of the Constitution.
It's the one that was put in there specifically to ensure that when someone tries to disenfranchise millions of Americans by preventing the results of
A fair presidential election from being implemented by preventing the peaceful transition of power to the winner of the election, that when someone does that, that shows that the person is so dangerous that he or she can never again be allowed to hold and probably even to seek any office, much less the presidency.
So people listening to MSNBC and to CNN and reading the New York Times and the Atlantic And the Washington Post, all the media outlets that claim that they're the only ones who combat misinformation and tell you the truth, would have absolutely believed that what Colorado did was a clearly legally sound, in fact, legally necessary ruling about the 14th Amendment.
That's what people absolutely believe.
So then here you have the Supreme Court unanimously stomping all over it, spewing contempt on it.
Because there never was any remote legal foundation to the idea that states individually can ban federal officials for running for federal office, especially for crimes with which they've never been charged, let alone convicted.
The court didn't even need to get to that question because they were so easily convinced unanimously of a much simpler Here is MSNBC January 5th, 2024.
that comes before that, which is do states have the right to do this under any circumstances?
And they said no.
And again, it wasn't even a very lengthy ruling.
They just kind of spit on and got rid of the claim with barely any respect given to it.
Here was MSNBC, January 5th, 2024.
Trump's most ludicrous gamble to stay on the Colorado state ballot.
Of the arguments Trump made to the Supreme Court hoping to appeal his disqualification under the 14th Amendment, this is the most bizarre.
It was just that one after the next, leading people to believe that Trump was the crazy one inventing exotic rulings for why he somehow had a right to stay on the ballot.
Here is the New York Times, December 20th, 2023.
Quote, the Colorado ruling is a rebuke for the ages.
Quote, this is the correct legal result.
Jared Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University and an expert on Section 3, told me about the Colorado ruling.
Quote, whether it's good to be the final result, whether it's going to be the final result or the result that is politically acceptable is something else.
For now though, the constitutional bell has been rung in Colorado.
A state Supreme Court has found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection in his efforts to overturn the turn of the 2020 election by inciting the violent mob to attack the Capitol and is therefore disqualified from serving again as president.
Now, before we get to this point, let's look at a couple more videos from Democratic Party officials to hear what they were saying, trying to convince their liberal flock that this was a very legally compelling and sound Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat from Connecticut in October of 2020.
Let's listen to what he had to say on this question.
opponent from being on the ballot.
Perish the thought.
No, they were just trying to uphold the Constitution.
Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat from Connecticut in October of 2020.
Let's listen to what he had to say on this question.
President Trump and the Republican Center are eroding and destroying that legitimacy.
They've stripped the American people of their say in this process simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, legislate from the bench, what they can't repeal in Congress.
All right, so let me just stop here and say the following, which is, and I want to go back to this because this is actually a point I want to make about Amy Coney Barrett in just a second, but before we get to that...
Think about the predicament that the Democratic Party has placed themselves in.
They have spent the entire, really the last seven years, but particularly the last year, knowing that there's not much that the public likes about Joe Biden, placing all their bets on their ability to tell the American people that democracy is on the ballot and that the only way to save American democracy is if you vote for the Democratic Party.
They're the only ones who believe in our democratic values and keeping America as a democracy.
And now Americans have watched them over the last several months, trying not only to imprison Donald Trump before the election, but also to get him banned from the ballot.
This is something we have been told forever only happens in tyrannical foreign countries where a government tries to ban their primary political opposition from appearing on the ballot so that they're not, no one can be vote for them.
This is something people are conditioned to understand as an attack on democracy, not an upholding of democracy.
And you have every liberal media outlet telling people that this is the right thing to do, this is the legal thing to do, it's the constitutionally necessary thing to do.
And they did it!
They got Colorado to ban Trump from the ballot, and then got other states to do so by Democratic Party officials and other judges, also trying to kick Trump off the ballot, only for the Supreme Court to turn around by a 9-0 ruling and rebuke this theory as deeply and obviously and facially unconstitutional.
So how do Democrats now continue this facade of continuing to put all their eggs in this basket of trying to convince Americans they're the only ones who believe in democracy when they just had the Supreme Court unanimously say that their attempt to kick Donald Trump off the ballot, to ban Americans from voting for him, is unconstitutional?
Everybody understands exactly what is going on here.
I mentioned earlier on in terms of the utter lack of pundit accountability.
It's not just that liberal pundits spent all these months telling Americans that this was the right ruling, that this was the ruling that was clearly constitutionally superior.
But I want you to try and go back to 2020 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.
And Donald Trump was the president, had the right to appoint her a replacement, and he chose Amy Coney Barrett.
You may remember all kinds of horrific things at the time when Amy Coney Barrett's family was introduced.
She has a large family.
I believe she has seven children, two of whom are adopted.
Those two adopted children are black.
The rest of her children are white.
There was all kinds of repulsive narratives about her having black babies and why she wore children and why she would.
But the main attack on her was that she was a corrupt person, utterly devoid of integrity because the deal that she struck with Donald Trump, they claimed, even though there was no evidence for it.
was that she would get this pick on the Supreme Court only because she had promised to do everything possible to keep him in office in case he lost the 2020 election.
They said that over and over and over again.
Here's Richard Blumenthal.
This is what he was talking about in this October 2020 hearing when they were considering confirming Amy Coney Barrett.
President Trump and the Republican center are eroding, indeed destroying, that legitimacy.
They've stripped The American people of their say in this process simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, legislate from the bench what they can't repeal in Congress.
Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm Do you see they were constantly accusing her of being corrupt?
Of having promised to protect Donald Trump and his ability to stay in office and contest the 2020 election?
In exchange for that seat, which is why they were saying in order to protect the court's credibility and your own, you have to recuse yourself from any questions involving Donald Trump because you can't decide that fairly.
Every Supreme Court justice is appointed by a president.
This was no different.
They were constantly implying she had a secret corrupt deal with Trump, even though they had no evidence for it.
They smeared her integrity at the most fundamental level.
There's a lot of jurisprudential theory and dogma to which Amy Coney Barrett subscribes that I don't.
But I didn't know much about Amy Coney Barrett until she was nominated and I watched how she conducted herself and I watched how she responded to questions.
And it was repulsive, and I said so at the time, what was being said about her, especially regarding this.
Here is Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic senator from New York in September of 2020, who tweeted the following, quote, Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court is the product of a corrupt, illegitimate process that undermines the will of the American people.
Alongside her dangerous, ultra conservative record, she's not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Here was NBC News in October of 2023, where they said the following, quote, oh, it's 2020, actually.
This is right at the same time.
Quote, Trump's words haunt Amy Coney Barrett as she vows not to be a, quote, pawn on the Supreme Court.
Quote, Barrett declined to commit to recusing herself from potential lawsuits contesting the result of the 2020 election.
Given Trump's remarks linking his desire to fill this vacancy to such a scenario, but she said she would consider the questions surrounding her accusals seriously.
Quote, I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people, she told Coons.
Senator Christopher Coons, the Democrat from Delaware, would accuse her of that.
This came shortly after Senator Amy Klobuchar told Barrett that she may not have made any commitments about possible election disputes, but, quote, that is on the mind of the man who nominated you for the job.
Here was the Washington Post's supremely partisan Democratic activist Jennifer Rubin.
She used to be a huge Republican neocon.
And then she's one of the many neocons who switched allegiances for reasons I completely understand, meaning the Democratic Party is far more receptive to her neocon ideology than the Republican Party at this point.
Here in October 2020, it's all around the same time.
Do you see they all read from the same script?
They create this media narrative.
They try and destroy people's integrity with no foundation whatsoever.
This person has had like an incredibly clean legal career, was on the faculty of Notre Dame, clerk for the Supreme Court judge, had a sterling reputation, and they just decided out of the blue to invent a conspiracy theory that Trump put her on and they just decided out of the blue to invent a conspiracy theory that Trump put her on in exchange for her promise to keep him in office even if he lost the
The Washington Post, quote, Barrett's refusal to recuse on the election is disqualifying.
Republicans are rushing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation as millions of voters cast their ballots.
The Republican senators who will confirm her have made clear, as President Trump has, that they have to get her in there.
We may need the ninth justice to decide the election, Republicans have said.
Now, the Supreme Court had multiple opportunities to overturn lower court rulings in the federal Supreme Court system that rejected Trump's appeals regarding his challenge to the 2020 results, and obviously they refused to intervene on behalf of Trump every time, including Amy Coney Barrett.
Every opportunity she had to decide in favor of Trump, she refused and sided with the large majority of the court that did not want to intervene in those decisions, exactly the opposite of what she was constantly accused of having been put on the court to do.
And there have been many occasions where Amy Coney Barrett didn't do something like, say, John Roberts did or that other Republican appointed judges did, which is abandon conservative jurisprudence in order to promote a liberal which is abandon conservative jurisprudence in order to promote a liberal She's not Anthony Kennedy, for example, or Sandra Day O'Connor, who was trying to just compromise.
She's somebody who has a set of jurisprudential principles about how to interpret the law and the Constitution and how courts should conduct themselves that she has been consistent on for many years.
And she repeatedly rules that way on the Supreme Court, regardless of which side she's serving.
This has been many times now that she has separated herself from the conservative majority based on purely principle.
And today she did the same thing.
She aligned herself with the three liberal judges on the question of whether the court went too far in its ruling.
She's become the exact opposite of What they said she would be.
Now, maybe that happens.
People get things wrong.
So you would think that these people would go and revisit this and say, you know, I criticized Amy Coney Barrett.
In fact, I attacked her integrity and suggested she was so radically corrupt because she was going to get on the court and vote to keep Trump in office, even if he lost.
And it turns out she didn't do that.
She hasn't done anything like that.
And so I was wrong in my accusation, for which I apologize.
Of course, there's none of that.
Not one person has done that because they have no accountability in this profession.
None.
As long as you're adhering consistently to the political agenda that the media outlet you're associated with wants to promote and whose audience demands that you promote, you can lie and say anything you want.
You can invent conspiracy theories and false accusations and you will be cheered for it.
Not anyone ever demanding that you account for what you did.
Democrats spent four years calling Mitch McConnell Moscow Mitch to try and imply that he's a Kremlin agent.
Now, for all the valid criticisms that I have of Mitch McConnell, the idea that he was a Kremlin agent Was idiotic and grotesque.
And then it turns out that when the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened, Mitch McConnell became Joe Biden's most important, most vocal and steadfast ally in trying to get as much money as possible to Ukraine.
And he was saying defeating Russia is our number one priority.
Pretty weird behavior for a agent of the Kremlin named Moscow Mitch.
Do you think any liberals in media or politics who are calling Mitch McConnell Moscow Mitch and implying he was subservient to the Kremlin, only to now watch him devote his last two years as Senate Majority Leader to getting as many funds as possible to support Joe Biden's support for Ukraine against Russia, have ever once said, oh, I guess it turns out that he's not really a Kremlin agent given his fixation on helping Ukraine defeat Russia?
That's the kind of accountability that we used to have in media.
I don't want to romanticize it, but when the New York Times got the Iraqi WMD story so wrong and helped Bush and Cheney and neocons sell that lie to the American people, they actually had to go back for their own credibility and publish an editor's note about all the things they got wrong and all the lessons they learned.
They would never do that now.
There's none of that ever.
There's not one media outlet that spread the CIA lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
Who's retracted it?
We don't have accountability in journalism and media.
That's one of the many pathologies that plague it and that make it so radically corrupted and unworthy of trust.
Here's Professor Tribe today reacting to the Supreme Court ruling.
Quote, it's staggering that not one of the nine justices said a word to support Trump's claims that trying to overturn Biden's 2020 election wasn't an insurrection, that anyway he didn't engage in it, and that as president he was exempt from section three's disqualification from future office.
It's staggering, he said.
And in a separate tweet, he said this, quote, They also had the chance to uphold the finding that Trump was an oath-breaking insurrectionist disqualified from holding office again, but they ducked that constitutionally mandated conclusion as well.
So they spoke where silence was required and were silent where duty called for courage.
So here's an example of Warren's tribe attacking Just to use left liberal parlance for a moment, a white progressive man attacking the first ever Latina Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, and the first ever black woman, Katandi Brown Jackson, as being a coward.
And ordinarily, if this were conservatives attacking the Supreme Court Justice this way, everybody would say, oh, they're trying to incite hatred for them and put their lives in danger.
Do you see how they have no intention of ever abiding by the rules of discourse that they impose on everybody else?
But this is the level of desperation that liberal pundits are at, in part because they spent months trying to convince Americans that this ruling was the right one, and in part because they are desperate to get trump off the ballot because they can't think of any other way to beat biden and in part because expertise in the united states has become something that is almost always weaponized now even what's supposed to be expertise people who study a topic i mean lauren's tribe is a constitutional scholar
there's no denying that but he constantly weaponizes his expertise for this fanatical anti-trump liberal agenda that he has and the expertise is gone the The principles of scholarship are sacrificed at the altar of his political agenda, just like basic principles of journalism have been in the era of Trump.
Now, I want to just give you an illustrative example of something that happened this weekend.
Just to demonstrate to you what I mean when I say that any kind of reliable apolitical expertise has been completely destroyed.
This weekend the New York Times published an article purporting to explain the lawsuit that Elon Musk initiated against OpenAI and Sam Altman.
He's suing OpenAI and Sam Altman.
I find it a very interesting lawsuit.
Elon Musk was one of the earliest investors in OpenAI and the documents demonstrate that it was intended to be a nonprofit organization.
The point was, let's make sure that Google doesn't get to control artificial intelligence for profiteering ends.
We're going to create our own artificial intelligence competitor and we're going to fund it so we can recruit a lot of the best brainpower, which Google is trying to do, but we're not going to be profit driven.
We're not going to be privatized and we're not going to be secret.
We're going to publish and be transparent about the artificial intelligence we're developing.
And at some point, Elon Musk withdrew his involvement from OpenAI, even though he had invested $44 million of his own money, again, as a nonprofit.
And OpenAI became a for-profit corporation and now has joined with Microsoft intending to profiteer off ChatGPT and the other OpenAI projects that they're doing.
And so Elon Musk is saying it can't be legal to start off as a nonprofit, get investment from people, including me, based on the promise that You're going to have a non-profit for the good of humanity and then suddenly turn yourself into everything you said you weren't going to be, including a for-profit arm that is designed to be secretive and compete with Google not to undermine what it's trying to do.
And I find the lawsuit interesting and I saw this New York Times article and I was hoping to read it with the expectation that I would learn something about the lawsuit.
But I obviously was reading it with extreme amounts of skepticism.
Knowing that Elon Musk, after Donald Trump, is public enemy number one among liberals ever since he bought Twitter and announced his refusal to impose political censorship on it the way that was previously being done, the way that other big tech Outlets are being done.
Online censorship is the number one political priority of establishment liberals.
So anybody like Elon Musk who vows to impede it becomes the public enemy of American liberals.
So I knew I was reading an article from a media outlet, the New York Times, that's very hostile to Elon Musk.
But I was still, sometimes you can still glean things, especially if it's by a legal journalist.
You're hoping to really just get a straightforward account of something you want to learn about.
even though you're skeptical you're still hoping to extract facts and And so this is what happened when I started reading this article, quote, there you see the headline, why Elon Musk is taking open AI and Sam Altman to court, the tech mogul wants to force The gloves have really come off in one of the most personal fights in the tech world.
Elon Musk has sued OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of reneging on the startup's original purpose of being a non-profit laboratory for the technology.
Then again, OpenAI itself has considerable means, thanks in part to the financial backing from Microsoft.
It just, it said that right after, and it said that Elon Musk obviously has a lot of resources to sue.
It said, then again, OpenAI itself does too.
And then it said this, and some legal experts cast doubts on the Strength of Musk case.
Game on.
So, I saw this, some legal experts, this phrase here, some legal experts cast doubt on the strength of Musk's case.
And you see here, this is in blue because there's a link to the legal expert they're citing as someone having cast doubt on the strength of Musk's case.
Now, before I clicked on this link, I already said to myself, I'll bet you this person who they're holding out as an expert that you're supposed to trust and think, oh, wow, Elon Musk's case must be weak since legal experts are casting doubt on its strength.
I said to myself, I'll bet you anything this is a person who hates Elon Musk because it's a liberal and they hate Elon Musk because Elon Musk's public enemy number one and therefore this legal expertise that I would hope to be able to rely on and understand and read, especially as a former lawyer to try and understand what the legal objections are to the lawsuit or the legal vulnerabilities in it.
I'll bet you that they're just a political liberal who has an animosity toward Musk for the reason all liberals do, and therefore it's an untrustworthy legal expertise.
And then little did I know that when I clicked on this link, I was going to find basically a cartoon figure of someone who is a law professor but also sounds like every deranged resistance liberal anti-Trump, anti-Musk fanatic on Twitter and whose scholarship anti-Musk fanatic on Twitter and whose scholarship is a complete joke.
The person they cited too is a person named Ann Lipton.
She's a professor of business law at Tulane.
And here was the tweet that they cited, quote, I don't know where to start, Ray, this sour grapes lawsuit.
But mostly, this is an argument that Altman hasn't managed the various entities as Musk would prefer.
There are all kinds of reasons that business law, the law of corporations, partnerships, et cetera, would not permit this kind of suit.
I suppose we can infer from that fundraising for Xi is going swimmingly.
Xi was Elon Musk's competitor, and she's implying that he's only suing because he's a failure in getting fundraising.
Now, I looked at the...
Profile of Ann Lepton because I wanted to see who is this legal expert the New York Times wants you to rely on.
And it just has every indicia.
Indicia being a deranged, banal, Twitter liberal beginning with The promotion of the address where this person is located on Blue Sky, which became the liberal preference for a while.
They ran away from Twitter to another site where they were going to create a liberal nirvana where there were no Right-wing opinions, no dissent to liberal orthodoxy, complete censorship of any views on the ground that it was hate speech or disinformation of a challenged liberal orthodoxy.
That site was too complicated for them to figure out because it relied on a protocol and so then they went to Blue Sky.
And basically, people who use their Blue Sky address as their name, it's kind of almost like a signifier of liberal orthodoxy, like putting your pronouns in your bio.
It's on that level.
It's that reliable.
And one of the things I wanted to look at, they have a legal paper that they promote that's part of a legal journal, and I wanted to get a sense of, okay, what is this person's scholarship?
You know, they're politically liberal, but maybe they have reliable and interesting scholarship.
And I clicked on this paper, and I downloaded the PDF from the scholarship site.
And here you see it promoted, and then you go to this site, and here is the name of this paper.
It's about Elon Musk and Twitter.
And the headline of it, the title of it is, Every Billionaire is a Policy Failure.
And there's this little cartoon of a dead, blue Twitter bird lying on its back, lifeless, with the caption, Oh, it was alive when you bought it, meaning Elon Musk killed Twitter, an extremely commonplace view among liberals, almost like a gospel belief.
This is like very primitive cartoon here and every billionaire is a policy failure in this footnote attached to the title.
The footnote makes clear that this is often a phrase that is credited to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but in fact it was a phrase that was created by one of AOC's primary political advisors and it links to a Vox article explaining this.
You can just see this person so steeped in just like the most superficial kind of liberal politics.
And then I wanted to read the paper, even despite this all.
Here was the title of it, Every Billionaire is a Policy Failure.
It was to be in the Virginia Law and Business Review, forthcoming.
This is a draft of it.
And there you see Ann Lipton, Tulane University Law School.
Let me just show you the table of contents.
Basically the paper is structured around every liberal Twitter cliche.
This is what is passing a serious academic scholarship now.
Chapter 1, he just tweeted it out.
Chapter 2, the main character.
Chapter 3, how it started.
Chapter 4, how it's going.
Talks about the white and gold dress that BuzzFeed published.
Chapter 5, we're all trying to find the guy who did this, which is a popular meme.
Sir, this isn't Arby's.
Being ungovernable.
Section 7, that's it.
That's the draft.
These are all liberal Twitter cliches.
Now, I wouldn't even mind this if the paper were actually interesting scholarship, but if it actually gave you insights that would otherwise be something you wouldn't know that would be thought-provoking.
It's okay to be playful in academic scholarship.
You don't have to always be so, like, ponderous and serious.
But it was already a pretty big red flag who this person is, especially after everything else I had seen.
And then you start reading, because it's a paper about Elon Musk and Twitter, and it's like just watching any MSNBC show.
It's supposed to be a paper of legal scholarship by a law professor who the New York Times has cited as the only legal expert to judge the validity of Elon Musk's lawsuit.
And it has things like this, paragraph after paragraph, stuff like this.
Twitter has been weaponized by foreign governments seeking to sow discord among their enemies.
Now, of course the footnote links to some article blaming Russia.
The idea that the United States and its allies would use Twitter to spread disinformation, that is not part of the liberal universe, so this is one of the evils of Twitter.
It's exploited by Russia.
Quote, Twitter is used to spread propaganda and disinformation to enable scams and has served as the site of horrific harassment.
And it links to some article of some prominent African Americans and liberal women who were criticized by conservatives and they count that as horrific harassment.
I don't think they count things like Warren's tribe accusing women and people of color like Katonji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.
of be betraying democracy that wouldn't count but it counts conservative criticisms of prominent liberals quote and in 2020 it was used to facilitate and encourage an attack on congress for the purpose of affecting a coup by the sitting president of the united states until that president was banned from the platform
At the same time, and it goes through how Elon Musk has been successful as a businessman making himself very rich, it says, at the same time as Musk has built his empire he has had multiple run-ins with the legal system and has usually managed to escape with minimal penalties either to himself or his companies.
For example, he has been repeatedly accused and on some occasion found guilty of labor violations.
The injury rates at his Tesla plants have been significantly higher than industry peers and improvements may have been the result of legal underreporting, but he has managed to stonewall regulators seeking to inspect his plants, even going so far as to defy an administrative warrant, apparently even going so far as to defy an administrative warrant, apparently with no When COVID first hit, Musk reopened Tulsa's Fremont plant in defiance of public health orders, at one point daring the state to arrest him.
Ultimately, he was permitted to keep the plant open, and it emerged as a COVID hotspot.
Sexual and racial harassment are reportedly pervasive at both Tesla and SpaceX.
Musk's instructions that employees should be, quote, thick-skinned about it, so long as they receive an apology, was allegedly understood among Tesla employees to mean that racism would go underdressed.
This is a paragraph after paragraph of every single liberal cliche about liberals who despise Elon Musk.
I'm not even trying to focus on this person.
I'm saying that the New York Times does this in almost every article.
They pick their experts on who to say based on who their reporters follow on Twitter.
Who their reporters follow on Twitter are almost exclusively People who have a liberal political ideology.
And so you have this closed circuit, closed circle of alleged experts who constantly underneath their expertise are pushing the same exact political agenda.
And so you go to read a New York Times article hoping that you're going to find something of value, hoping that you're going to be informed in some way, and you get to the one expert that they cite, you look at who it is, you look at what they think, you look at what they say, and you realize the entire article is worthless.
It's like listening to a Joy Reid program or a Chris Hayes program about Elon Musk.
And this is so often what expertise is now being weaponized to do.
It's how they have law professors on constantly to tell liberal audiences that every single legal case against Donald Trump, the impeachment case against Donald Trump, the various criminal charges against Donald Trump, the investigations of Donald Trump, the attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, these are all legally valid and constitutionally mandated.
This expertise is fraudulent.
These are the people who anointed to themselves the power to proclaim what is not disinformation.
I'm not somebody who is inherently hostile to expertise.
To the contrary, I think we need expertise.
I believe in the idea of specialized knowledge.
There are complex fields that you need to study in depth to develop an understanding of them that is unavailable to people who haven't studied that.
And what has happened instead is that expertise as a concept has been so politicized, like every one of our other institutions in the age of Trump, because of the view that nothing matters other than defeating Donald Trump and every weapon including expertise and journalism has to be deployed toward the end of stopping him.
That you get to the point where expertise is completely bereft of any value.
And it's not something to celebrate, it's something to lament.
But it's the reason why when you read these kinds of articles and when you're told that you're about to hear from an expert, you should do so with extreme amounts of skepticism because every time you look under the hood, what you find are academic scholarship like this.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after they are first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the program on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of System Update.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here at Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow.
We take your questions, respond to your feedback, hear your suggestions.
The aftershow is available solely to members of our Locals community if you want to become a member, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week aftershows, but also to the interactive features we have there that allow me to respond to things as much as I can.
To the transcripts we publish of every show that we broadcast on Rumble.
We publish professionalized transcripts there on the Locals platform.
It's the place we publish our original journalism.
And most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you to that Locals community.
For now, for those of you who have been watching this show, we are, as always, very appreciative We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
