System Update Retrospective: Glenn DEBUNKS Media Lies
TIMESTAMPS:
Interview w/ Darren Beattie Regarding J6 Tapes (0:15)
Who Does TikTok Really Serve? (20:19)
Speaking Too Candidly (40:11)
Biden Losing Support Among Nonwhite Votes (49:09)
Media Matters Deception (56:15)
Interview w/ Lee Fang Regarding Dem Rep. Plaskett Lies About Deep Epstein Ties (1:14:29)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Let's dive into this new release of January 6th tapes.
This was something that a lot of the people who were opposed to Speaker McCarthy were enraged by, the fact that he did, Kevin McCarthy under a lot of pressure, release these tapes for Tucker Carlson and Fox to go through and report on, but he never made them all public.
It was one of the promises they extracted from Mike Johnson when they decided to make him speaker.
He made good on that promise very quickly, just in the last 48, 72 hours.
He released a whole bunch of new 9-11, January 6th tapes that nobody had ever seen before, the first time the public gets to see them all.
I just want to give viewers who haven't seen it a kind of taste of just one of the videos that shows people coming into the Capitol Not violently, not having to fight their way through, not being stopped by the police, but actually welcomed by the police, and marched through the Capitol quite peacefully.
Hopefully, let's take a look at this video.
So you don't really obviously hear any audio, of course, but for people listening by podcast You have these police officers standing on the side.
You have Trump supporters who are marching into the Capitol.
They're not in any way engaging in any violence.
They're not being stopped.
In fact, the police seem to be shepherding them in, escorting them in, walking them in.
They're being very peaceful.
They're walking slowly, walking...
Without having to fight anybody.
Some of them are just taking videos.
It's a very kind of tranquil scene.
So, Darren, let me ask you about this video and the new videos we've seen.
Obviously, we did learn a lot when Tucker Carlson finally got his hands on them and was able to show us these videos.
But before we get into the content of them, just talk about the process.
Like, when the January 6th committee existed, We saw only the tapes and excerpts that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Adam Schiff and Benny Thompson wanted us to see, and they hid everything else.
What does it say that it took this long, two and a half years almost, for almost three full years, to be able to have the public see all the videos, not just the videos they wanted us to see?
Well, there's been a severe reluctance on the part of the mainstream media and the regime to allow the public to see any direct footage of January 6th that could complicate or contradict the official narrative that's been shoved down our throats every day for years now.
And that narrative is that January 6th is some sort of horrific, unique event of domestic terror that exceeds even 9-11.
And I think Biden even said at one point exceeds the civil war in terms of the trauma that it inflicted on the country.
They've invested a tremendous amount of money and resources and attention in Crystallizing that narrative because it's used as a pretext to further the weaponization of the national security state against the American people.
So there's a lot riding on it and anything that challenges that narrative, certainly I've experienced it directly because Revolver News was at the forefront of challenging various aspects of that official narrative.
And so this footage is in that vein.
I think anyone who's paid close attention to the issue already knew that the Capitol Police provoked the crowd gratuitously with flashbangs and so forth.
Anyone paying attention would have already known that the Capitol Police in many instances opened the doors to the crowd and so forth.
So development such as this, where the footage becomes more widely available and at scale, like the full range of footage, it's very important because it reinforces...
The understanding that's already been out there by some of the researchers like we've been doing, Julie Kelly and others, and it allows the public to really understand what really happened and the public that hasn't really paid much attention to it.
So I think it's very significant that this came out for a variety of reasons, and my understanding is there's going to be still more footage.
So a lot of people who may not have paid attention to it They see this video and they say, this is not what they've been telling me every day for years now.
You know, the amazing thing too is the role of the media.
Obviously the media paid enormous amounts of attention to January 6th.
You could argue it's one of the two or three top stories to which they paid attention for obvious reasons since it happened.
Usually when there's material that the government has relevant to a story the media is covering, one of the duties of media is to insist on transparency, to press for it, to ask for it, to complain that the government's not releasing it, and then ultimately to sue under Freedom of Information Act or other kinds of provisions that force the government to release it.
That's one of the jobs.
Of journalists by definition.
And we were talking about this last week in the context of the shooting, the mass shooting at that Christian school by that trans woman who wrote a manifesto, killed six people, three of whom were nine-year-old students, the others were 60-year-old teachers,
who left a manifesto, usually the media feasts on these manifestos, wants to get their hands on them so they can figure out what conservative pundits or politicians to blame for having caused The violence, the claim that they were radicalized by this person or that person.
And in this case, we haven't gotten the manifesto for seven or eight months.
The Nashville Police Department, the FBI have had all sorts of obviously pretextual reasons why they can't release it, including claiming there's an ongoing investigation still to determine if there was a co-conspirator.
But everybody knows this person acted alone.
There's nothing to investigate.
They just don't want this leaking.
And then we finally got a few pages through Stephen Crowder, and they immediately detected, banned it from even being discussed.
And in this case, you had almost nobody in the media doing things like retaining counsel, legalism, We retained counsel in Nashville.
By that point, there were other lawsuits already pending, and they just told us, you can repeat it, but these lawsuits are going to make their way through the courts, and now they are.
But the same thing happened here with January 6th, a much bigger story.
I don't think there were any media outlets trying to pressure the government to release the footage.
Why do you think that is?
Well, it depends what kind of pressure you mean.
I think there are a lot of people who have been saying the full range of footage should be released to the public and not undergo any kind of process of mediation.
Right.
I'm sorry.
I meant like media corporations, like large media corporations, like the New York Times, NBC, CNN have not been suing, have not been demanding.
That's all I meant.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, I mean, their vested interest is basically on the narrative that they'd already been promoting.
And I mean, I suspect that they did have access to it.
And based on that access, they selectively presented the footage that best solidified their narrative.
And what's ironic about that is, for instance, there was a A very carefully curated video montage or short documentary thing the New York Times did called January 6, Day of Rage.
In which in their full range of footage, they selected the clips that most darkly and ominously suggested a pre-planned attack on the Capitol.
And guess who appears not once, but twice in this short montage is none other than Ray Epps.
So before the New York Times was Releasing, publishing fully dedicated puff pieces to Epps, they thought that his participation was so egregious that in the mountains of footage they had access to, it warranted two appearances in their montage designed to portray the narrative that this was a pre-planned event of domestic terrorism.
So there's a lot of interesting twists and turns when you look into it.
For sure, and I want to ask you about Ray Epps in a second.
That was something I was planning on asking you about, and I want to get to that in a minute.
But before I get to that...
There was violence on that day.
There were clashes between protesters and police, as we've seen in so many protests of various kinds over the last, say, couple decades in the United States.
And well before that, I mean, in the 60s, there used to be these kinds of protests all the time where protesters and police would fight against each other.
So there was violence.
There was some clashes between protesters and police.
Some police ended up injured.
But what did these...
Clips that we hadn't yet seen until just now.
Things like them entering the Capitol without any attempt to stop them.
What do they show us that that narrative that we've been fed excluded?
Well, again, we've already seen this type of footage, but it simply reinforces the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it was people who had been Let in or went in largely unopposed, who weren't destructive, did not destroy any property, did not assault any officers, and just kind of...
Went with the flow of what must have been a very surreal experience of kind of people just rolling through the Capitol and sort of taking pictures and marveling at how bizarre the whole experience was.
And then they're out of the Capitol five minutes later in many instances.
Then the next thing they know, They're treated like Osama bin Laden.
And I think that's the story of a lot of people who just kind of got caught up in the crowd psychology.
But when if the crowd is going in, the cops aren't opposing.
In many cases, they're opening the door and fist bumping people and chatting with people and so forth.
You don't really register that you're putting yourself in a position of a future domestic terrorist.
And then you, you know, you mosey on through for five minutes, take a few pictures, text your relatives on, this is crazy, I'm in the Capitol, and then you leave.
And then the next thing you know, your entire life is ruined and turned upside down.
So I think the video footage kind of reinforces that reality and helps us to understand how that could be the case.
And as for the other aspect of the footage, on the outside of the Capitol, it shows, again, these gratuitous actions of provocation from the Capitol Police.
The flashbangs and things like this that really provoked the crowd.
And I think a lot of the violent behavior we saw on the part of the crowd was actually agitated and precipitated by these actions of the Capitol Police that may or may not have been given the green light from above.
Yeah, to this day, it amazes me that of all the people charged and prosecuted in the January 6th cases, a small percentage of them were accused of using violence.
The vast majority of them, the state acknowledges, the government acknowledges, did not, in fact, use violence.
And yet we watch people convicted of nonviolent protest crimes, like the Q Shaman, for example, who went to prison for a long time.
For years, people got...
Prison sentences of years or many months, pre-trial detention, even though they were never accused of any violence.
And it's unbelievable to me to watch left liberals cheer and applaud and support not just the prosecution, but the imprisonment of nonviolent protesters, political protesters, given the precedence that this would create, this has created, and the sorts of things they've always said.
All right, let's talk about your friend Ray Epps.
We've talked many times about him on this show.
You've been elsewhere talking about him.
Other conservative journalists and pundits have spoken about him, raising questions like he seems to have played a very central role in a lot of these events.
You see him on video.
As you said, the New York Times featured him twice, thinking he was a pretty important person.
He was on tape, really provoking people to storm the Capitol, to use violence, revving them up.
And yet, of all these people that we just talked about, went to prison.
Ray Epps never did, and it raised the question of why that was.
He insisted he had never worked for the FBI. He threatened to sue people.
I think he now has sued a couple of people, including Tucker Carlson, who insinuated that he might have worked for the government.
He now has been charged He pled guilty to a misdemeanor account, one misdemeanor account.
I don't believe he got a prison term, or if he did, it was very short.
Does the fact that he's now finally been charged and pled guilty change your mind about some of the questions surrounding him?
No, not at all.
I mean, it seems like a very desperate attempt to patch things up, but it's too little too late.
You know, you can't wait over two years after when all is said and done and then slap him with a misdemeanor charge that doesn't even match, you know, the same, you know, charging of other people who've gotten misdemeanors, let alone, you know, obstruction of official proceeding let alone, you know, obstruction of official proceeding felony.
And there's so many other charges available to the Department of Justice.
They wanted to use them.
They didn't have to wait this long and they could have very easily given him much more severe charges.
And of course, they don't have to, but the manner in which they exercise prosecutorial discretion is very telling, because very early on, a guy named Michael Sherwin, who was in charge of these prosecutions,
who advocated infamously a shock and awe approach to arresting as many people before Biden's inauguration, He, I think, reasonably stated that, look, we're going after the conspicuous cases, the cases of people like the Q Shaman who were kind of publicly flouting us.
The more visible cases were the ones that they wanted to exercise their prosecutorial discretion to make an example of.
And Ray Epps was among the most visible, if not the most visible.
He was one of the first 20 people put on the FBI's most wanted list.
As I mentioned, of all the footage the New York Times could have chosen to reinforce their ominous narrative, they chose Epps and they chose him for a reason.
He was a very public figure with a sort of A made-for-TV, made-for-virality moment saying we need to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol.
A guy, a former Marine in camouflage with a Trump hat telling the crowds to go into the Capitol, who, by the way, people forget this, He was the former head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, the most demonized and heavily prosecuted militia group associated with January 6th, other than arguably the Proud Boys.
So with all of this stuff on paper, he would be exactly the kind of person they'd want to make an example of, and they had very easy indictments on him from the very beginning.
And not only did they wait over two years to do a sham He's misdemeanor, which they warn him about in advance, in contrast to all the other people who've gotten the SWAT treatment of the guns bursting down the doors at 3 in the morning.
They just said, oh, by the way, Epps, we want to inform you you're going to get a misdemeanor charge now or two years later.
And by the way, this charge, which fits into the theory of these ridiculous defamation suits that he has.
So it's all so convenient for him.
So the short answer is no.
I don't think a misdemeanor charge over two years after the fact changes anything but underscores how desperate the regime is to tie up loose ends when it's too little, too late.
Just to tie in quickly to something you were talking about earlier in your monologue, guess Who the lawyer, Ray Epps' lawyer, his representation for these defamation cases, guess who he's worked for and he works for now?
Is it Media Matters?
None other...
Well, not quite, but close.
David Brock?
Yeah.
So the fact that now David Brock is in the orbit of Ray Epps as indirectly supporting Ray Epps's Defamation suits, which at least until now are technically just against Fox News, not against Tucker or myself, although we feature prominently within the defamation suit.
But yeah, it's pretty remarkable that a lawyer that worked for David Brock Who is of the law firm Perkins Coy, which in a variety of contexts sits at the intersection of the Democrats and the national security state, that this should be the individual to represent Epps.
And I don't know whether Epps actually has to pay for him or whether it's pro bono or something else.
I'd be shocked.
This is a major law firm in Washington and elsewhere.
They played a major role in...
The interaction with Russiagate and the Democrats and the security state with Democratic Party voting suits of all kind.
It's an extremely expensive firm.
I seriously doubt Ray Epps has the ability to pay for it.
The way in which Ray Epps has been turned into a political cause, every single other person at 9-11, January 6th rather, has been talked about as a Satanist.
As you said, it's like almost a member of Al-Qaeda or worse.
And yet the media has defended Raab so vigorously, as have Democrats from the very beginning.
They went so out of their way to be able to charge everybody there with felonies.
We've talked about before the way they had to stretch these precedents, use this...
Sarbanes Act that was really designed to punish people who had done things like impede the Enron investigation by trying to turn this into some sort of interference with an official investigation to turn it into a felony, something that that law had never intended to cover before.
And yet they went out of their way to make sure Ray Epps got charged with a misdemeanor, even though his involvement was so much greater as was reflected by the fact that the New York Times...
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that there are a lot of you who believe this, who believe that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
That the censorship or content moderation decisions they make are designed to manipulate young American people, young Americans, into hating their government, into fighting with one another, just like we were told the Russians do.
We're constantly told the Russians are trying to infiltrate social media, to turn us against each other, to create division.
That was for a long time the reason more social media censorship was needed to prevent the scary Russians from dividing us.
Now they've added China to it.
Knowing that a lot of people aren't afraid of Russia, that the Russiagate hoax proved to be a fraud, they've now switched the fear-mongering to China.
And I know there are a lot of people who oppose the war in Ukraine, the U.S. role in the war in Ukraine, who know Russiagate is a fraud, who say, no, Russia's not a rendering of China.
That's who we really have to be afraid of.
Now, what happened was, I actually did a lot of investigation and research into this because I wrote about it here in December of 2022 when I was still at Substack.
Reflecting new U.S. control of TikTok censorship, our report criticizing Zelensky was deleted.
What happened was, we produced a segment on our show here that was very critical of President Zelensky and of the Ukrainian government.
And the war effort of the United States in Ukraine.
And it got, went pretty viral.
A lot of people were spreading it around and watching it.
And then suddenly, very quickly, it got banned, taken down by TikTok that sent us a note saying, this video is a violation of our terms of service.
And of course, I thought to myself, okay, I kept hearing that China censors to Propagandize Americans against their government, so why would they want to delete my video critical of the U.S. government?
Why would they want to protect the U.S. government from my criticism of it?
Why would they want to protect the U.S. government's war effort in Ukraine by banning critiques of it?
That doesn't make any sense, does it?
Just like it doesn't make sense that TikTok banned mention of the bin Laden letter.
And we went and investigated what actually was going on, and it turns out that what's really going on I'm going to show you the evidence and you can make your own decision.
Is that the CIA and the FBI have taken the position they want TikTok banned.
The people who own TikTok, who are the founders of TikTok, the main founder in particular, is someone who was born in Singapore.
He went to the London School of Economics.
He then went to Harvard Business School.
He's a capitalist.
He's trying to get wealthy.
He's getting rich.
He's the founder of TikTok.
And the U.S. has an incredibly lucrative market for TikTok that they don't want to lose access to because it would cost them billions of dollars in valuation of their company.
They're now trying to compete with Amazon and have e-commerce on that site.
It's a gold mine.
And so they're desperate not to get banned from the United States.
And so they've told the CIA and the FBI, look, we don't care about political censorship.
We'll turn that over to you.
We'll let you...
Tell us what you want censored in order for us to stay in the United States.
And that is what's been happening.
The U.S. security state has been gradually commandeering the ability to content moderate on TikTok as a condition for allowing TikTok to remain in the United States.
So here is the article we wrote.
For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China, and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for big tech access.
That's what China and Iran and Russia do.
They say, hey, Google and Facebook, you can only come in our country if you agree to censor as we command.
That's what Brazil is doing as well to Facebook and Google and Twitter.
We'll let you be in our country, but only if you censor as we demand it.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter want access to the Brazilian market is a huge market.
And so they censor as the Brazilian government tells them to.
Elon Musk had a controversy because right before the Indian election, the Indian government told Twitter, we want all these accounts banned.
And Elon Musk banned them.
And when he was criticized over it, he said, well, look, I'm not going to lose access to India, a gigantic democracy.
Of course I'm going to censor, as the government tells me to, if the threat is if I don't, I'll be banned from their market.
That's what the United States is doing to TikTok.
It's telling them, we're going to ban you from our country unless you censor the way we want it.
We know that the United States government is very interested in controlling the flow of information on big tech.
That's what the Twitter files were about.
They were doing that with Facebook and Google and Twitter, and of course they're doing that with TikTok as well.
And so here's what we wrote.
Quote,"...concerns over China's ability to manipulate U.S. public opinion were based on claims that China was banning content on TikTok that was contrary to Beijing's interest." Western media outlets were specifically alleging that the Chinese government itself was censoring TikTok to ban any content that the CCP regarded as threatening to its national security and internal order.
Rather than ban TikTok from the US, the US security state is now doing exactly that which China does to the US, to US tech companies, namely requiring that as a condition to maintaining access to the American market, TikTok must now censor content That undermines what those agencies view, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, as undermining American national security interests.
TikTok, desperate not to lose access to hundreds of millions of Americans, has been making a series of significant concessions to appease the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI, the agencies most opposed to deals that allow TikTok to stay in the U.S. Among those concessions...
It's that TikTok is now outsourcing what the U.S. government calls content moderation, a pleasant-sounding euphemism for political censorship, to groups controlled by the U.S. government.
And this is a report from Reuters.
TikTok has already unveiled several measures aimed at appeasing the U.S. government, including an agreement for Oracle Corporation to store the data of the app's users in the United States, And a United States Data Security Division, part of the U.S. government, to oversee data protection and content moderation decisions.
It has spent $1.5 billion on hiring and reorganization costs to build up that unit, according to a source familiar with the matter.
TikTok has been hiring away from Facebook, from Instagram.
All their security state executives who had overseen censorship for Facebook and for Google and putting them in charge of content moderation and TikTok to show the U.S. government we're going to censor the way you want just like Facebook and Google do as a condition to allowing us access to your market.
Keep an open mind on this.
Whenever government officials start trying to scare you, and then in conjunction with it, say, now that we put you in fear of China and what they're doing on TikTok, give us the power to censor what your kids can and can't hear, or what adults can and can't hear, be open-minded to what actually is happening, at least.
It was the White House that first demanded TikTok be banned.
It was Karine Javier, the White House Press Secretary, who did so in March of this year.
And when she did, a TikTok user named Luke David Johnson produced a video.
He's a prominent TikTok user.
He's not a child.
He's not a young adult.
He looks to be in his 30s or 40s.
He produced a video explaining Why it's so dangerous to allow the Biden White House to try and ban TikTok.
And I'm going to show you this video because he lays out the argument very clearly and very persuasively.
And I hope it'll just at least have people keep an open mind.
A question on TikTok.
Over 100 million people now use this app.
What is your message to them about why you're so concerned?
The way she casually thumbs through her notebook without even looking at the pages, knowing there's nothing in there that's going to help her with probably the most important question anyone has asked her in weeks.
As she tries to act like it's just some run-of-the-mill question.
Oh, by the way, TikTok.
You're the press secretary.
You're all things media.
You're obsessed with the media.
TikTok has 100 million users that use it for 90 minutes a day.
You know this is huge.
She tries to play it down like it's practically nothing.
You wasn't sure if the U.S. should ban TikTok when he was asked about this.
Now the administration seems to be hardening its stance.
You're backing this legislation, as you mentioned.
We've learned, you're now warning that a possible ban could be at risk here.
What...
The key part of that, like it usually is, what changed?
I'll tell you what changed.
TikTok didn't start collecting any kind of data that it wasn't already collecting before.
It's also not collecting data that a million other companies don't harvest and sell in nice, tight, neat little packages to all kinds of people around the world which are freely available.
I don't think that China went out of its way to create an app in order to track and monitor stuff that's widely available on the market already.
It would have been a lot more cost-effective for them to just go buy it.
But what they did do was give Americans the ability to communicate with each other.
And what has been happening, as she mentioned, there's 100 million users now, 90 minutes a day.
Using this platform to communicate with each other, that is a huge threat.
And not to the Americans, not to the individuals who are communicating their ideas to one another, but to the administration in power.
And that's why this is a bipartisan bill that she's so proud to keep pointing out.
It's bipartisan because both parties in power agree that it's dangerous for the American people to communicate their ideas to one another without See, it's fine when it's the mainstream media that they have control over.
It's fine when it's Twitter and Facebook and other companies that they have control over.
But it's not fine when it's a company they don't have control over.
Twitter was okay before, and now Twitter's a problem because it's no longer controlled by the U.S. government.
See how this works?
This is probably the biggest question she's ever been asked in her career, and she has to know it.
She's the Press Secretary of the United States of America.
TikTok is a really big deal.
It's way bigger than any conversation they've ever had from that podium about anything.
So...
Do you see what he's saying?
He's saying the United States government has worked very hard to make sure it controls all important means of communication.
It obviously has the U.S. media in the palm of its hands.
The U.S. media reports what the CIA and the FBI tell it to and doesn't report what they tell it not to say.
The big tech platforms, Facebook and Google and Twitter before Elon Musk, as we know, were subject to constant orders from the government about what to censor, and they did it.
And the reason they're so fixated on Elon Musk and the reason they hate Rumble and any other site that doesn't obey them is because they can't stand the notion that Americans can go on a platform and communicate ideas that they can't stop.
And this is what the ban, the threats to ban TikTok are about, is about trying to have the American government be able to commandeer those censorship decisions so that critical videos of Zelensky and the war in Ukraine or videos about the bin Laden letter get censored because the U.S. government wants it to and they can easily get Google and Facebook to censor it.
It's a little harder with TikTok.
And TikTok has had to agree more and more because they don't care about political censorship.
They care about profit.
These are capitalists.
They don't care about giving the US government control over content moderation.
They're happy to do it if that's the condition they have to meet in order to keep access to the very lucrative US market.
Here is TikTok constantly reassuring the United States and the US government, TikTok's commitment to US national security.
They are saying here that their commitment is to US national security.
Put simply, Project Texas, which is the TikTok project to hand over control of data and content moderation to American agencies and companies, It's an unprecedented initiative dedicated to making every American on TikTok feel safe with confidence their data is secure and the platform is free from outside influence.
This is the thing about this idea that the Chinese are spying on us with TikTok.
As Luke Johnson said, leaving aside how much Facebook and Google spy on us, how much data they have about you and me and everybody, We covered before about how the CIA and the FBI buy on the open market enormous amounts of data about Americans that are for sale, that have been bundled, that they would be prohibited constitutionally from collecting on their own, but they buy it commercially instead.
And if the goal of the Chinese government was to spy on Americans and gather data about Americans, it would be much more cost-effective To just go buy it on the open market rather than having to create this whole entire app and attract Americans to use it.
But the condition for TikTok to remain in America has been to hand over control of content moderation decisions and data to the US government and that's exactly what They're doing.
Here's more from TikTok.
Our content moderation systems and processes, both machine and human, will always be subject to outside review to ensure that moderation is taking place only in accordance with our published community guidelines.
The USDS will implement these rules and the TTP, American-based trusted technology provider, will have full visibility, guaranteeing that there are no expected changes to our system.
So, all promotional decisions will be as transparent and audible to the third-party monitors and U.S. Content Advisory Council.
Here is Bloomberg, or rather Reuters, in June of 2023.
I'm sorry, yeah, it was Bloomberg in May of 2023.
TikTok will soon grant Oracle full access to their code and algorithm.
TikTok will soon grant Oracle Corporation full access to its source code, algorithm, and content moderation material as part of efforts to alleviate national security concerns about the app.
Here from Reuters, TikTok moves U.S. users' data to Oracle servers.
TikTok had previously been storing its U.S. user data at its own data centers in Virginia with a backup in Singapore.
It will now delete private data on U.S. users from its own data centers and rely fully on Oracle's U.S. servers, it said.
TikTok has also set up a dedicated U.S. data security team known as USDS as a gatekeeper for U.S. user information and ring fencing it from ByteDance, a company spokesman told Reuters.
Now, I understand that if you are just somebody who thinks China is the only threat, the biggest threat, even bigger than Hamas, and everything connected to China, where China is mentioned, you get very scared and you're ready to give the government all power.
I know this all seems with TikTok saying they're going to hand over content moderation decisions to the U.S. security state.
Oh, I don't believe China.
China will say anything to get access to us.
But again, there's 100 million Americans, 100 million Americans, one out of every three Americans that use this app voluntarily.
And the proof that TikTok is actually making decisions to censor in accordance with what the U.S. government wants is very clear.
We just showed you some.
Dave Smith, who I think is one of the smartest commentators around Joe Rogan's program last week, To talk about the Israel-Gaza war.
And he brought up the controversy with the Bin Laden letter.
And watch this, what happened here.
In the same way, you know like the other week that Osama Bin Laden's letter to America went like super viral on TikTok and then they scrubbed it off of the Guardian as a response to it, which is just, number one, like, what is that?
Doesn't that just say everything about our society?
Is that that's the response?
To scrub it off the Guardian.
Take it down so people can't see it.
The Guardian being the newspaper covered it?
Yeah.
They had published it, and it had been up there, I think, since...
And they were concerned that it was encouraging people to support it?
Yeah, like a bunch of TikTokers, like young lefty TikTokers, started making these videos where they're like, Osama bin Laden was right about everything, and then they were getting heat for it, so they just took it down.
I mean, you can still find it on the archives.
But still, a lot of people's videos are still up.
Right?
Yeah, I don't know about that.
I'm not on TikTok.
I kind of just saw on Twitter when people were sharing the TikTok videos, so I don't know if they were taking them down.
TikTok takes down stuff pretty quickly, but I don't know what they were doing with that.
Why would they take that down, though?
If I was a Chinese run propaganda corporation, tick tock removes hashtag for Osama bin Laden's letter to America after viral video circulate.
So they just removed the hashtag.
The Guardian also pulled the text of the Al Qaeda founder.
Do you see what just happened there?
Joe Rogan had been hearing and got convinced that TikTok is this propaganda weapon of the Chinese Communist Party.
They...
Use it to disseminate information that corrupts Americans.
And he's like, why would TikTok possibly ever ban the Osama bin Laden letter from being discussed?
They must love the Osama bin Laden letter.
It turns Americans against each other.
They would never ban it.
And then suddenly appears on the screen a news story that says TikTok banned the hashtag to the bin Laden letter, which prevents people from seeing it.
And Joe Rogan said, oh, I guess they did.
And then he tried to kind of minimize it and say...
Oh, they only banned the hashtag.
Banning the hashtag is a huge deal because that's how people search for it and then they can't find it.
But they went much further than that, TikTok did.
But you see Joe Rogan in his mind has been told so many times or absorbed, oh, there's a Chinese Communist Party site.
They're not going to ban the Monon letter.
They would spread that.
They would love that.
But they did ban it.
Because the minute the U.S. government tells TikTok we don't like what you're allowing on the site, TikTok bans it as a condition to stay in the United States.
And the United States security state is gaining more and more control over what appears on TikTok and what doesn't.
Back in 2005, when I began writing about politics, there was no more hated enemy, more hated villain for liberal America than Bill Kristol.
He was the leader of what was frequently then referred to as the neocons, people who had no real partisan attachments.
They began as Democrats and they moved as part of the war on terror to the Republican Party.
Knowing that the Republican Party would be more eager under the war on terror to fight the wars they wanted to remove the governments of Iraq and Iran and Syria and their whole other warmongering list.
And they became leading advocates of the war on terror, of the invasion of Iraq, of the invasion of Iran, of every regime change war that you could possibly imagine.
Ones that the U.S. ended up fighting, ones that they wanted the U.S. to fight but didn't.
They're notable for all kinds of things, including ensuring that it's always other people's families who fight in their wars and die in their wars, but never them themselves, nor their families.
We did an entire show on Bill Kristol on the unique evil of this warmongering monster.
And what is so amazing is that while 15 years ago, every liberal, every Democrat, every leftist agreed that Bill Kristol was essentially the embodiment of all evil, the root of all evil, a neocon monster, Bill Kristol has now completely resurrected his career.
He's never been more influential in Washington and in media than he is now because he has now switched back again to being a Democrat.
He is a very popular liberal pundit.
He is funded by Pierre Omidyar, where he runs all sorts of anti-Trump news outlets like The Bulwark.
And he has all kinds of groups that are funded by Pierre Mediar designed to promote Joe Biden's world policies in Ukraine and elsewhere.
And Bill Kristol, who just this week gave an interview to the New Republic, where he talked about his actual current party affiliation and the reasons for it.
There you see the New Republic article.
Are never Trump Republicans actually just Democrats now?
You may remember that these never-Trump Republicans claimed that they were offended by Donald Trump, that they were still conservative, still Republicans.
They were just against Trump because they wanted to protect and resurrect American conservatism and the Republican Party and its honorable tradition of Dick Cheney and George Bush and Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney and John McCain.
And now they've given up that pretense entirely because the people who buy their books and who fund them and who constitute their social media fandom are almost entirely liberals and Democrats.
And no one wants to hear any pretenses that they're really still Republicans.
They don't want to ever hear any criticisms of Joe Biden.
So they basically have turned themselves, as the New Republic headlines suggest, into just ordinary Democrats now.
That's what they are.
They're Democratic Party pundits.
And you see the sub-headline there.
Some are already hardcore progressives.
And pollsters, politicians, and analysts from both parties say it may be a matter of time before the rest switch parties, too.
So all the people that we were told were the real villains of international affairs and American politics, these wretched, deceitful, bloodthirsty neocons, aren't just anti-Trump and haven't just been anti-Trump in the beginning.
And it's really worth asking, why are they so anti-Trump and why have they been so anti-Trump?
But they've now become Democrats because they believe that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle to advance their ideology that has not changed at all.
What has changed is their perception, I think accurately, that they find a lot of hostility to their warmongering agenda in the Republican Party and a lot of...
Positive welcoming of it in the Democratic Party.
So here from the New Republic article, quote, when asked where he was politically, Bill Kristol told the New Republic, quote, I'm pretty comfortable with the current Democratic Party.
My fellow Never Trumpers are not comfortable with the current Republican Party.
We don't think the hopes for its immediate reformation are very realistic.
We are okay with Biden.
We think, in fact, one thing we could do is strengthen the moderate Democratic Party.
So that's their mission, that they're being, I guess, credibly honest about, that they're no longer even pretending to try and salvage the Republican Party.
They are Democrats, pure and simple.
They're happy with the state of the Democratic Party.
They want to strengthen the Democratic Party.
And as part of that effort, Bill Kristol got $2 million from an undisclosed funder.
I can only guess who it is.
To launch an ad campaign designed to essentially increase the support for Biden's war policy in Ukraine, seeing that polls show Americans of all kinds, but especially conservatives and independents, are now turning against that war, believing we've already done too much for Ukraine, not wanting any more money to go to the war in Ukraine, not seeing the benefits of it.
And so Bill Kristol has produced an ad ostensibly aimed at Republicans to convince them that the war in Ukraine is actually not only a nice and benevolent thing to do, because everyone knows that's why we fight wars, why the CIA prioritizes wars, because we're good, benevolent, kind, nice, empathetic people who just want to help others in the world.
Not because the CIA is renowned for all throughout the world.
But what Bill Kristol is saying is it's not just that we're so kind and benevolent and we believe so deeply in spreading democracy.
It's also that the war happens to actually be quite good for American interest as well.
So I thought the ad was really worth watching because it's finally some candor about the real reasons we're in this war.
Let's watch this ad.
When America arms Ukraine, we get a lot for a little.
Putin is an enemy of America.
We've used 5% of our defense budget to arm Ukraine, and with it, they've destroyed 50% of Putin's army.
We've done all this by sending weapons from storage, not our troops.
The more Ukraine weakens Russia, the more it also weakens Russia's closest ally, China.
America needs to stand strong against our enemies.
That's why Republicans in Congress must continue to support Ukraine.
So there you have it.
It's essentially saying what has been clear from the beginning, which is the United States has no interest in protecting Ukraine.
This war has not protected Ukraine.
This war has destroyed Ukraine.
And the longer the war goes on, obviously, the more Ukraine will be destroyed.
And we're not protecting or defending Ukrainians.
The longer this war goes on, the more Ukrainians are dying.
Zelensky is fighting with an increasingly desperate, untrained army of conscripts who are desperately trying to flee the country but are being trapped there through a combination of military force and closing the borders and all kinds of steep punishments for those who try to flee.
People who don't want to be used as cannon fodder, who know that's what they're being sent to the front for, who are dying in gigantic numbers.
And the US wants this war to go on.
We have not only not pursued diplomatic solutions, but we have blocked the attempt to achieve diplomatic solutions, according to people like Israeli Prime Minister Neftali Bennett, who said that he has tried to broker solutions at the start of the war, but was blocked by doing so from the Biden administration and Boris Johnson, who wanted this war to go on precisely because, as the ad shows, the real purpose of this war is It has nothing to do with protecting Ukraine.
It's to advance America's geopolitical interests as they see it in weakening Russia by essentially saying we're not dying for this war.
We're having the Ukrainians die in huge numbers for this war and we're getting the benefits.
Now again, I still question in what conceivable way does the United States benefit from weakening Russia?
How is that a benefit to the United States, one that's worth tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars or sending huge numbers of young Ukrainian men to die for in a war?
Both President Obama and President Trump spoke about the ability to cooperate with Russia, the fact that they did cooperate with Russia.
On crucial anti-terrorism policies, including fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, which is a common goal of both Washington and Moscow.
They have cooperated in all sorts of other ways.
And yet, it was really only after 2016 when American elites needed a villain to blame, and they decided they were going to blame Vladimir Putin and Russia.
And liberals started feeding on this non-stop anti-Russia Discourse to drum up their hatred and anger and contempt and desire to avenge what they believed were the crimes of Vladimir Putin.
Only then did Russia become this country who we were supposed to go and destroy.
But this ad, at least, is a step forward to an honest debate, even though I don't think it really intended that.
I think what it's intending to do is to say to Americans, look, we know that you no longer are moved by the bullshit pretext that we're there in Ukraine because we're good, nice people protecting the Ukrainians.
You want to know what this war is doing for you.
And we're here to say this war is actually helping you because for a very small price, In the context of the trillion dollar budget that our military consumes every year, even though it can't pass an audit, we are destroying Russia.
Now there's, again, no reason given why that benefits Americans.
Let's just assume that Americans will be happy about that fact.
Now, the New York Times had black voters supporting Trump at 11%.
And that was, as alarmed as that made the New York Times, that was less than a recent poll commissioned by Fox News that among black voters show Biden leading only by 61 to 20%.
That's one out of every five black voters saying they would vote for Donald Trump.
And only 60% saying they would vote for Joe Biden, even the 2020 voters.
Election where there was a slide of black voters to Republicans, that was 91 to 8.
I'm talking about 61 to 20 now.
Now, one of the most ironic parts about this is that for years, Democratic voters were certain that having more and more non-white voters as part of the American demographic would ensure what they called an emerging and permanent Democratic majority vote.
This is the dishonesty at the heart of the claim that Republicans and people like Tucker Carlson support the idea of the great replacement theory that immigration is importing non-white voters into the United States and changing the demographic to make it less white.
That is not a claim Tucker Carlson invented or conservatives invented.
That is a theory that Democratic Party strategists have been doubting for a long time.
Here in the Atlantic in 2012, you see the headline, The Emerging Democratic Majority Turns 10, Why the New Coalition Could Be Here to Stay.
And they were essentially celebrating Obama's victory as a vindication of this thesis.
Ten years ago, John Judas and I argued in the emerging Democratic majority that the country's shifting demographics were giving rise to a strong new Democratic voting population base.
The first glimmerings of this emerging Democratic coalition were visible in George McGovern's disastrous 1972 campaign, we wrote, making the newly emerging majority, quote, George McGovern's revenge.
In the chapter with that title, we describe the strengthening alliance between minorities, working in single women, the college-educated, and skilled professionals.
So, that was the thesis.
And here in the American Prospect, which is a very liberal magazine, you see...
This, discussed even more explicitly, but it's by the liberal writer Jamil Bowie, who I previously referenced, who's now at the New York Times.
It's entitled The Democrats' Demographic Dreams.
Liberals are counting on population trends to doom Republicans to a long-term minority.
And he argues they shouldn't.
Now, he's describing here how it's the view of Democrats, not conservatives, not Tucker Carlson, not white supremacists, That one of the benefits of immigration is that it will make the country more non-white and therefore more amenable to the Democratic Party.
That's their explicit strategy.
And it's unbelievable that if you now point that out or talk about it, you get accused of the Great Replacement Theory even though it's Democrats who invented it and have been trumpeting it for years.
Here's what Jamal Bowie wrote in the American Prospect, quote, If Democrats agree on anything, it's that they will eventually be on the winning side.
The white Americans who tend to vote Republicans are shrinking as a percentage of the population, while the number of those who lean Democratic, African Americans, and other minorities is rapidly growing.
Slightly more than half of American infants are now non-white.
By 2050, the U.S. population is expected to increase by 117 million people, and the vast majority, 82%, We'll be immigrants or the children of immigrants.
In a little more than 30 years, the U.S. will be a majority-minority country, meaning a majority of Americans will be minorities, what are now considered minorities, non-white voters.
By 2050, white Americans will no longer be a solid majority, but the largest plurality at 46%.
African Americans will drop to 12%, while Asian Americans will make up 8%.
The number of Latinos will rise to nearly a third of all Americans.
It's become an article of faith among many progressives that these trends, meaning demographic changes brought about by immigration, set the stage for a new democratic majority.
A decade ago, Roy Teixeira and John B. Judas popularized this argument in their book, The Emerging Democratic Majority.
More recently, Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine made a similar case.
It's quote, the modern GOP, the party of Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes is staring down its own demographic extinction.
He wrote, conservative America will soon come to be dominated in a semi-permanent fashion by an ascendant democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests.
That has been the assumption of the Democratic Party forever.
forever.
Non-white voters are their property.
They automatically receive their vote no matter what.
And obviously the key to winning elections into the foreseeable future, Democrats argued...
Was changing the demographic composition of the United States by making it more non-white through immigration.
That's the great replacement theory.
That's what Democrats have been touting and trumpeting for years.
I just showed you the proof of that by the authors themselves of that theory, the advocates of it.
What Democrats did not count on, apparently, is that, as it turns out, a lot of non-white voters find them repellent.
The group of Latino voters in particular is close to even now when it comes to Democrats versus Republicans.
Particularly they seem to have a lot of affection for Donald Trump.
Exactly the opposite of what the corporate media thought it was doing.
When it disseminated all of these race-based trends and narratives about Democrats versus Republicans.
So Democrats are in a huge amount of trouble.
According to these polls, and it's not just political trouble, but it's a threat to their core identity of believing that only they believe in a pluralistic society, that only they are the protectors of non-white voters.
I think non-white voters are hearing this and running in the opposite direction in increasingly large numbers.
Whatever the reason, that little plan they hatched of staying in power by making America non-white, or more non-white as they put it, is not working.
Because non-white voters are taking more and more looks at them and deciding that the last thing they want to do is keep those people in power.
One of the things Media Matters has devoted itself to over the last several years is the same thing most of our institutions of power have devoted itself to.
It's no longer a participant in debates, in political debates like it used to be.
It is now more devoted to ending political debates, to silencing people who are critics of the Democratic Party, who are dissidents to the pieties and orthodoxies of establishment liberalism.
And one of the ways they accomplish that is that they accuse everybody who disagrees with them of being racist, bigots, white nationalists, anti-Semites, transphobes.
And what they really do is go after corporations who are advertising on any social media platforms that don't censor enough.
So when Twitter, and it's pre-Elon Musk state, Facebook, Google, would allow corporations Videos or speakers that Media Matters considers out of bounds.
Media Matters have accused them often of allowing white nationalism, supporting fascism, to put pressure on those big tech companies to censor, just like the ADL does.
They basically work hand-in-hand, the two groups do.
Now, one of the things they've been doing over the last several months is targeting the advertisers of both Twitter under Elon Musk and also Rumble.
By accusing those advertisers, by virtue of advertising on these social media sites, of supporting bigotry, of supporting anti-Semitism, of supporting racism, by virtue of the fact that they're advertising on both Twitter, X, and Rumble.
And they've been very successful in getting these corporations to cease advertising on both of those sites.
And, of course, the crime of both of those sites, in Rumble's case fully and in the case of Twitter, partially, they're still trying.
The crime is that they are supporting and defending the free speech rights of people to be heard.
Now, we covered on Friday night one of the things that Elon Musk did, which is, as these corporate advertisers were fleeing acts in large numbers, who argued the fact that the Anti-Defamation League in Media Matters accused Musk of supporting and endorsing anti-Semitism,
Musk, in a kind of self-protective mode, went and imposed a new censorship policy on Twitter saying that no longer could you use phrases like from the river to the sea or decolonization in connection with Israel because he said to do so is to endorse genocide.
And the ADL immediately went in line and after accusing him 24 hours earlier of being an anti-Semite, patted him on the head and said, thank you, Elon, good job.
And then he said thank you to the ADL. So that's the kind of game they play, is they accuse people of extreme racism or bigotries or anti-Semitism, and the only way out is if you do what they want.
So in the case of Media Matters, that means if you're a corporation, the only way out is to cease advertising on the sites that allow people to dissent from liberal orthodoxy.
The problem is for Media Matters is they just got caught engaging in an obvious, huge, demonstrable fraud against both Twitter and against Rumble.
In studies that they published where they purported to prove that major advertisers were being associated with neo-Nazi content or anti-Semitic content or racist content, And when Twitter discovered the fraud,
Elon Musk vowed a thermonuclear lawsuit that would be filed today, and we just, seconds before we went on air, received by email the lawsuit that apparently X has filed against Media Matters over what clearly is a fraud.
And Rumble has announced that they also intend to either file suit or to support this lawsuit because they've been victimized by the same exact fraudulent tactic.
Now, here's the Media Matters study or release that kicked off this latest round of attempting to basically drive Twitter into bankruptcy for its failure to censor more.
As Musk endorses anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content.
CEO Lindo Yaccarino previously claimed that brands, quote, are protected from the risk of being next to toxic posts.
Quote, during all of this Musk-induced chaos, corporate advertisements have also been appearing on pro-Hitler, Holocaust denial, white nationalist, pro-violence, and neo-Nazi accounts.
Yaccarino has attempted to placate companies by claiming that, quote, brands are now protected from the risk of being next to potentially toxic content, but that certainly isn't the case for at least five major brands.
We, Media Matters, recently found ads for Apple, Bravo, Oracle, Xfinity, and IBM next to posts that tout Hitler and his Nazi Party on X. Here they are.
And then they proceeded to take screenshots of ads by those companies next to...
These posts that they claim are neo-Nazi in nature.
And here you see some of them on the screen.
So here, for example, is an ad for Xfinity, which is here.
This is from the Media Matters Report.
And here you see posts that they say are defending the Third Reich.
Let's do some more ignored facts about the Third Reich.
And it does defend...
Nazism.
Now, these tweets are seen by almost nobody.
You see they have like two retweets.
In the case of that last one, no retweets.
Here's two retweets.
Here's Apple, an ad by Apple, next to a meme, what people think is a spiritual awakening is like versus what it's actually like.
And they have a picture of the Nazis as a spiritual awakening.
It got eight retweets.
So what they're doing is they're going to these posts that nobody has seen and they're clicking madly.
They have multiple people madly clicking until one of these ads come up to try and suggest that the normal user experience is to see Apple ads or Xfinity ads next to neo-Nazi content when in fact it's incredibly obscure stuff that only Media Matters is seeing to the point where they have no views.
Now here is A statement from Rumble and the CEO of Rumble, Chris Pawlowski, saying that they did exactly the same thing, mainly in May of this year, or in March of this year, rather.
The Media Matters site issued a similar report claiming that Netflix is putting ads on Rumble that are appearing next to pro-Holocaust or Holocaust denial videos.
So here is the Media Matters ad, the Media Matters report rather, where they say from March, ads for Netflix are appearing next to Holocaust denial videos on Rumble.
And then here's what they say, quote, Rumble is heavily populated by far-right figures, and while it claims to have, quote, strict policies against anti-Semitism, the site has not taken down numerous videos promoting Holocaust denial.
Media Matters reviewed many of these videos and found that several Holocaust denial videos featured advertisements for Netflix.
Here are some examples.
And they give an example, Holocaust Holes, And another, the hoax of the 20th century, talking about the Holocaust.
Now, just like, as is true for those tweets that they showed...
Nobody saw these videos.
Literally nobody.
They had zero views until somehow Media Matters found them and started clicking on them until they could find Netflix ads appearing underneath them.
So here is the hoax of the 20th century and then here is the Netflix ad.
Now, you can see by the number of likes, this has two thumbs up.
Two.
Our videos have hundreds and then thousands immediately, like most videos on Rumble do that are actually watched.
Two thumbs up.
Who knows who put those two thumbs up?
But here is the statement from Rumble today.
And through its CEO, Chris Pawlowski, he says, quote, I can also confirm that Media Matters has purposely misrepresented Rumble.
Their dishonesty warrants an immediate investigation at the highest levels.
Hence, Speaker Johnson and Jim Jordan and I'll bring the receipt.
Here's my statement.
And then here's the statement from Chris Pavlovsky.
Quote, Media Matters is threatened by Rumble's mission to protect a free and open Internet.
So the reaction is to deceive the public and scare advertisers.
For example, on March 14th, Media Matters claimed that advertisements for Netflix, which were appearing on Rumble, had been placed on videos that violated our content policy.
However, according to Google Analytics, the week before publication of that Media Matters article, there had been zero page views on that video.
Isn't that amazing?
How did Media Matters even find that?
There had been zero page views.
On that video.
That means that the Media Matters activist who took the screenshot was the first human being to actually view the Netflix ad on the video in question.
Their story left the false impression that it was a widespread problem.
The same is true for most of the videos cited by Media Matters, all of which were removed from Rumble as soon as we were made aware of them.
It's clear that Media Matters intends to mislead and deceive about advertisements on Rumble in order to hamper free speech and harm law-abiding employers who only want to advertise their products and services.
Media Matters doesn't do anything for free, so who is funding this outrageous targeting activity?
Who is paying them to target free speech and why are they afraid of free expression online?
Speaker Johnson and Representative Jordan, it's time for Congress to ask hard questions.
Now, as intended, Netflix left Rumble after that report because they didn't want to be accused, obviously, who would, of advertising next to bigoted content or anti-Semitic content.
It's the same reason why If you're an Israel critic, you immediately get branded an anti-Semite.
Just like liberals immediately accuse their opponents of being white nationalists, or racists, or bigots, or transphobes, all you know of the panoramic insults.
Because if you get branded with those titles, with those labels, those smears, obviously you're going to have a motive to stay silent.
It's a silencing method.
Now, here is the Google Analytics chart that Chris Pawlowski was referring to.
And here you see on March 13th and then March 14th, that was the date of the Media Matters report.
You can see here the page views were at zero.
Nobody had seen...
Those videos, nobody had seen the Netflix ad.
Media Matters was the first human being to see them.
And then it suddenly went up once Media Matters brought light to it.
Media Matters created this problem.
It didn't exist previously.
But they were able to drive Netflix away from Rumble, which is the goal, to try and bankrupt sites that don't censor on command.
Here, I... From BBC, the X ad boycott gathers pace amid anti-Semitism storms.
So you can see how effective this tactic is.
Firms including Apple, Disney, and IBM have paused advertising on X amid an anti-Semitism storm on the site.
The boycott has also been picking up steam in the wake of an investigation by a U.S. group which flagged ads appearing next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Left-leaning pressure group Media Matters for America said it had identified ads brought by high-profile firms next to posts including Hitler quotes, praise of Nazis, and Holocaust denial.
A spokesman for X told the BBC that the company does not intentionally place brands, quote, next to this kind of content and the platform is dedicated to combating anti-Semitism.
Mr.
Musk said on Saturday that X would file a, quote, thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters, quote, the split-second court opens on Monday.
On Thursday, IBM became the first company to pull its advertising from the site following the Media Matters investigation, saying the juxtaposition of its ads with Nazi content was, quote, completely unacceptable.
The European Commission, Comcast TV network Paramount, and movie studio Lionsgate have also pulled ad dollars from X. Do you see what they're able to do?
Just by hurling...
This accusatory invective at the sites they want to punish for not censoring, advertisers run away in droves.
Because media outlets quote and amplify and trumpet whatever Media Matters claims, because they're on the same side.
That's why it's such an effective and popular tactic to use.
Now, One of the things that I think is so important to realize is that if you can drive away a platform's advertisers, then it means that those sites can't exist.
So if a site wants to be a free speech site and it relies on advertisers to pay its bills to keep itself running, these kind of tactics where somehow Media Matters finds a video that nobody has saw, Nobody knows who put this video up, where it came from, who the creator was.
They have no followers.
Suddenly there appears a Holocaust denial or an anti-Semitic video or a post that nobody saw until Media Matters found it.
Zero views.
And then they click enough times until they get the ad, and then suddenly they really support a report trying to claim that, oh, if you advertise on X, you're going to appear next to Holocaust denial sites, or if you advertise on Rumble, you will as well in a completely manufactured and fabricated way.
I don't know who posted those videos.
It could be anybody, but I know that nobody saw them until Media Matters pretended that this was a common experience.
That's why X is suing them for creating this defamatory and false image of what the experience is like for corporate advertisers on X, and it cost them tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising alone.
Here is the response of the X safety team where they say, stand with X to protect free speech.
This week, Media Matters for America posted a story that completely misrepresented the real user experience on X and another attempt to undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers.
Despite our clear and consistent position, X has seen a number of attacks from the activist groups like Media Matters and legacy media outlets who seek to undermine freedom of expression on our platform because they perceive it as a threat to their ideological narrative and those of their financial supporters.
These groups try to use their influence to attack our revenue streams by deceiving advertisers on X. Here are the facts of Media Matters research.
To manipulate the public and advertisers, Media Matters created an alternate account and curated the posts and advertising appearing on the account's timeline to misinform advertisers about their placement of their posts.
Those contrived experiences could be applied to any platform.
Once they curated their feed, they repeatedly refreshed their timelines to find a rare instance of ads serving next to the content they chose to follow.
Our logs indicate that they forced a scenario resulting in 13 times the number of ads served compared to the median ads served to an X user.
Of the 5.5 billion ad impressions on X that day, less than 50 total ad impressions were served against all of the organic content featured in the Media Matters article.
For one brand showcased in the article, one of its ads ran adjacent to a post twice.
And that ad was seen in that setting by only two users.
One of which was the author of the Media Matters article.
For another brand showcased in the article, two of its ads served adjacent to two posts three times, and that ad was only seen in that setting by one user, the author of the Media Matters article.
That's exactly what they did to Rumble as well, to drive Netflix away.
They found videos nobody had watched.
And they kept clicking until they got an instance of a Netflix ad next to it.
Nobody had seen that Netflix ad next to that video except the Media Matters author or whoever works for Media Matters.
And then they published a report trying to make it appear as though Netflix is constantly advertising and supporting content of this kind, whereas obviously Rumble had no way of even knowing those videos existed or who posted them.
Because nobody had actually seen them.
Let me move on and ask you about a previously hidden connection between the non-voting delegate Stacey Plaskett, who represents the Virgin Islands ostensibly.
She doesn't talk much about the Virgin Islands or the people who reside there.
She talks instead about things that will get her on MSNBC, but technically she represents the people of the Virgin Islands in this non-voting process.
So Stacey Plaskett on the one hand and Jeffrey Epstein on the other.
You had a June 27th article on your sub-stack entitled House Democrat Worked for Epstein's Tax and Political Fixer.
Court filings revealed that the delegate Stacey Plaskett misled the public about her deep ties to the powerful pedophile.
What deep ties did Stacey Plaskett have to the powerful pedophile that she misled the public from knowing about?
Well, this revelation came from an ongoing litigation between JP Morgan and the Virgin Islands government.
Both parties accused one another of facilitating and enabling Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise of human trafficking, Aiding and abetting and abusing young women.
In some of these latest filings from JPMorgan, actually, they show that Jeffrey Epstein controlled a fairly powerful political machine within the Virgin Islands.
He donated to and gave various enticements to local officials in the Virgin Islands so that he would basically accomplish a few things.
One, to silence critics.
Two, he also wanted a special carve out from the sex offender law so he could travel in and out of the Virgin Islands without any disclosure requirements.
And three, he was looking for massive tax subsidies.
He received basically $300 million in special tax exemptions for his business, for which he seemed to lie about.
He claimed that he had a biotech startup, but there's no evidence of that.
Now, those documents show that one of his biggest allies in the Virgin Islands was actually Stacey Plaskett.
Plaskett, when she was running for office in 2014, was running in the Democratic primary against a major Epstein critic.
So Epstein's closest advisors told him, hey, you know, we've got to intervene in this primary.
We've got to silence this person who's been publicly criticizing you.
We've got to get Stacey Plaskett in.
She's an ally.
I should note, as Stacey Plaskett has basically defended government censorship and discussed the supposed evils of misinformation and disinformation, she's gotten some critical facts wrong here.
When she was asked by the Virgin Islands affiliate of NPR if she was aware of any of these connections to Jeffrey Epstein, you know, her many donations that she received from Epstein, she said no.
She didn't know about them.
She learned about them in the media.
Well, these documents from the litigation tell a very different story.
She actually met Epstein early when she was running for office.
She solicited him many times directly for his campaign.
Epstein donated not just directly to her, but to a Democratic Party affiliate of her campaign.
And then later, late in Epstein's life, just not long before he was arrested for the second time and brought to New York, Stacey Plaskett went to Epstein's house in New York, met with him, and asked for a $30,000 donation to the Democratic Central Committee for House Democrats.
That's a very large donation that's, you know, a special contribution to a party committee.
So she was meeting with him in the Virgin Islands, meeting with him in person, Constantly soliciting him.
And maybe one of the biggest revelations from these documents is that how did she get connected to the Epstein kind of political machinery?
Well, before she ran for Congress, something that she scrubbed from her LinkedIn, she worked for Jeffrey Epstein's closest tax account and political fixer, someone named Erica Kellerhals, who's still the attorney for Epstein's estate.
That was her job, working for Jeffrey Epstein's personal lobbyist and tax accountant.
That's who Stacey Plaskett worked for before she ran.
So she has deep and intimate ties, not just to Jeffrey Epstein, but his small and kind of insular team of lawyers and tax accountants.
So as somebody who has worked with Lee as a colleague for many years and who has been familiar with the journalism for many years before that, I want to hasten to add that there's nothing Lee ever says that isn't substantiated by all sorts of documentation, which you can go and read because he furnishes that documentation.
That's what his reporting always is, is based on documents he on Earth, and this is very kind of straightforward descriptions of what it is that we can reveal.
That article is up on his sub-stack.
It's from June 27th, I think I said.
And so, yeah, June 27th.
And so everything that he just described about these connections between Stacey Poskett, on the one hand, Jeffrey Epstein on the other, the interventions she did in order to help him be able to travel more easily, despite his sex crime history and the like, the financial ties are all...
It's visible through the documents that Lee obtained and then published.
Lee, let me ask you about another part of this reporting you've been doing about Jeffrey Epstein from some of these emails that emerged from the litigation central to Jeffrey Epstein's financing.
Was J.P. Morgan Chase.
They have, I think, been sued many times by his victims.
There have been internal reports about some of the reckless things they did in providing financing to him or staying connected to him.
And one of the obvious questions that people have always wondered about and I don't think we've ever really gotten an answer to is...
It's very easy in the United States, not necessarily easy, but not that hard, to get very rich.
But the level of wealth that Jeffrey Epstein had wasn't just rich.
I mean, the fact that he was able to do things like travel on private planes and buy immense private islands and build everything he built there and own multi-story townhouses and the most expensive real estate in Manhattan and in West Palm Beach as well the fact that he was able to do things like travel on private planes and buy immense private islands and build I mean, he did have connections to a couple of billionaires who really seemed to value whatever he was providing them, and certainly a lot of it came from there.
But there's always been the question of whether he had connections to any particular nation states.
Of course, there's been suspicions about his connection to the U.S. security state, about to Israeli intelligence, whether his involvement in a lot of powerful people enabled him a kind of blackmail that was valuable to these governments.
None of that has ever been proven.
But you did unearth an email that suggests that he had specific ties between one of the most important people at JPMorgan Chase and also a former Israeli Prime Minister.
What did that email demonstrate?
There we put it on the screen, but go ahead and describe it.
In a new batch of emails that were released this week in this ongoing litigation, it really shows greater detail about why J.P. Morgan had this close relationship with Epstein.
It seems very clear from these emails that Epstein was a fixer.
He generated income for his associates and potentially for himself by connecting high-level people.
In this particular email that you're highlighting, he's connecting J.P. Morgan executives, potentially even Jamie Dimon, although we don't know if the meeting took place, with Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister of Israel.
There are other emails showing attempted connections to Bibi Netanyahu, the former and now current Prime Minister of Israel.
Really, it's fascinating because you look at this balance sheet that was actually disclosed this week.
It shows that the private banker assigned to Epstein was the most profitable private banker in their kind of upper echelons of private bankers at J.P. Morgan, because in part, Epstein was a connector.
He connected these, you know...
Private high net worth value bankers to people like Bill Gates, to Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google.
He facilitated high-level meetings with famous journalists like David Gergen, with other kind of celebrities and other political VIPs.
By connecting people, he appeared to be generating revenue.
For financial institutions like JP Morgan, who wanted the business of these billionaires and very wealthy individuals.
So we still don't have the full picture of how Epstein generated There are, I think, very kind of serious allegations that he used blackmail and other forms of pressure to extract donations or, you know, revenue from certain wealthy individuals.
We still don't know that full picture of that, but what these documents do show from J.P. Morgan is that he was basically an incredible source of referring business to the bank.
Bankers like James Stanley, who eventually became CEO of Barclays Bank, but when he was at J.P. Morgan, this banker, Mr.
Stanley, was assigned directly to Epstein, and he used Epstein to bring in these billionaires and high net worth value clients into J.P. Morgan.
Let me ask you, Lee, and again, I really encourage people to go to look at some of these connections between Jeffrey Epstein and a lot of powerful people.
I sometimes dislike the reactionary attempt to immediately assume that anybody connected to Jeffrey Epstein is participating in his pedophile ring.
There's a lot of other reasons to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
Besides that, he, as Lee said, had a ton of money, was able to facilitate connections.
At the very least, though, everybody knew about this conviction for cavorting with underage girls, and it didn't really seem to bother.
