A federal grand jury has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice, a move sought by Trump’s newly appointed prosecutor. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss how Comey repeatedly lied to Congress about leaks and surveillance of Trump’s campaign, citing FISA abuses, the Russia probe, and the targeting of Michael Flynn through an illegal wiretap. Critics including Lindsey Graham contend Comey withheld exculpatory evidence about the Clinton campaign’s role in fabricating Russiagate, undermining the rule of law. Jimmy frames the indictment as overdue accountability for Comey, while also warning that political prosecutions reflect deeper corruption in the U.S. justice system. Plus segments on Google’s recent admission that the company caved to Biden administration demands to censor COVID related content and the recent embrace by U.S. government figures of former Al Qaeda leader and current Syria president Ahmed al-Sharaa. Also featuring Mike MacRae, John Kiriakou & Stef Zamorano. And a phone call from Kamala Supporter!
Come see me on tour in Hermosa Beach, Sacramento, San Francisco, Melbourne, Australia, Sydney, Australia, Brisbane, Burbank, California, the day after Thanksgiving, and Potsdown, Pennsylvania.
Go to JimmyDoor.com for a link for tickets.
Hey, this is Jimmy.
Who's this?
Hello, this is Kamala supporter.
Oh, God.
Hello, Kamala supporter.
It's been a long time since we've heard from you.
Well, yeah, there hasn't really been much of a reason for my character to call your show for a while now.
Also, I haven't left my apartment or spoken to anyone at all since last November, so there's that.
I see.
So why are you calling now?
Oh, my God, Jimmy.
Did you read her book?
Did you read Kamala's book?
Her book?
Kamala wrote a book.
It's called 107 Days.
It's amazing.
It's the greatest book I've ever read.
And I've read Fear of Flying by Erica Johnson.
Have you read it, Jimmy?
Have I read Kamala Harris's book?
No, of course not.
Why not?
Why wouldn't you read it?
What possible conceivable reason would there be for any sane person to not immediately purchase Kamala's book and starting to re start to read it on the drive home while veering into oncoming traffic?
Wait, oh my God.
Can you not read?
Are you secretly illiterate?
Jimmy, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
The system failed you, not the other way around.
No, I can read real good, Kamala supporter.
I just have zero interest in what Kamala Harris has to say about anything.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
How could you say that?
Literally, how?
She is the most important woman so far of the 21st century.
Maybe all centuries.
We came this close to living in a literal utopia in this country, and it was ruined by morons and demons.
And this book explains how.
Okay, all right, let me guess.
Everything was everyone else's fault but hers.
You're goddamn right it was.
Starting with that geezer Joe Biden.
Yeah.
She called his decision to run again as reckless.
No.
She said reckless, Jimmy.
She said it or wrote it.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
And yeah, I agree with that, though.
I think we all can.
See, do you see what an amazing book it is then?
Just because Kamala Harris makes an obvious point that everyone agrees with, doesn't make this the best book ever written.
Yes, it does.
Okay, let me ask you, Kamala supporter.
In her book, does she do any self-reflection at all, cop to any mistakes or missteps?
Well, in a way, yes.
She realizes now she should have put some distance between herself and Joe Biden.
That's what the voters wanted, and she didn't calculate that properly.
But you know what, Jimmy?
You know what?
What?
She said she did it out of loyalty.
Loyalty, Jimmy.
Loyalty is a beautiful trait.
Her only mistake was being too good of a person.
Oh my God, we don't deserve Kamala.
We never did.
She's a literal angel.
All right.
Noah, not all right.
And loyal to that scaly old snake, Joe Biden.
What a misallocation of loyalty.
He did everything he could to undermine her campaign because he was bitter about having to step aside.
I can't wait until he's eating ice cream cones in hell.
Okay, maybe be loyal to Joe Biden in the first place was a giant mistake.
You ever think of that?
Shut up.
What do you think about her revealing that she didn't choose Pete Buttigieg as her running mate because America just wouldn't be ready to accept a black woman and a gay man ticket?
Well, is she wrong?
Is she wrong about that?
I mean, for real.
Let's be real here.
But don't you find that homophobic?
No, I think it's a good strategy.
Uh-huh.
And personally, as someone who cannot stand men, the idea of a man who prefers men sounds like a doubly terrible man to me.
So, yeah, get him out of there.
Bye.
Goodbye.
That's literally homophobic.
Not really.
Not really.
It's not homophobic.
It's just super misandrist.
It's different.
Kamala would understand.
I kind of doubt that.
Look, just read the book, idiot.
You're going to feel so dumb if you don't because I'm telling you right now, this is going to win the Pulitzer Award, the New York Times Best Award, the Newbery Medal because it's also for kids, the Nobel Prize for Literature.
I doubt it's winning any of those, Kabbalah supporter.
What do you think of what Democratic strategists suggest, that this book is an indication of her not intending to run for office again?
Wait, what?
That she's done with politics.
Why would she be done?
Well, the thinking here is that since the book is sort of a scathing, gossipy tell-all, she's basically burning bridges with her fellow Democrats, a move that no one who was contemplating running again would make.
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Jimmy, is this true?
I'm not sure, Kamala supporter, but it sure does make sense.
Oh, well, then this is the worst book in the world.
I hate this book.
This book is going to prevent me from finally having President Queen Kamala someday.
Not in my world.
Not in the world I'm living in.
I have to destroy as many copies of this book as I can, as soon as I can, so that Kamala can still run again.
Hey, how are you going to do that?
Well, I'm still housebound with anxiety, so think Kamala supporters think.
Okay, I got it.
I will order as many copies as I can off Amazon and then hide them here.
I'll have to max out all my credit cards, but it'll be worth, boom.
It'll be worth it.
Jiminy, how many hardback copies will $1,200 purchase?
Yeah, I don't know, Kabbalah supporter, but I got to go.
Goodbye.
Good luck.
Don't read the book, Jimmy.
Your initial instinct to not read it wound up being correct.
But still fuck you for your reason for not reading it.
So good luck.
Bullshit they can't afford.
Why is moment in this world?
Watch and see as a jet-young comedian who speeds and jumps the medium and hits him head-on.
It's the chimney tour show.
James Comey indicted.
James Comey indicted.
Now, if you know anything about James Comey, he is a sleevesball of the highest order.
And I will show you when he had his interview with Chris Wallace, how he lied for five minutes straight and Chris Wallace got him.
Oh, real.
Chris Wallace nailed him.
Chris Wallace, the bad Wallace, nailed him against the wall.
So this is from Yahoo News.
Why Trump's new prosecutor just charged a former director?
So A federal grand jury indicted former FBI director James Comey Thursday evening on two charges sought by President Trump's new hand-picked hand-picked prosecutor.
Why do they hand-picked?
Did they use an immigrant worker for this?
What did they mean, hand-picked?
One count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice.
No, he's done both those things.
He's done worse.
Comey immediately responded by proclaiming his innocence.
You want to hear it?
My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way.
We will not live on our knees.
So this is James Comey's.
This is his parlor trick.
He knows how to look sincere and earnest when doing the most nefarious things.
As every FBI director, if you're good, you will look like him.
Now, if you're bad at it, you look like Cash Patel.
I was going to say, everybody except Cash Patel.
Cash Patel tells us he's lying immediately, Cash Patel.
Now, James Comey, if you don't know anything about what he's talking about, he looks sincere.
He looks earnest.
He looks like a Boy Scout.
He looks like a guy you want to hug him.
But that's why he's got to be where he is because he's that good of a liar.
So just keep in mind.
Okay.
And you shouldn't either.
Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she's right.
But I'm not afraid.
And I hope you're not either.
I hope instead you are engaged.
What is the rule of a tyrant is when they gin up when they try to frame the president for treason, which is what he did.
He tried to frame the president for treason and then lied to Congress about it.
That's what he did.
That's what rules.
So when they do four separate prosecutions of the former president, when they overcharge all of his followers on January 6th, which was an FBI operation, by the way, that was a Fed surrection.
It wasn't an insurrection.
There's been this constant, everything they're accusing Trump of doing right now, prosecuting his political opponents, they did to him first, and they had to make it all up.
Now, Trump is going after James Comey.
He doesn't have to make up anything.
It's real.
Russia Gate was completely made up, 100%, and they knew it.
And that's what this is all about, that they knew it.
Obama knew it was made up.
James Comey knew it was made up.
They all knew it was made up.
That's going far enough, I think.
I believe Trump is going far enough.
But it just so happens that these people are his political opponents who prosecuted him first politically.
Those were political prosecutions.
So this idea that this just started yesterday with Donald Trump and James Comey, again, it's just like the Jimmy Kimmel censorship stuff.
Jimmy Kimmel's all for censorship.
Everybody who's screaming about Jimmy Kimmel, they were all for it.
What had happened to Tucker Carlson?
What had happened to Julian Assange?
What happened to everybody else?
They're all for it.
You know, when he said, somebody I love dearly told me this.
I was like, oh, is that Hillary Clinton?
it hillary aged you are paying attention and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it which it does Boy, he really must be keeping the faith if he thinks voting is going to change anything.
Anyway, here we go.
My heart is broken.
Yes.
Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I'm innocent.
So let's have a trial and keep the faith.
Keep the faith.
He must really be keeping the faith if he thinks voting is going to change anything.
So here's one of the lies.
Do you stand by your House testimony of March 20th that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign that you're aware of?
Correct.
You would know about it if they were.
Is that correct?
I think so, yes.
Okay.
Okay, so he knew about it.
Not only that, but they coordinated lies about it.
So remember when Donald Trump said Obama has tapped my phones?
They had.
They lied to the FISA court 17 times.
The FBI lied to the FISA court 17 times to get a phone tap on Donald Trump, which means they had a phone tap on everybody Donald Trump talked to in his campaign and anybody they talked to.
It's called a two-hop rule.
So when you get a wiretap on Donald Trump, you get a wiretap on anybody he's talked to and anybody that he's talked to has talked to.
It's called a two-hop rule.
So they had that.
That's how they got General Michael Flynn.
And we're going to talk about that.
He entrapped Michael Flynn.
So that's the first lie.
He knew about it.
In fact, here's Cash Patel.
He tweets this out.
The headline is exclusive.
Prosecutors secured evidence.
Comey authorized classified leaks, but declined charges.
New declassified memos reveal former FBI leadership authorized classified leaks while misleading Congress.
Thanks to President Trump's push for transparency, the cover-up is finally being exposed.
Accountability.
So that's what he, so the story quoted previously redacted portions of the memos alleging that a lawyer working under Comey at the time, quote, disclosed United States government classified information to the New York Times under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey via an intermediary.
So that's number two.
Okay.
So here is him lying twice to Senator Grassley and Ted Cruz.
Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
Never.
Question two on relatively related.
Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
No.
On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
You responded under oath, quote, never.
He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
You responded again under oath, no.
Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.
Now, what Mr. Kitten McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true.
One or the other is false.
Who's telling the truth?
I can only speak to my testimony.
I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth.
Is that correct?
Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
So do you believe it's legal for you to lie during a Zoom meeting?
Because that's what he's doing.
Here's what Lindsey Graham has to say about this.
Intelligence before the hearing basically told Comey, here's a bunch of intel regarding Clinton trying to cook this story up.
And he says that he doesn't remember that.
Can you imagine the director of national intelligence telling you as the FBI director, there's plenty of evidence out here this thing was cooked up.
So, but in August of 2016, three months before he signed the warrant application against Carter Page, being part of a conspiracy to, you know, where Trump is an agent of Russia, in August, months before he signed the warrant application, they told him in front of Obama, there's evidence that Clinton is cooking this up.
He never told the court that.
So before he signed the first warrant application, alleging that Carter Page is part of a conspiracy with Donald Trump to sell out America, he never told the court that he had information that may all be cooked up by Hillary Clinton.
When the sub-source told the FBI about the dossier, it's a bunch of bar talk and hearsay.
They never told the court.
So let me tell you right now, if you're listening to this program, if an FBI director can mislead a court to get a warrant against American citizen to further a political conspiracy to destroy somebody you don't like, we're in a world of hurt.
So you'll never convince me that Comey didn't know about the accusation that it was Hillary Clinton making this up, that there was no there.
And why didn't he tell the court about this information?
Exculpatory information.
One lawyer at the FBI went to jail for manipulating evidence to the FISA court.
Here's the question for the legal system today.
Is there compelling evidence that Comey withheld from the court pertinent information about the warrant application?
How can you say he didn't?
The FBI knew three different times it was all internet rumor and never told the court.
Why did they do that?
They wanted the investigation to continue during the Trump presidency.
I believe this with all my heart, to destroy Donald Trump.
If people get away with this, lying to a court, manipulating court, withholding exculpatory information to a court of law to get a warrant against American citizen, for political purposes, the rule of law has died.
That's the big issue in this case.
Not did you leak something to the press.
That's important.
The question for this country, and I believe this for five years, did the FBI director have information he should have given the FISA court that would have stopped this madness?
And the answer is yes, he did.
And the madness continued.
And why did it continue?
Because James Comey and a bunch of others wanted to destroy Donald Trump.
That, to me, needs to be looked at.
Okay, let's go back to the August meeting that you referred to where they uncovered.
In 2016, in 2016, August of 2016, let's keep our ears straight here.
Let's go back to that meeting.
And they had discovered a plot, a scheme, a political scheme of Hillary to try to tie Donald Trump to Russia.
They knew it was bogus.
They knew it was BS.
My understanding is even Barack Obama was told about this.
But wasn't Comey part of that meeting number one?
And number two, when you couple that with the declassified information from Tulsi Gabbard, and remember what we learned in that declassification?
We learned that career senior intelligence officials after the 2016 election, their assessment was no Russia collusion.
That then was taken to Barack Obama himself, according to Tulsi on this show, and then he ordered a new intelligence assessment to contradict the real intelligence assessment, thus, I would argue, sabotaging Donald Trump as he is beginning to take office of the presidency.
Correct?
Yeah, I think, yeah, absolutely correct.
But when I questioned him five years ago, I didn't believe a word he told me.
I don't believe it's possible for the director of the FBI not to know that the sub-source who gave the information about the Russian dossier recanted it and it never got up to him.
I don't believe it's possible that Comey did not know there was accusations against Clinton cooking this up because now we know that in August of 2016, three months before he applied for the warrant, they had a meeting about whether or not her campaign started this storyline to avoid exposure for the email scandal.
So I didn't know that five years ago because Tulsi declassified it.
But if I'd had then what I have now, I would ask him, let me refresh your memory.
Do you remember being in a meeting with the president, the CIA director, in August of 2016 in the White House with President Obama talking about the Clinton cooking this up, that their campaign may have started this for political reasons?
It's on the books.
I didn't know that then.
This stinks to high evidence.
Okay, so that's what Lindsey Graham has to say about it.
Nicely done, Lindsey Graham.
So he's lied.
I'm going to say every time he's talked about Russia Gate, he's lied about it.
He's lied to Congress about it.
He's lying now.
He entrapped General Flynn through that illegal wiretap they got on Donald Trump.
That's how they got rid of Michael Flynn.
They got rid of General Flynn, not because of what he did, but they got him for lying to investigators.
So what General Flynn did was when he was appointed security advisor to Donald Trump, he called Russia and said, hey, look, we're going to be in office pretty soon.
We don't want you to do anything retaliatory.
Wait till we get in office and we're going to work this out.
Don't pay attention to what's happening right now with the sanctions they're putting on you and all that stuff.
So that's what you would want somebody to do.
Right.
So they had that phone call.
So they knew exactly what Flynn had said to his Russian counterpart, saying, hey, let's ratchet it down.
Let's turn the heat down and we'll take care of this when we get in office because we've been elected.
And so they had the tape of that conversation.
So they went to, so James Comey then went, sent his investigators to interview Flynn.
His recollection of this conversation months and months ago didn't match up to exactly what he had said on the taped, the phone-tapped interview.
They knew, and so then they charged him with lying to the FBI.
That's what General Flynn got charged with.
Okay, just so you know, that's why he had to leave.
And that was all because they had an illegal wiretap.
Okay.
Also, Jimmy, Lindsey Graham said, this is about rule of law is dead.
Rule of law has been dead for some time.
And the sad thing is, because Lindsey Graham is such a scumbag and Sean Hannity is a scumbag, and they're doing this, I'm sure, on behalf of Israel or Ukraine, right and left.
It doesn't matter that they're doing this.
But rule of law died quite some time ago.
Yeah.
So here's Comey admitting to what he did to General Flynn.
Look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the sit room.
How did that happen?
I sent them.
Something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with.
So he sent two FBI agents to the White House to go get General Flynn.
How did that happen?
I sent them.
Everybody laughs.
In a more organized investigation, a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration, the protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for over the last two years.
And in both of those administrations, there was process.
And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
And I thought it's early enough.
Let's just send a couple guys over.
And so we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we're sending a couple guys over.
Hope you'll talk to them.
He said, sure.
Nobody else was there.
They interviewed him in a conference room at the White House Situation Room and he lied to them.
And that's what he's now pled guilty to.
So he didn't plead guilty to actually committing a crime with Russia or something.
They got him for lying to the FBI in an interview about his tapped phone call that he had with Russia.
So all he had to do was misremember something, and they charged him with that.
And then they threatened to prosecute his kid.
So then he's like, all right, I'll take a deal and get out of this because obviously you guys are coming for us.
And so that's what happened.
What did he think they were coming over there for?
I don't think he knew.
We didn't tell him.
Just said, we've got a couple sending over a couple of agents.
I want to ask you some questions.
I didn't have this conversation.
My deputy director did, but hope you got a few minutes.
You can sit down and talk to them.
And he said, sure.
And so that's how they got General Flynn.
They got him on lying to the FBI.
Not for the underlying actual crime.
They got him for a secondary crime, which was he lied about this phone call.
Not that the phone call was illegal, but that he didn't tell the FBI directly exactly what they knew they had.
So just so you know, so here's the problem.
Trump tweeted this out.
Now, a lot of people are speculating that Trump thought he was sending a DM to Pam Bondi.
I don't think that's what the case is, but I can see why people would think that.
He said this on Truth Social.
I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially, same old story as last time, all talk, no action, nothing is being done.
What about Comey and Adam Shifty Schiff, Letitia James?
They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.
Then we almost put a Democrat-supported U.S. attorney in Virginia with a really bad Republican past, a woke rhino, who was never going to do his job.
That's why the two of the worst Democratic senators pushed him so hard.
He even lied to the media and said he quit and that we had no case.
No, I fired him.
And there is a great case.
And many lawyers and legal pundits, many lawyers and legal pundits say so.
Lindsay is a good lawyer and likes you a lot.
We can't delay any longer.
It's killing our reputation and credibility.
They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing.
Justice must be served now, President Donald J. Trump.
So that this wasn't leaked.
This wasn't a leak, an accidental post.
This is like hilarious.
So some people say, oh, did he think he was sending a DM?
No.
Because what that will do is give James Comey ammunition to say this is a political prosecution.
And that's why Trump should not have done that.
If he was doing that on purpose, putting it out publicly, that's a bad idea.
So Lindsay Halligan, that's the person that Trump just appointed.
She was sworn in Monday as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, asked the grand jury to indict Comey just days after Trump publicly urged Attorney Pam Bondi to prosecute him and other perceived political adversaries, including Adam Schiff and Letitia James.
So that doesn't look good for Trump.
I mean, that's bad for the case because it makes it look like a straight-up political prosecution.
He should have waited for her to charge without doing that.
But he was doing that, I think, to signal to his base.
Because I don't think he's going to fire Pam Bondi.
Maybe he will, but it seems like Pam Bondi is insulated by Israel.
Trump's appeal came after Halligan's predecessor, Eric Siebert, resigned in response.
Trump now says he fired him in response to pressure from the president.
And that's why Trump said the Democratic senators pushed for that guy to bring the case against Comey and James.
Trump then nominated Halligan, a White House aide who had served as his personal lawyer and has no prosecutorial experience to replace Siebert and get things moving in his words.
So, by the way, when – I think the follow-up question, when Comey said I sent a couple of guys over, hey, can you define what a guy is?
I was like – It was his daughter, Maureen.
So Thursday's two-page indictment was signed only by Halligan.
It accuses Comey of lying to Congress on September 30th, 2020, the day he denied under oath that he was involved in leaking information from the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation.
The five-year statute of limitations for any charges out of that hearing was set to lapse next week.
So that's why they had to do it now, just so you know.
Thursday's two-page indictment was signed only by Halligan and accused Comey.
He denied under oath that he was.
So, okay, so you got that.
In recent weeks, career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office again examined the memos according to ABC News, and they were again unable to find evidence to prove that Comey likely committed either perjury or obstruction during his testimony.
Well, he did.
Chris Wallace was able to nail him for it when he interviewed him on his show, and we covered that already.
I can show you that video.
So I think this has beat the career prosecutors.
I think they're corrupted because it's clear as day that he lied to Congress.
It's clear as day he knew about this.
He has his own deputy director saying that he was told to do this.
He was told to leak information by Comey.
In a memo provided to Halligan, these prosecutors argued that charging Comey with lying to Congress would not only fail in securing a conviction, which requires proving the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, ABC reported, but it also falls short of the much lower probable cause standard for an indictment.
This ultimately, they ultimately told Halligan that seeking the charges would violate Department of Justice policy, raise serious ethical issues, and risk being rejected by the grand jury.
I don't, well, it didn't get rejected by the grand jury, A, so they were wrong about that.
And I think they're lying.
I think that's why that's what I think.
So then, so Trump tweeted this out.
Justice in America, one of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.
The former corrupt head of the FBI today was indicted by a grand jury of two felony counts for various illegal and lawful acts.
He has been so bad for our country for so long and now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our nation, make America great again.
So there you go.
So that's what's going on.
He definitely.
Oh boy, it sounds great.
Apply that to the Epstein thing, Trump.
I mean, what a joke everything is.
What a goddamn joke.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydork.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
Finally, this happened.
This is from the House Judiciary GOP.
Big win for freedom.
Google admits censorship under Biden promises to end bans of YouTube accounts of thousands of Americans censored for political speech.
This is real.
This is real.
So today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan, Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.
An opportunity.
That doesn't mean they're going to.
They're going to give them an opportunity.
What does that mean?
Google has admitted the following to the House Judiciary Committee that the Biden administration pressured Google to censor Americans and remove content that did not even violate YouTube's policies.
So that happened to me.
So I know if you know how the Twitter files came out, we got to see the internal emails from the government and the FBI and the Twitter.
If they came out for YouTube, you'd see my name on there and the White House saying you got to take down Jimmy Doerr because when they took down five of my videos, they took them down because I said the vaccine didn't stop transmission or contraction because I had figured it out that the places in the world that have the biggest outbreak of COVID also had the biggest uptake of the COVID vaccine.
And I'm like, those two things don't match.
And of course, I figured out that that didn't stop transmission.
And also because Dr. Robert Malone came on our show and told us that it doesn't.
You can't vaccinate your way out of this.
There's a thing called immune escape and all that stuff.
So I got really educated.
Also, the NIH said it.
It was on their own goddamn site.
And also at the same time, the FDA said that it didn't stop it on their website.
But that's not what you heard in the news or the New York Times or Rolling Stone Magazine or MSNBC or Fox or CNN.
They told you the exact opposite.
And Fauci, Fauci said that it stopped the vaccine.
So anyway, I'm one of these, right?
This is a defense for you when they did this to you.
So they did this to me and they throttle our show.
So our show is throttled.
We have 1.6 million subscribers.
You're supposed to get at minimum 10% of your subscriber base watching your videos.
We don't get that anymore.
We used to.
They've been throttling the hell out of us at YouTube.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
It is deceptive practices.
It is against the law.
It is against deceptive practices.
And I wonder if it has anything to do with the Council on Foreign Relations.
Huh?
What are you talking about, Jimmy?
I'm going to talk to you about that later.
So the Biden administration pressured Google to censor Americans and remove content that did not violate YouTube's policies.
The Biden administration's censorship pressure was unacceptable and wrong.
This is what Google is admitting.
Public debate should never come at the expense of relying on authorities.
Do you see that?
The company will never use third-party fact checkers.
Do you see that?
That's what Facebook did, third-party fact checkers all over the place.
And they were all funded by Bill Gates or someone like him that were associated with vaccines and big pharma.
And that's got my reputation ruined in Hollywood from all my friends who are on Facebook because Facebook would put a label on my videos about COVID and they would say this is misinformation.
And so they all thought I was lying for clicks.
My show was already wildly successful.
By the way, they'll welcome Kevin Spacey back.
I was already selling out theaters across the country and around the world.
I was already super successful.
I didn't need to lie about COVID to risk my channel being taken down to get everybody in Hollywood to hate me for telling the truth.
I wouldn't do that to make a little bit more money.
I was already wildly successful.
The company will never use a European censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech, including the removal of lawful content.
These major admissions come after Chairman Jordan's subpoena to Google and a year-long investigation into the company.
So here's Representative Jim Jordan.
Now, remember, the ironic thing is, is that Jim Jordan works for the same people.
Okay?
So don't expect anything to happen to Google or to YouTube because his donor base are the same people.
Okay.
So he says, even as Meta admitted the Biden-Harris censorship was wrong, others in big tech were reluctant to go on the record.
Now, Google is acknowledging for the first time that it too faced censorship pressure from the Biden White House, and that pressure was unacceptable and wrong.
So he, and he tweets out that part I just read to you.
So this is one of the doctors that were considered the misinformation dirty dozen.
Do you remember when they put that out?
Of course, because they were telling the truth.
And Sayer says, Google's letter to Congress contains bombshell admissions.
Biden officials conducted repeated and sustained outreach to pressure censorship.
Content did not violate policies, was targeted, and they created a political atmosphere to control platforms.
That was in a letter from Google to the committee that Jim Jordan.
So here's what people have been saying about it.
So Evan says, so when are you guys going to make sure the people responsible for this are arrested and prosecuted?
The answer is never because Jim Jordan and everybody on that committee works for the exact same people.
This is so they can fundraise and this is so they could run on this, but nothing's going to happen.
Okay.
Matt Orphila says, if nobody faces any consequences, it will be repeated.
Of course, it's being repeated right now.
As it always has been and shall forever be.
And forever be.
And our show is proof of that, how much we're being throttled.
You don't get throttled for lying.
You get throttled for telling the truth.
Mel Kay says, we will be compensated.
Will we be compensated for the five years we were banned?
Do we start over from zero?
This doesn't seem like a win for those of us who lost our businesses and our channels for telling the truth.
Maybe a class action case is on the way.
Jackson Hinkle says, will they unban those of us guilty of Ukraine misinformation?
Because that's what they got him on.
Of course, tell, again, if you lie all day long, they'll give you a job on MSNBC or CNN or Fox News.
You tell the truth, they will ban you.
Here's what Robert Malone, the guy who invented the mRNA vaccine technology and told the truth about COVID and the vaccines.
He says, so the fact that my reputation was allowed to be slandered, that I was not able to defend myself is all okay.
It is in the past a new day, except it isn't.
I can't ever get back the ability to defend myself during this period against those attacks.
And those attacks are still used daily by Google on their search engine.
So if you look up Robert Malone, you're going to have all that misinformation about him provided by Google.
And he wasn't allowed to defend himself during that time to tell the truth about it.
He says, by the way, I am still permanently banned from LinkedIn.
I'm not alone.
But not only was I censored, others were allowed carte blanche to defame me, including gang stalking, often paid for by the Foundation for the CDC.
And by the way, here's where that letter comes from.
So this is the Google admits censorship under Biden promises to end bans on YouTube.
So that's from thejudiciaryhouse.gov.
And I want to show you this.
Google admits YouTube censored discussion of COVID treatment for four years.
So if you had an alternative COVID treatment, Google censored it.
YouTube.
You weren't allowed to say ivermectin on YouTube.
You weren't allowed to say ivermectin could treat COVID.
And if you said, they would take your channel down.
And now we know that ivermectin is a miracle drug that one did, and it's not horsegoo because that was a lie by Dr. Fauci and MSNBC and the media that's bought by Big Pharma.
They wanted to scare you away from ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine so that you would take their vaccine.
YouTube's content moderation approach and commitment to free expression.
This is from the letter.
This is from the letter from Google.
This is Google's lawyer, Daniel Donovan, to the committee.
Right there, it says the company has transparently evolved its policy framework related to COVID-19 to ensure space for further debate and discussion on the platform.
Yeah, but you didn't for four years, right?
No, for so as of publicly announced in 2023, YouTube ended several COVID-19 content policies.
Nobody told me about that.
Nobody told me they did that at the end of 2023.
Did anybody tell you that?
You told people to get vaccinated a lot, Jimmy, this whole time.
And then here it is, see, as of December 2024, YouTube retired the remaining standalone COVID-19 policies and allowed discussion of various treatments for COVID-19.
So for since 2020, for four years, they denied people telling you about actual treatments for COVID.
Up until the end of 2024, you couldn't talk about ivermectin.
You couldn't talk about hydroxychloroquine.
I don't even know if you could talk about monoclonals.
Hell, you shouldn't talk about Tylenol.
Yeah.
So that, so, so, so they're, so for four years, so believe me, so censorship isn't just censoring what people say, it's also censoring what you get to hear.
So you don't get to hear the truth.
You don't get to hear alternative treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D or steroids or fluvoxamine.
You don't get to hear about any of those alternative treatments that doctors were prescribing to people and they had to do it in the dark of night because they would lose their medical license.
So that's what that says right there.
I know you can't see it.
So as of December 2020, YouTube retired the remaining standalone COVID-19.
And then at the bottom, it says YouTube continues to enable a diversity of perspectives and believes creators should be able to openly debate political ideas on their platform.
In June 2023, YouTube sunsetted a policy to allow for discussion of possible widespread fraud, errors, and glitches occurring in the 2020 and other parts of U.S. presidential elections.
I didn't know that.
Again, I have a liaison from YouTube.
Nobody told me this.
Nobody told me they sunsetted anything to do with COVID treatments.
And nobody told me they sunsetted that you couldn't, you couldn't even mention that some people were saying the 2020 election had fraud in it.
You couldn't even mention it.
They did it on the Hill.
They showed Donald Trump a video of him saying that the 2020 election was rigged.
They shut the hill down.
A billionaire-funded right-wing news organization.
They shut that down for a week because they played a video of Donald Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged.
And so now they've sunsetted.
What?
Why use that term?
Why say sunsetted?
The sun has finally set on this chapter of our lives.
So they denied people telling you about alternative treatments for four years, and they denied for over three years people telling you that there was fraud involved in the 2020 election.
But now you can say all that stuff.
Jimmy, I got to go take a lot of Tylenol despite RFK.
I hope.
No, I don't know.
Maybe that's bigger.
You can see it.
I don't know if you can see it, but there it is.
As of December 2024, YouTube retired the remaining standalone COVID-19 policies and allowed discussion of various treatments for COVID-19.
Nobody told me.
Here's what Triple Rainbow says.
Does this mean that they violated the Communications Decency Act?
The point is that platforms aren't liable for what users post as long as they aren't acting like publishers or editors.
They can't claim that if they've been tailoring.
So they're having it both ways.
What he's saying here is that because of Section 230, that the social media platforms have a carve-out, meaning that so if they post, if something gets posted on Twitter or Facebook or anywhere, that you can't sue the platform.
You can't sue, just like you can't sue a bookstore for stuff that's in a book.
You have to sue the publisher of that book, right?
So they're saying that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, they're basically like bookstores.
So you can't sue the bookstore.
You have to sue the public.
So now what he is saying is that, wait a minute, they're acting like the publisher because they're going in and curating information.
They're censoring certain people and they're letting certain things get through.
So they are acting like a publisher, which then violates the Communications Decency Act.
They can't claim that if they've been tailoring results.
Now they're liable for what's shown.
So Google, Jimmy.
It's been going on for many years because much the same reason Israel doesn't have a constitution.
Our scumbag Intel people like it that way.
They like there not being a firm definition or rule.
So they can do whatever they want when they want to do it.
That's why a lot of things work that way.
That's why they don't have to tell you why you're being throttled.
They get to shadow ban you.
You don't have to know your charges ever.
They want to keep it murky and corporate so that it never, and if it goes to court, you try to kill it before it gets there.
And here is the Supreme Court.
So somebody already tried to sue Joe Biden's administration over this.
Yeah.
This is from NBC News, and this is from June 26, 2024.
Supreme Court tosses out the claim that Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content.
Well, Google's admitting they did it now.
They're admitting they did it.
We already had Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan admitting that he was pressured to remove factual content.
And now we have Google admitting it.
But a year ago, the Supreme Court tossed this case, and here's what they said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out claims that Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove contentious content.
So that's what you think.
Oh, well, there's nothing to it.
Here's why they threw it out.
You want to hear why they threw it out?
The court found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
Not that they were fraudulent or wrong, that they didn't have standing to sue.
In part because they had failed to adequately allege that the content moderation at issue was a result of government actions.
I failed to adequately allege?
I've never even heard of the concept system.
I've never heard of that concept, but they said they didn't have standing.
Not that what they were saying was false or inaccurate or that Biden didn't do that or that the social media didn't act on the pressure from the government.
They're saying that the people who are saying that didn't have standing to sue.
So you don't even get to come to court and make a case because you don't have standing.
Well, because they hadn't alleged enough adequately.
That's what the standing comes from.
Adequate allegations?
So again, we were censored.
We're still throttled by YouTube.
This is all illegal.
And I appreciate Jim Jordan and the committee getting them to admit this.
But because Jim Jordan works for the same people that the Democrats work for and the same people that Google, they work for, nothing's going to happen.
Nothing will happen, except they had to say this letter.
Well, the next time it'll be the exact same process because you live in a big wheel.
That's right.
And no one will be punished, but there'll be a C-SPAN play about it.
And then we'll yell about it on here.
So if you want to hear me tell jokes about this, come see me in Hermosa Beach on October 2nd, Sacramento, and then San Francisco and then Sydney, Australia, Melbourne, Brisbane, go to jimmydoor.com for a link for tickets.
I have one more thing I want to show you on this.
So this is the head of Rumble, Chris Pavlovsky.
Did Google just admit that they rigged the 2020 elections?
Yes, that's basically what they're saying.
Dr. Epstein, remember Epstein?
Yeah, remember?
He said that.
What's the consequences for this?
The large channel bans for political speech and elections were in October 2020.
So they're rigging the 2020 election.
That's according to Chris Pavlowski, the head of Rumble.
And he makes a damn good point.
That's a great point.
That actually it was Google who was rigging the 2020 elections.
We had a professor come on and make his case that they were also, they were doing that, of course.
They get to rank what comes up when you Google search.
And they made his life very tense for telling people, too, from how high strong he was.
So Sean Davis says, Google owes us all damages for what their censorship cost us.
A quick we're sorry now that they're in trouble isn't going to cut it.
Their censorship cost us millions.
He's from the Federalist.
What if they just stop censoring?
Because they're not doing that either.
Right.
The CEO of Rumble says Google rigged the 2020 election.
That's the news story here.
Our guest is here.
John Kiriako is a former CIA analyst, case officer, senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former counterterrorism consultant.
He was the first to reveal that the CIA waterboarded detainees and to label waterboarding as torture.
He subsequently became the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program.
Of course.
Of course, the person who goes to jail is the person who took it, except that he was prosecuted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for being a whistleblower, whereas none of the individuals who actually engaged in the actual torture were prosecuted.
Welcome back to the show, John Kiriako.
Good to see you in person.
Good to see you.
John, I wanted to show you, get your reaction to this.
Now, you know this.
This is the U.S. embassy in Syria tweeted this out.
We remain committed to bringing leading AQS figures in HTS to justice, meaning Al-Qaeda.
That's basically Al-Qaeda.
I know where he is, John.
Can you pass it along?
You hit my money.
Yeah.
I think he's sitting with David Petraeus in New York.
Well, so here he is.
Here he is with our Secretary of State.
So they had a $10 million reward on him, and now here he is.
And uh-oh, look out.
Here comes a lady showing her legs.
That's against you.
He might have to kill her.
Anyway, so there he is.
So this literally, this guy, he takes off the terrorism garb, shaves his beard, and puts on a Brooks Brothers suit.
And now he's meeting with the Secretary of State in the United States.
This is Al-Qaeda leader in Syria.
And here he is meeting with the former general and head of the CIA, former head of the CIA.
And this is what the CIA had said.
We're nationalists, certainly.
Yes, a degree of political Islam.
But frankly, what you have done since toppling the Bajar al-Assad regime has validated what it is that I assessed it.
And I was criticized, by the way, quite considerably.
I just want to tell you, really, on behalf of all the people who are here, that this conversation has truly filled me with enormous hope.
It has been very, very heartening and illuminating.
Your vision is powerful and clear.
Your demeanor itself is very impressive as well.
And so, again, on behalf of all here and all those that are watching virtually and so forth, we thank you for sharing your vision today.
We wish you strength and wisdom in the difficult work ahead.
We obviously hope for your success, inshallah, because at the end of the day, your success is our success.
Thank you very much.
So he's talking to the head of now, that's the head.
Now, I know people who joined the military to go fight that guy, to go kill that guy, because they attacked us on 9-11.
And now here's what's that?
John, is it so?
I've been told a bunch of times, but I don't know if it's true.
It sounds so, I mean, this is already crazy.
But was that guy in the Daniel Pearl video standing behind Daniel Pearl?
That's what they say about him.
You know, a lot of work went into figuring out who was in the room in that Daniel Pearl video.
Just as background, I saw Daniel Pearl the day he died.
Oh, no kidding.
I happened to be working in the American Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.
I had a friend, Tommy McHale, who was a Port Authority of New York, New Jersey detective on loan to the FBI in Islamabad.
We hit it off.
And he calls me one day and he said, hey, there's a Wall Street Journal reporter down here, Daniel Pearl.
He wants to check in because he's going to go to a meeting later that's a high-threat meeting.
I said, yeah, I'll talk to him.
So we went downstairs.
I went downstairs.
Tommy was already downstairs.
We met with Daniel Pearl.
And I said, so who are you going to meet with?
And he said, oh, it was, I forget, JC Muhammad or Ansar Allah.
I forget.
It was one of these groups.
And I said, I remember looking at Tommy and saying, that is a very bad idea.
And he said, no, I've been working on this for six months.
We've been dialoguing for six months.
They finally agreed to see me.
I said, I don't think you appreciate just how dangerous it is here.
And he said, no, I'm doing it.
I'm doing it.
And then they found his head on one side of town.
They found his torso on the other side of town.
What did you think was going to happen?
But anyway, the Pakistanis arrested someone who confessed to being the guy to actually saw Daniel Pearl's head off.
But then, after waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad 187 times, he confessed to killing Daniel Pearl and sawing his head off.
In fact, it was KSM who said, if you look at the video, you see how hairy the arm is.
Look at my arm, how hairy it is.
It's like, yeah, you have a hairy arm, but there's already a guy that's been sentenced to a thousand years in prison for confessing to the Daniel Pearl killing.
Sure, it could have been this guy, Jolani.
We have no idea.
We don't know if we can trust the Pakistanis.
Did they just arrest this guy because he was a pain in their ass and they knew that the Americans would be happy that somebody was arrested?
I think that was probably the case.
This guy, Jolani, don't forget, not only was a senior member of al-Qaeda, he was the deputy founder of ISIS.
Why?
Because Al-Qaeda wasn't radical enough.
And then all of a sudden, no, no, no, we're all fast friends.
Now we're best friends.
Best friends.
If you got your dick blown off at war and then saw that, I mean, Intel community.
This is my question.
Did you anticipate seeing something like this?
Never.
Never.
So what first got me on the bad algorithm on YouTube was that I was debunking the CIA narrative or the establishment State Department narrative about the Syrian war.
Yes.
And I was showing that these gases.
It's easy to attack.
And so I was telling people that just like Tulsi was, if you get rid of Assad, who's going to take over?
It's going to be El Nusra, Al-Qaeda, ISIS.
That's who's going to take over the country.
You guys realize this.
And people called me a conspiracy theorist.
If you Google me, it's still, I'm a conspiracy theorist about Syria, even though everything I said came true.
No, I'm with you 100% on Syria.
I said on my own radio show, which, of course, has been canceled thanks to sanctions by the Biden administration.
I said, whether you like his politics or not, Bashar al-Assad is the only thing standing between the Christian community in Syria and complete annihilation.
The Washington Post then had somebody listening to the show, and they said that I was a threat to our democracy because I was raising these issues.
Yeah, you're a threat to the military-industrial complex.
And Sasha Baron Cohen would have thrown you out of the room for that kind of talk.
That's right.
You remember that?
Last time I was on, we talked about that.
So let me talk about.
Let me just play one more.
Please join again in welcoming President Ahmed Al-Shara to the stage.
As you know, Mr. President, I spent over 37 years in the U.S. Army, and I was a soldier, not a diplomat.
So I hope you'll forgive me if I speak with the directness of the old soldier that I am as I get the first question out of the way.
Because the fact is that we were on different sides when I was commanding the surge in Iraq.
Yeah, he was on the side of the guys who blew up the Twin Towers, according to you.
So now we're friends with them.
So now we're supposed to.
So why do we still have the authorization for the use of military force given to the president to go fight this guy if this guy's now our friend?
Why are they trying to reboot ISIS?
Can't we have our best friend in Syria call up ISIS and tell him to knock it off?
Yeah, seriously.
So my theory is, and I want to run it past you, is that, and I've thought this for a long time, is that ISIS and Al-Qaeda, well, Al-Qaeda was obviously an invention of the United States in some way.
Hillary Clinton even talked about that, how weSIS was as well.
And ISIS, I think, is just the key is they never attack Israel.
So ISIS, when someone gets injured, Israeli doctors take care of ISIS, and they say it's because of God or something.
The most moral army in the world.
And they never attack.
They never attack inside Israel.
Isn't that wild?
So that's I'm 1,000% sure that the United States and the Mossad invented ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
And the reason why is that we can now use them as an excuse to go bomb and overturn any country we want after the after 9-11.
We can, because the AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force.
So you're going to have to declare war.
The president can just unilaterally, which is what we've been doing in Syria and Libya and what we did in Yemen.
And we're just doing it all over the place.
Somalia.
Somalia.
And the second one is, so we get to use them as an excuse to go do that.
And I forget what the second one is.
God damn it.
But here it is.
He's admitting that we used to be on opposite sides, but now we're on the same side.
When did Al-Qaeda stop being head choppers?
Well, that's a good question.
And there's never been any explanation by the U.S. government as to why and even when the policy changed.
You know, Donald Trump just said apparently spontaneously one day, we're lifting sanctions on Syria.
Why?
You just saved a guy who co-founded ISIS, a guy who was the head of al-Qaeda, then called the Nusra Front in Syria.
Why?
What necessitated this change in policy?
This is the guy that dedicated his life to murdering Americans.
Yes.
What do you tell all the military people or the families of military people who were killed in this fight?
Oh, I know.
It was for nothing.
I know.
Remember, Ice T wrote Cop Killer and it was really controversial, but later he became a beloved law and order cop on TV.
That's a good point.
They're all actors.
They're all actors.
Yeah.
So, yeah, so they, oh, so the second reason is they invented ISIS and Al-Qaeda to do their dirty works, like in our dirty war in Syria.
So we funded, the CIA funded Al-Qaeda and ISIS and El Nusra.
And often, and then the Pentagon would fund other groups of terrorists inside to get rid of Assad.
And a lot of times, or sometimes, often enough that it got reported in the Washington Post that the CIA-backed terrorists would be fighting the Pentagon-backed terrorists, and they would fight each other.
So that happened.
That's not on the front page, obviously.
That's on page 78 of the Washington Post, but it's there.
I wonder if they do that here, too.
I wonder if they do that here.
Yeah, of course they do.
They're radicalizing furries here.
Go ahead.
Just to show you how ridiculous this is, this kind of overall policy.
One of the things that I did when I was stationed in Pakistan, one of the things that everybody does when they're stationed in Pakistan is there's a reward program out there for Stinger missiles.
Starting in 1986, we provided Stinger missiles to Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fire at Soviet aircraft, mostly helicopters.
It changed the course of the war.
The Russians, the Soviets ended up pulling out.
But there are hundreds of Stinger missiles still out there.
They're shoulder-fired.
So we've got this rewards program where if you bring a Stinger missile into the embassy, we'll give you $100,000 in cash.
So every once in a while, I'd get a call from the front gate.
There's a guy here.
He's got a missile in the bed of his pickup truck, and he says it's a Stinger.
So I come out and I look at the missile, and they all have these little plaques on them with serial number.
So I tell the guy, hold on, have a cup of coffee.
I'm going to make a call and I'll get back to you.
So I put it in a quick cable.
I send it to headquarters.
This is the number.
They say, yep, it's one of ours.
I go to the money room.
I pull out $100,000.
I go down front.
Here's your money.
I take my missile and that's one more off the street.
Now, was that really a smart thing to do?
To just turn over Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen, knowing that they have a shelf life of a good 40 years and they can be used against us.
Yeah, no, that was not a good thing.
They don't go bad.
No, they don't go bad.
It's like the MREs.
Totally seriously, we're still eating MREs that have manufactured dates from the Vietnam War.
Well, and they're still just as delicious.
They're still delicious.
Listen, the ham and eggs go wrong.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He can be found at mikemcray.com.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be and I'll keep being me.
