Ep. 978 – Tech to America: Shut Up dissects Big Tech’s censorship of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story—$6M Burisma payments, CEFC China Energy deals, and alleged influence peddling—while platforms like Twitter and Facebook suppressed coverage, citing "misinformation" despite unproven claims. The host frames it as election interference, contrasting it with left-wing calls for stricter speech laws (e.g., Emily Baslon’s NYT op-ed) and Kamala Harris’s climate skepticism smear. Senator Ted Cruz’s Twitter subpoena and Josh Hawley’s "rigged elections" accusation amplify the narrative of corporate-media collusion, while Trump’s anti-globalist rhetoric is positioned as a bulwark against elite suppression, warning free speech now hinges on resisting tech and government overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
And while the media tries to distract us by gabbling about whether Trump is wearing a mask or by covering up allegations that Joe Biden is as corrupt as Ben Guezara in Roadhouse before Patrick Swayze kicked him in the face as he so very richly deserved, let's get serious and take a look at the issues.
What do the candidates believe and how will those beliefs translate into policy?
I know, I don't care either, but let's see if we can find out anyway.
Donald Trump believes in low taxes and deregulation.
Joe Biden believes he's in Ohio, when in fact he's outside a warehouse in Sheboygan, wondering when the stagecoach will arrive to take him to California.
Donald Trump believes in putting America first.
Joe Biden believes there's a stain on his basement wall that bears a remarkable resemblance to either Elmer Fudd or possibly Antarctica.
Donald Trump believes the news media is corrupt and dishonest.
Joe Biden believes the news media is those fuzzy shapes at the other end of the gym who keep asking him to pass judgment on the soul of Donald Trump, whoever that is.
Donald Trump says China is responsible for spreading the coronavirus and should be punished.
Joe Biden says, come on, man, here's the deal, and then hopes no one will ask him where China is on a map or what China is or where he is or who he is.
Donald Trump wants to know if Americans are going to let a virus dominate their lives.
Joe Biden wants to know if it's safe to come out yet.
Donald Trump looks forward to building a space force and taking America to Mars and beyond.
Joe Biden looks forward to building the new Lego Super Mario set and hopes he can finish before Jill makes him go out and talk to those fuzzy shapes in the gym again.
Donald Trump believes if Joe Biden is elected, Kamala Harris will be the president.
Now so does Joe Biden.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-doo.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is it bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray.
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, the vast right-wing conspiracy known as Clavinon continues.
If you want to follow us, you've got to follow us.
Go subscribe on YouTube, the Andrew Clavin channel, my specific channel, not on Daily Wire.
You want my content?
It's going to be coming over Andrew Clavin, not because I'm leaving the Daily Wire, but just because the Daily Wire is embarrassed to have me on their team.
But go ahead, subscribe, press the bell.
It'll alert you when there's new content.
And leave a comment because if your comment is idiotic enough, it'll fit right in with our content and we'll read it on the show.
Blocking URL Sharing: Damage Control00:03:20
Here's one from Ricky Pastile talking about the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in the Senate.
He says these Democrat senators should be investigated to see if they have any ties to America.
And no, that's ridiculous.
They don't have any of those ties.
Yesterday was a remarkable day and a dangerous day in the history of our country.
The not very grand poo-bahs at Facebook and Twitter decided to censor a legitimate news story because they feared it would hurt Joe Biden, the candidate they hope will win the election.
And that censorship is still going on today.
The story is in the New York Post, which is, I think, the longest running published paper in America.
It was founded by Alexander Hamilton.
And that was the story I told you about yesterday, about emails from a laptop which seemed to indicate that then Vice President Biden was in touch with an advisor to Burisma, the corrupt energy company who gave his son Hunter a high-paying sinecure.
Now, the allegations may turn out to be true and they may turn out to be false.
But as I told you yesterday, Andy Stone, the content manager at Facebook, announced he would limit the spread of the story, but would still have his left-wing fact-checkers attack it.
There's no surprise there.
Stone has spent most of his life working for Democrat candidates and organizations.
On Twitter, where the hard left bias has been exposed by Project Veritas, they did everything they could to stop the story from being tweeted, including a lockdown on the account of the White House press secretary, Keely McInenney, and members of Congress and the Post itself.
According to Media Research Center, Facebook and Twitter have given over 90% of their political contributions to Democrats this election cycle, 90%.
So we know where they stand and why they're doing this.
Look, they gave no plausible reason for doing what they're doing.
The story, again, may turn out to be untrue.
It's got some red flags.
I'll talk about those.
But its provenance is still better than all those stories about Trump's collusion with Russia.
And it's more solidly based than the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.
And no one did anything to stop the spread of those.
Rather, the opposite.
Jack Dorsey at Twitter put out a tweet saying our communication around our actions on the New York Post article was not great and blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context to why we're blocking is unacceptable.
That's not the point at all.
Facebook and Twitter's actions represent pure, pure election tampering for and by the left, and it's far worse than anything Vladimir Putin could pull off.
And beyond the damage done to our electoral process, which is considerable, is the damage done to our First Amendment culture.
That's the deep-seated and widespread belief in free speech that gives life to the words in the Bill of Rights.
They're just words on paper.
They will not stand unless we, all of us, accept free speech as a basic, basic right.
Now, this attempt to censor this story seems to have blown up in the tech titans' faces because the story has gotten much bigger because of the censorship.
But even so, the damage to the culture of free speech is done and it's still being done.
And the Twitter and Facebook people and the Democrats who support them should pause and think whether it's worth losing free speech forever just to secure a temporary political victory.
Then after they've paused and after they thought they should be tarred and feathered, their company should be destroyed, the building should be burned down, and the ground on which they stood should be covered with salt to make sure nothing like it ever grows there again.
Censorship Crisis Masks00:14:33
I'm absolutely serious about this.
I've been on this hobby horse for a while, that your right to free speech is a God-given right.
It's not given to you by the First Amendment.
It is protected by the First Amendment.
It is yours by natural law.
It is yours because your creator instilled in you a unique view of the human condition and a unique experience of living.
And you have the right to express that through your words and through your beliefs.
You should educate yourself.
You should find out the truth before you do that.
But still, you have the right to do it at all times and everywhere as long as you are not causing danger and harm immediately to other people.
Obviously, there are exceptions to everything, but still, that right really needs to be protected.
As you know, this is a tough time for small businesses.
They've taken a big hit, and that includes the Daily Wire.
The only difference with the Daily Wire is we have the magic of the God-King who has steered us through this crisis brilliantly.
I got to say, I know you look at him, you think, that guy is brilliant, but he has done a terrific job.
So I'm excited to tell you that next Wednesday, the God-King himself, Jeremy Boring, is going to be presenting alongside a team of world-renowned business leaders at Expert Ownership Live, a two-day virtual conference about leading through crisis.
The conference features a lineup of speakers like leadership author John Maxwell, the founders of Duck Commander and Otterbox, the Benham brothers, and many others who can relate to what entrepreneurs and leaders are going through right now.
They'll share stories about their own businesses and startup journeys, the tough times that come with any company, and how they were able to come out even stronger on the other side.
So visit expertownershiplive.com slash Claven to register for $197 and buy a second ticket for a friend at 50% off.
Get one 50% off at expertownershiplive.com slash Claven.
These business leaders are wise enough that they can teach you how you spell Claven.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
I want to make it clear again that the big story today is the censorship.
I'm going to talk about the Joe Biden story, but the censorship should be on the front page of every paper.
I don't expect it on the New York Times.
The New York Times is now just basically a left-wing rag.
It's terrible.
But the Wall Street Journal, this story was buried in a editorial on the editorial page, and it should be a front-page story.
This is big tech.
Ted Cruz has now announced that he is going to subpoena the big tech guys and talk to them.
Here he is, cut 15.
This is election interference, and we are 19 days out from an election.
It has no precedent in the history of democracy.
The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to know what the hell is going on.
Chairman Lindsey Graham and I have discussed this at length, and the committee today will be noticing a markup on Tuesday to issue a subpoena to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter,
to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Friday to come before this committee and the American people and explain why Twitter is abusing their corporate power to silence the press and to cover up allegations of corruption.
This is really important.
And again, it's more important so far, so far than the Biden story, because the Biden story needs to be checked.
And we'll talk about that.
But this is the big story.
And it should be on the cover of every paper, every news outlet that cares about free speech.
Because underneath this, underneath this is a genuine threat, a philosophical threat to free speech.
You know, Barry Weiss, the woman who was forced out of the New York Times for not having, for having wrongthink, essentially, for not being on board with every right-wing idea, a left-wing idea, she has an excellent piece in tablet.
And she says this, talking about something else, but she says, the new creed, the premise of the new creed goes something like this.
We are in a war in which the forces of justice and progress are arrayed against the forces of backwardness and oppression.
And in a war, the normal rules of the game, due process, political compromise, the presumption of innocence, free speech, even reason itself must be suspended.
Indeed, those rules themselves were corrupt to begin with, designed as they were by dead white males in order to uphold their own power.
This attack on free speech is deep and philosophical, and it goes through the left.
And I'll talk about that first.
There is a story, a big piece in the Times Sunday magazine.
And this is a personal, I'm going to, this gets a little personal here, but I'll explain why in a minute.
This is by Emily Baslan, one of their legal writers, very smart lady.
It's called The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation.
Now, by the way, it's always been an age of disinformation.
Politics has always been people slinging lies at each other and the lies going around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
That has always been the case.
The only thing is, of course, there's so much more out there now, and that's going through the internet.
But the other thing about that is that has given conservatives, people who believe in the Constitution, that's how I define conservatives, people who believe that the Constitution is the law of the land and hasn't been replaced by any woke realization in the hearts and minds of leftists.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
That's what conservatives believe.
The internet has given conservatives a new voice in the same way the printing press gave new voices to people who disagreed with the Catholic Church.
It's exactly the same.
This is a new independent voice that is getting out there.
And yes, there's a lot of disinformation, but there was always a lot of disinformation.
Now, Emily's piece begins by talking about this bogus article I told you about by Rosa Brooks, right?
This is the one, Rosa, this was in the Washington Post.
I read it to you.
It was where she gamed out.
She's a law professor at Georgetown University.
She gamed out all the different things that would happen if Biden won or if Donald Trump won.
And she wrote this in the Washington Post.
With the exception of the Big Biden win scenario, each of our exercise reached the brink of catastrophe with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets, and a constitutional impasse.
So in other words, nice country you've got here.
Shame if anything would happen to it.
If Joe Biden doesn't win big, everything falls apart.
Big fire is a threat.
An incredibly stupid piece.
Emily Baslon sees it differently.
She thought it was a wonderful, wonderful thing that happened.
She writes, this summer, a bipartisan group of about 100 academics, journalists, pollsters, former government officials, and former campaign staff members convened for an initiative called the Transition Integrity Project.
By video conference, they met to game out hypothetical threats to the November election and a peaceful transfer of power if the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, were to win, dividing into Team Trump and Team Biden.
The group ran various scenarios.
All right.
So she sees it as a bipartisan thing.
Now, in fact, at National Review, they pointed out that the Trump officials were being played by people who were Republicans, like who?
Michael Steele and Bill Crystal.
Never Trumpers, guys who hate Donald Trump.
It's not a bipartisan thing.
It was a completely bogus left-wing event.
All right.
But she sees it as fine.
She sees it as a bipartisan, wonderful idea.
And by the way, it's gaming out the future, right?
They have no idea what's going to happen, but this was their idea.
Now, Michael Anton reacted to this.
And Emily Baslon describes it this way.
The next day, Michael Anton, a former national security advisor to Trump, published an article about the Transition Integrity Project called the Coming Coup.
Democrats, he said, were laying the groundwork for revolution.
Anton wrote without evidence in The American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute.
He warned that ballots harvested lawfully or not could tip close states to Biden.
This then went viral, and this is why Emily Baslon is saying the dangerous to the country.
Now, let me just pause here to tell you why this is personal.
Emily Baslon is my dearly beloved cousin.
She was a child in my house.
I would visit her house.
I love her.
I love her sisters.
I love their family, even though I know members of their family have a problem with me and my opinions, but that's fine.
I still love them.
I love her.
I respect her.
The American Mind is where my son, Spencer, no relation, works, right?
He is one of the people editing content at the American Mind and at Claremont.
So what we've got here is my beloved cousin telling my beloved son to shut up, right?
They're not having, this is a Thanksgiving argument for me, okay?
They're sitting around at the table, but they're not saying, they're not saying, oh, Emily's not saying, oh, the Integrity Project was right and Michael Anton was wrong.
And Spencer's saying, oh, no, Michael Anton has a point and the Integrity Project was bogus.
No, that's not what they're saying.
What Spencer is saying is he is saying Michael Anton has a right to speak and Emily Baslon is saying, no, he doesn't.
That's not the same argument.
In an argument, one person says you're wrong, the other person says you're wrong, and then they look for the facts and they fight it out.
And that's how the third party, us, the observer, gets to the truth.
But one side is saying this is dangerous.
It's not dangerous for this idiot Rosa Brooks to tell us that if Joe Biden doesn't win big, there's going to be violence.
That's not dangerous to Emily, but it's dangerous that Michael Anton says, wait a minute, you're setting up a coup and that spreads around.
Let me read more of Emily's article.
The United States hurts my heart, by the way.
I got to tell you, it hurts my heart to have these two people I love on different sides of the fence, but not, it doesn't bother me that they disagree.
It has never bothered me that people in my family or in my country disagree.
It bothers me that one side wants to shut down the other.
And it's only one side.
It is only one side.
It is only the left that wants to end free speech, and I'll show you why in just a minute.
All right.
Emily Baslon says the United States is in the middle of a catastrophic public health crisis caused by the spread of the coronavirus, but it is also in the midst of an information crisis caused by the spread of viral disinformation, defined as falsehoods aimed at achieving a political goal.
It's a crisis that anyone should disagree.
Misinformation, she says, refers more generally to falsehoods.
Seven months into the pandemic in America, with Trump leading the way, coronavirus skeptics continue to mock masks and incorrectly equate the virus with the flu.
Now, this is not science.
What she is saying, she thinks what she's saying is absolutely truth.
Let me go back.
I was reading you Matt Ridley's article about what we have learned from science, and Matt really supports wearing masks as I do indoors in close contact.
He says data can be trustworthy, but inadequate.
Evidence-based medicine teaches doctors to fully trust only science based on the gold standard of randomized controlled trials.
But there have been no randomized controlled trials on the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases.
One is now underway in Denmark.
In the West, unlike in Asia, there were months of disagreement this year about the value of masks, culminating in the somewhat desperate attempt of mask foes that people might behave too complacently when wearing them.
I don't think that's a desperate argument, but still, the scientific consensus is that the evidence is good enough and the inconvenience small enough, and we need not wait for absolute certainty before advising people to wear masks.
Nobody, by the way, I don't think anybody objects to people advising you to wear masks.
They object to being forced to wear masks.
They object to mandates.
So it's not quite science that's masks.
They're saying it makes sense.
And I, again, I agree with this, but I don't think anyone should be silenced for saying this.
Obviously, they shouldn't be silenced because if they're right, and they may be right on another level, they may be right that the mandate itself is damaging to the polity.
The mandate may be damaging to our sense that we make decisions about our health on our own.
We have the right to smoke cigarettes.
We have the right to drink.
We have the right to do a lot of things that health Nazis may not like, but we have the right to do them.
And we may, indeed, it's an argument to be made that we have this certain right to not wear masks in situations where they won't may not do any harm.
But this is the idea, this settled science argument, is one of the reasons the left feels has convinced itself that it has the right to silence other people.
Let me just play an exchange that happened yesterday between Kamala Harris, whose people now, one of whose people now has got the virus herself, and Amy Coney Barrett, right?
Just listen to this exchange.
And one of the things you'll note about this is Kamala Harris is supposed to be this great DA.
She's not that good at cross-examination, but she tries to set up the person, spring this brilliant trap.
Listen to this.
Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious?
I think, yes, I do accept that COVID-19 is infectious.
That's something of which I feel like we could say you take judicial notice of.
It's an obvious fact, yes.
Do you accept that smoking causes cancer?
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but the notice that smoking causes.
The question is what it is.
You can answer it if you believe.
Senator Harris, yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer.
And do you believe that climate change is happening and it's threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?
Senator, again, I was wondering where you were going with that.
You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial, like whether COVID-19 is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer, and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion on me that is a very contentious matter, opinion from me, that is on a very contentious matter of public debate.
And I will not do that.
I just want to point out the mindset, right?
One of these things is not like the other, right?
The coronavirus is infectious.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
Smoking does cause cancer.
The science on that is really, really sound.
But one of these things is not like the other because the climate change argument is an argument made from computer models about what will happen in the future.
A computer model, and Matt Ridley says this in his article too, is a guess.
It's a guess made with the help of a tool called a computer that computes numbers that you put in to the computer.
It is completely a guess that has not been tested yet.
It's not settled science.
And the fact that Kamala Harris, the candidate for vice president to be president, no doubt, the fact that she can't tell the difference is one of the problems on the left because they see great benefit to be had from a climate crisis, great strides towards socialism.
And so that has become fact in their mind.
Office Politics and Stamps00:16:43
And anybody who says anything against it is a denier like the Holocaust deniers who they also think they should be able to censor.
And I don't.
I bet the Holocaust deniers, again, are denying something that happened for certain in the past.
Climate deniers are saying, no, your guess is wrong.
Very, very different.
Now, as you know, it's a federal law that you're not allowed to play Christmas music until after Santa Claus reaches Times Square at the Macy's Parade.
However, the holidays are coming.
You are going to be mailing a lot of stuff.
And that means the post office is going to be busy.
You don't want to have to go down there and wait online.
You want the post office in your computer.
With stamps.com, anything you can do at the post office, you can do with just a few clicks.
Plus, stamps.com saves you money with deep discounts that you can't even get at the post office.
And stamps.com brings the services of the U.S. Postal Service and UPS right to your computer.
Stamps.com is a must-have for any business, whether a small office sending out invoices, an online seller fulfilling orders during this record-setting holiday season, or even a giant warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, or just a guy who wants to send a letter, do it through your computer, not at the post office.
Don't spend a minute of your holiday season at the post office this year.
Sign up for stamps.com.
There's no risk.
With my promo code Clavin, you get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale, no long-term commitments or contracts.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in clavin, stamps.com, enter clavin, stamps.com.
Never go to the post office again if, but only if.
You know how to spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Sing, sing.
Damn it.
I just make it look this easy.
All right, let's go back to this Emily Basilon article, the conspiracy theories, she says, the lies, the distortions, the overwhelming amount of information, the anger encoded in it.
It's always, we're angry.
They're not angry.
They just want to shut us down.
That's all.
These all serve to create chaos and confusion and make people, even nonpartisans, exhausted, skeptical, and cynical about politics.
The spewing of falsehoods isn't meant to win any battles of ideas.
Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought by causing us to simply give up.
And the problem isn't just the internet.
A working paper from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard released early this month found that effective disinformation campaigns are often an elite-driven mass media-led process in which social media played only a secondary and supportive role.
Trump's election, how Trump became in charge of mass media, I don't know, since they all hate him.
Trump's election put him in the position to operate directly through Fox News and other conservative media outlets like Rush Limbaugh's talk radio show, which have come to function in effect as a party press.
The Harvard researchers found, as opposed, again, it's the inability to see.
It's the inability to see both sides.
It is so amazing here.
This is the Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Daily Wire, I presume, serve as a party press, but not CNN, not ABC, where George Sephanopoulos worked, the old Clinton hack, and where they silenced the Jeffrey Epstein story while Hillary Clinton was running.
That's not a party press.
It's only the people who are open about their bias.
On Fox News, Sean Hannity tells you he's a right-winger Daily Wire.
I tell you, I'm a conservative.
These are all things.
This is why I so rarely pick on MSNBC.
They tell you we are a left-wing outlet.
I'm fine with that.
I'm fine with there being a left-wing outlet.
What bothers me is the New York Times with their headline, all the news that's fit to print, running garbage every single day.
That's what bothers me.
It bothers me that they took a once great paper with a slight liberal bias and turned it into a left-wing, really a communist supporting rag.
The thing is, as always, with these questions, it's not who's right, it's not who's wrong, it's who decides.
And what's very clear from Emily's article and from Kamala Harris's questions is these people are not capable of deciding.
There's only two kinds of speech.
There's free speech and there's speech determined by the people in power, right?
Because if speech is shut down and it doesn't matter whether the people in power have the votes or not, they have no right to do it.
Let me end with this conclusion from the Emily Basilon piece.
Scholars argue something that may seem unsettling to Americans, those silly Americans.
The scholars argue that perhaps our way of thinking about free speech is not the best way.
At the very least, we should understand that it isn't the only way.
Other democracies in Europe and elsewhere have taken a different approach.
Despite more regulations on speech, these countries remain democratic.
In fact, they have created better conditions for their citizenry to sort what's true from what's not and to make informed decisions about what they want their societies to be.
Here in the United States, meanwhile, we are drowning in lies.
Europe is a dead unit.
It is a dead geographical unit that is disappearing off the face of the earth as we speak.
The nations of Europe are disappearing.
Where's Brexit?
What has happened to Brexit?
Has Brexit actually come through or is it impossible to break away from the EU?
Europe is a dying society.
This society is still very vibrant and alive and the last bastion of Western thinking and a revolutionary bastion of Western thinking where she's right.
We do not accept, we do not accept that the powers that be, the elites, the New York Times, have the right to silence the people.
We do not accept that.
And does that create problems?
You bet it does.
Does it create problems to have everybody talking at once?
Sure, it does.
But free speech means the people decide and everything else, everything else means the powerful decide.
If you don't believe me, here's another story.
A documentary called What Killed Michael Brown has been censored by Amazon Prime.
This is by Shelby Steele, one of the finest scholars in the country, one of the most terrific writers in the country.
His books are absolutely shockingly good.
I just love reading his stuff.
He occasionally writes in the Wall Street Journal, not enough as far as I'm concerned.
He's a black guy, and that's what he writes about.
He works at the Hoover Institution up at Stanford, and he writes about race, and that's what he writes about.
He has made a documentary with his son, a filmmaker, Eli Steele, about the fact that Michael Brown was not killed in accordance with the left-wing narrative that says police are targeting black people.
And that's not true.
The Obama Justice Department said the same thing.
This is a documentary, and you can find it at whatkilledMichaelBrown.com.
You can find it at whatkilledMichaelBrown.com, and it will tell the story of the truth about what killed Michael Brown and how it violates the left's story.
Amazon Prime rejected it in an email.
Amazon informed the Steels that their film is, quote, not eligible for publishing because it doesn't meet prime video content quality expectations.
Amazon went on to say it will not be accepting resubmission of this title, and this decision may not be appealed.
There are two kinds of speech.
There's free speech and there's speech decided by the powerful.
This is really interesting because this is true.
The actual Shelby Steele version of the story is the truth, okay?
So we know that.
We know that.
And the story, Hands Up, Don't Shoot, is false.
Every investigation has shown that.
It's possible the investigations are wrong.
That's why I don't think the people who say hands up don't shoot should be censored.
I don't think they should be censored.
I think the argument should be continued, but not this massive, massive corporation called Amazon.
This incredibly huge corporation has the power to shut that speech down.
And again, I don't care.
These people who say, well, it's not the government, so it's not violating the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is a protection of your God-given rights.
It's violating your God-given rights because Amazon controls all information in this country, just like Google does.
And they have to be broken up or controlled, one or the other.
And don't forget the tar and feathering.
All right, let's look at this Biden story.
And let me tell you why I worry about it.
It's so perfect, right?
This computer, this laptop was supposed to have been left at this repair shop.
And in it are like thousands of emails basically confirming everything that right-wingers think about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, that they are criminals, that Hunter Biden was, you know, basically using Joe Biden's vice presidency to get these big jobs and that the money was flowing back and forth and Biden knew about it.
It may all be true.
It may all be true.
I'm just saying a little perfect.
You know, there's so many emails in this computer and there are pictures of Hunter Biden naked and all this stuff.
If it's untrue, it is a John LeCorre level op.
You know, I mean, it's a brilliant, brilliant disinformation op.
So it really feels like it might well be true, but there are also these red flags and you want to be, you just want to be restrained about it.
You want to say, you want to say, let's find out.
You know how you find out?
You publish the piece, you spread the information, you have reporters go out, some trying to debunk it, some trying to prove it.
You let them print all their stories.
You let them tweet their stories.
You let Facebook say more.
You fight speech with speech.
You fight disinformation with information.
Always.
That's always the answer.
Otherwise, it's just the powerful.
It's just Jeff Bezos saying, no, I don't want that truth.
That's not the truth I want to come out.
Those are the only choices.
Those are the only choices.
All right, so let's recap, right?
The Post published an email from a guy named Vadim Pozarsky, an advisor to the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burizma, an absolutely corrupt company.
This was addressed to Hunter Biden.
It thanked him for setting up a meeting between Pozarsky and Vice President Biden, who has again and again said that he never met with anybody or discussed Hunter Biden's dealings.
Here's a bunch of his denials cut for.
Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their businesses, period.
And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration.
There will be an absolute wall between personal and private and the government.
Do you stand by your statement that you did not discuss any of your son's overseas business deals?
Do you think it was wrong for him to take that position?
No.
Knowing that it was really because that company wanted access to you.
Well, that's not true.
You're saying things you do not know what you're talking about.
No one said that.
Who said that?
This guy Hunter is getting 50 grand a pop.
He knows nothing about oil companies.
I mean, obviously they were looking for some kind of connection.
Doesn't mean they got it.
The Biden campaign says there was no meeting on Biden's schedule, but they can't rule out that he met with this guy, this burisma guy, off the books.
Now, you got to be careful about that.
Again, they didn't say that happened.
They said they can't guarantee that it didn't happen, but they have no information that it did happen.
So it's not there acknowledging that he might have.
You know how it is on both sides.
Both sides do this.
The right is going to run a story that says that the Biden campaign says he might have met with them.
Well, they're not saying that.
They're saying they can't prove that he didn't meet with them, which is a little different.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Post has new material, right?
Hunter Biden entered into a consulting contract with China's largest private energy company that initially earned him $10 million a year for introductions alone, according to leaked emails.
You know, I'm going to stop here and just take a break, tell you to subscribe to dailywire.com.
You know, you get a million goodies, including our apps and all access.
I'm doing all access tonight, I believe.
And so you want to subscribe to all access.
That's our highest level.
And you can talk to me and ask me questions.
All my answers, as you know, are guaranteed correct.
So go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
OK, so the new information from The Post is Hunter Biden entered into a consulting contract with China's largest private energy company that initially earned him 10 million bucks a year for introductions alone.
That's what it says, according to this leaked email.
They just wanted introductions.
So who are you going to get introductions to from Hunter Biden?
In an email chain from August 2nd, 2017, Biden discussed a deal with the former chairman of CEFC China Energy, Yi Yanming, saying he agreed to change the terms of Biden's three-year consulting contract with CEFC, which initially promised Biden 10 million bucks per year for introductions alone to make it much more lasting and more lucrative.
Now, Rudy Giuliani and this laptop, which apparently has gone to the FBI, though the FBI will not confirm that, it apparently was given to the FBI by the guy in the shop who is a Trump supporter and who's kind of, when they talk to him about it, it's kind of, that's one of the reasons, that's one of the red flags.
The guy in the shop is a big Trump supporter and he hasn't quite told the story in a plausible way yet.
But still, again, there are so many emails, so much information in here that would be a major, major op to have pulled this off.
But Rudy Giuliani is saying that this money was going directly to Joe Biden through the family.
And Giuliani lays out these emails on his podcast.
Here he is.
Why was he paying for everything for the family?
Because he was getting the money and they were keeping it from Joe, so he wouldn't have to report it.
But he paid, for example, his half-sister's entire college education, pay for a lot more things.
In fact, in his own words, he paid for everything.
But then it goes on to say, because the boss, remember the godfather, the boss has to wet his beak.
The boss has got to get his money.
The boss here is Pop.
It's really hard, but don't worry, unlike Pop, that's one of the names for Joe Biden, Democrat candidate for the United States presidency.
I won't make you give me half your salary.
Okay, left-wing press.
What are you going to do with that?
So he's saying these emails show that Biden, Joe Biden, was taking half, a cut of half of the money that Hunter Biden was getting by using his name with these corrupt companies.
It's pretty heated stuff.
I mean, it's a real charge.
It's being made by a real person, though, Giuliani is not the man he was, but still who is.
He's making a genuine charge.
It should be investigated.
It's certainly more weighty than the Russian collusion hoax.
It's more weighty than Russian prostitutes urinating on Donald Trump.
It's got more provenance than the charges against Brett Kavanaugh.
But again, you know, I'm not saying it's true.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying it should be investigated and it should be discussed and it should be debated, just like the charges against Brett Kavanaugh.
We came out and we fought back against the charges against Brett Kavanaugh and the New York Times sold them with everything it had and it lost and it lost the will of the people and the goodwill of the people.
And that was a fair debate.
I thought that the Times acted despicably.
I said so at the time, but I never said, I never said they should be silenced.
I never said that some committee, some government committee should come down and silence the New York Times.
And I never would say it, but they are saying it about me.
They're saying it about us.
And they're saying it about Fox News and they're saying it about Trump and they're saying it about all these people.
It's a different argument.
Again, let's get back to that again.
Even though I'm waiting for confirmation of all this, even though I'm waiting for confirmation, I don't think Giuliani should be silenced.
They think they think Giuliani should be silenced.
And I don't think the Times, New York Times should be silenced either.
You know, A.B. Stoddard, who a good reporter, I think she used to be with Real Clear Politics.
I'm not sure where she is now.
She was on the Fox panel.
And she was saying, oh, it's all legal.
You know, it's a legal thing.
It's wrong.
She says it's wrong, but it's a legal thing for this nepotism for him to use the name and all this stuff.
And I was thinking, really, really?
Because is that the way a reporter behaves?
I mean, we take a picture of a reporter with his snap brim hat and his press card and the band of his hat hammering away at his Olympia typewriter.
And Carrie Grant comes in and says, Hey, I got a story for you.
You know, the vice president's son was getting these jobs.
We think, well, that's legal.
I'm not going to investigate that.
No, of course not.
Every reporter should be on fire to get the truth of this.
Even if they mean to debunk it, they should be on fire to get the truth.
And whatever the truth is, without fear, they should print the truth.
That is the right attitude to take.
And you know, if it is true, if it is true, this is money corruption.
Protecting Biden's Interests00:09:51
Money corruption is really bad.
See, you know, people get angry at me when I say this because they want Barack Obama to be Satan.
And Barack Obama was not Satan.
He was not money corrupt when he was in office.
Barack Obama was not money corrupt when he was in office.
I have no doubt that if the Ayatollahs in Iran had come to him and said, we're going to give you $50 million, just let us build our nuclear bomb in peace, I think Obama would have turned it down.
Obama was philosophically stupid.
He was philosophically naive.
And he abused power.
Obama was a lot more like Nixon.
Nixon thought he had the right to abuse power because he thought the radicals of the 1960s were a threat to the American way of life.
Obama thought we were a threat to the American way of life.
So he thought he had the right to abuse his power.
He had the right to abuse the IRS and the FBI in investigating Trump because he thought the threat was so great.
That's corrupt.
It's definitely an abuse of power.
And it's definitely a kind of corruption, but it's not, I will pay you money and you will destroy the country.
I don't think Obama would have done that.
That's not who he was.
Hillary is money corrupt.
Hillary takes money for favors, or at least there's a lot of evidence that she does.
If this is money corruption, it's bad.
If Joe Biden was collecting that money, that is really bad because that guy will give you anything for a buck.
And that is really, really dangerous.
John Kennedy put this well.
You know, the senator put this well, what the issue is here, this cut 10.
President Obama put Vice President Biden in charge of America's foreign affairs with two countries, Ukraine and China.
And in both cases, his son, Mr. Hunter Biden, walked away with millions of dollars of contracts.
I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I'm telling you this.
This is the message it sent to the rest of the world.
The foreign policy of the United States of America can be bought like a sack of potatoes.
The guy has a voicer machine.
gives you great sound bites.
Trump obviously jumped on this.
This is politics as it should be, politics as it's going to be.
He jumped on it right away.
This is cut one.
Vice President Biden, you owe the people of America an apology because it turns out you are a corrupt politician.
Joe Biden must immediately release all emails, meetings, phone calls, transcripts, and records related to his involvement in his family's business dealings.
influence paddlings around the world, including China and including Russia, including Russia.
You know, the thing is, they've been saying all this stuff about Trump and they've investigated him by every organ of investigation this country possesses and they still haven't gotten a damn thing on him.
But that doesn't stop the New York Times from every single day running another article about what a threat he is to our governance.
And yet that threat has never manifested itself.
But nobody, you know, again, you have never heard me, you have never heard Ben Shapiro, you've never heard Michael Knowles, you've never heard any of us say the New York Times should be shut down.
They should be stopped from spreading their material.
We don't say it because we believe in free speech and we believe we can win an open argument, which tells you what the left believes about their argument.
They don't believe they can win.
And Trump is absolutely right when he says what he says here, when he says, you know, he, any charge against him gets spread like wildfire.
It's cut two.
False and libelous stories every day.
False and libelous stories.
And they knew they were false too.
They knew they were false.
They were never taken down by Twitter or Facebook or the mainstream media, never once.
Yet with Biden today, they take negative posts down almost before they even go up.
They're trying to protect him.
They're trying to protect Biden.
It's pretty embarrassing.
It's pretty embarrassing, I think, that Fox News is reporting this story in a very responsible way.
Brett Baer reporting it in a very responsible way, pointing out the red flags, pointing out what the story is.
Trump, what Trump is saying is true.
The only people lying here are Twitter and Facebook and all the papers not covering the story at all.
That's a lie by omission.
That is a lie by omission.
This is a legit story from a legit paper.
If this story turns out to be untrue, the Post is humiliated.
The Post will be humiliated, but they're a long-standing, probably the longest standing news organization.
They have a right to hear, to say what they want to say.
They should be trusted.
They should be spread around.
It is not for Twitter.
I mean, what training, what background does Jack Dorsey have in journalism that he's telling the New York Post their story is no good?
And instead, what's he doing?
He's censoring Kaylee McEnany.
They actually locked Kaylee McEnany's account.
This is the White House spokesperson.
Here she is, cut five.
You have the Ayatollah Morant plead death to Israel.
And this is permitted on Twitter, but not an email that is reported, by the way, by Fox News's news division by the New York Post, a credible outlet.
You are not allowed to share that information.
And make no mistake, if they can ban the press secretary of the United States for President Trump, they can ban who isn't a citizen.
And that is pathetic.
That's exactly right.
See, if they can ban the president, if they can ban his spokeswoman, they can ban you and they will and they do.
And this is it.
You know, this is the whole fight.
This is the whole reason.
This is the whole reason I come on and make silly jokes.
It is.
It's the whole reason I come on and make silly jokes that sometimes even I don't like.
Jokes about women, jokes about other races, jokes about all the things that I kid around about.
I make them because you should be able to make them.
That is important.
It is important that we can say all the things that we have to say and fight it out.
The more information, the easier it will be for us to paw through it and find out what is true.
It's who decides.
There's free speech and there's speech controlled by the powerful.
Those are the only two kinds of speech there is.
Here's Senator Josh Hawley talking about this as cut three.
That's basically at this point, Laura, big tech versus democracy.
I mean, that's what it is.
These tech companies want to rig an election.
They want to control what we read.
They want to control journalists in this country.
They want to control the news.
This looks like, to me, like an in-kind campaign contribution to the Biden campaign.
I want to know what contacts did Twitter and Facebook and others have with the Biden campaign when they decided to start censoring this New York Post story on behalf of the Bidens.
This thing just stinks.
It reeks.
We're not stupid.
We conceive that Twitter rushed to suppress this story, to censor it on behalf of the Bidens.
Just like Facebook rushed to do the same thing.
Yeah, the fix is in.
They want to rig the election and use their monopoly power, and we can't let them do it.
And, you know, part of this, I'm sure, part of ramping this up is that they think that Biden is going to win.
The poll show Biden is so far ahead.
They think he is going to win.
And they want to cut him off at the pass so he's not going to destroy their monopolies.
They have an interest.
You know, this is the big thing.
This is the big thing.
Corporations have an interest.
Everybody has interests.
We all have interests.
We all act in our own interests.
I mean, it's very rare that any of us act in such a way that our interests are completely laid aside.
People do it.
People give their lives for their country.
They do wonderful, sacrificial things.
But most of the time, most days, on a daily basis, they're acting in their own interest.
Amazon has an interest, right?
All these places have an interest.
Facebook, Twitter.
Part of their interest is globalism.
Part of their interest is globalism.
Let's play that clip that you were playing before from Trump about globalism.
The last administration sold out American workers like never before, and they sold them to donors, special interests, and globalists.
And if you take a look, we have probably plenty of them watching right now.
And I understand where you're coming from, but it didn't work out too well with me.
And I know I'm speaking to some Democrats, and some of you are friends of mine.
You will see things happen that will not make you happy.
I don't understand your thinking.
I don't understand how you can be back in such policies, but you're wrong.
To guys like Bezos, to guys like Twitter, to guys like Facebook, hearing that is like when right-wingers hear, I'm going to raise your taxes.
Our feeling is you have no right to take away my money.
When you fight against globalism, you're taking away the money from people like Jeff Bezos, from people like Facebook, from people like Twitter.
These big corporations live off globalism.
And look, nobody wants free trade to be shut down entirely, but it is a good idea that we protect our country first.
This is where our rights come from.
This is where our rights are protected.
We lose this country.
We lose free speech here.
We go in the European direction and say, yes, the powerful, the king, can decide what we poor peasants can say and what we can't say, what's hate speech, what's anti-science.
Let the king decide.
We lose that.
We lose the last best hope of Earth.
We lose the last best hope.
There's nowhere to go from here, folks.
This is it.
This is the place.
This is an island of free speech.
This is the island of the First Amendment.
And when we let it go, when we convince ourselves we're so right that the other side can't argue, when we say the New York Times is so bad that they should be shut down, when we say that American Mind or Claremont is so bad that they should be shut down, it doesn't matter which side does it.
It doesn't matter which side does it.
We are throwing away the last best hope of Earth.
It'll never come back.
It'll be a thousand years before you get that free speech back.
And we have to protect it with everything we've got.