Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 28, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:59

20200528_Thu_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming, the big in the middle man.
	You are about to be part time on the great today.
	And one more last round.
	America first.
	And the rock.
	What's your heart?
	Welcome tonight to another edition of American Countdown.
	We're going to be discussing the press and the politicians and how they manipulate events to favor things like race riots and lockdowns.
	But we'll start off tonight with Trump versus Twitter.
	We have his executive order and we'll break it down from a legal and political perspective upcoming.
	But first, let's start with the man himself.
	President Trump's press conference held this afternoon to explain his actions, why he's doing what he's doing, and why he's trying to remedy a situation where big tech is trying to become big brother for all of us in manipulating elections in 2020.
	Let's look at video clip number eight.
	Give you a signed copy of what I'm going to be signing a couple of minutes and you'll see exactly what we're doing.
	They've had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter virtually any form of communication between private citizens or large public audiences.
	There's no precedent in American history for so small a number of corporations to control so large a sphere of human interaction.
	And that includes individual people controlling vast amounts of territory.
	And we can't allow that to happen, especially when they go about doing what they're doing because they're doing things incorrectly.
	They have points of view.
	And if we go by that, it's actually amazing that there was a success In 2016, but we can't let this continue to happen.
	It's very, very unfair.
	And you look at the statistics and you look at what is going on, and I think everybody would very much agree with that.
	Including Democrats, by the way, I saw quite a few Democrats are saying this is about time something is done.
	So let's see if they keep that decision after they hear that we agree with them.
	The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow, ban, are editorial decisions, pure and simple.
	They're editorial decisions.
	In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform, and they become an editor with a viewpoint.
	And I think we can say that about others also, whether you're looking at Google, whether you're looking at Facebook, and perhaps others.
	One egregious example is when they try to silence views that they disagree with by selectively applying a fact check.
	Fact check.
	F-A-C-T.
	Fact check.
	What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism.
	And it's inappropriate.
	You look at what's happened, you look at where they're going, where they're coming from.
	I think you all see it yourselves.
	This censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself.
	Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your...
	I'll give you a signed copy of what I'm going to be signing.
	Federal Trade Commission FTC to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.
	This authority resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
	I think you know it pretty well.
	Most of you know it very well.
	Additionally, I'm directing the Attorney General to work cooperatively with the states.
	He's going to be working very much and very closely in cooperation with the states to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices.
	The states have broad and powerful authority to regulate in this arena, and they'll be doing it also, and we encourage them to do it.
	What they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say.
	It's tantamount to taking over the airwaves.
	Can't let it happen.
	Otherwise, we're not going to have a democracy.
	We're not going to have anything to do with a republic.
	Finally, I'm directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going in any social media company that repressed free speech.
	The government spends billions of dollars on Giving them money.
	They're rich enough.
	So we're going to be doing none of it or very little of it.
	As president, I'll not allow the American people to be bullied by these giant corporations.
	Many people have wanted this to be done by presidents for a long time.
	And now we're doing it.
	And I'm sure they'll be doing a lawsuit.
	And I'm also sure that we're going to be going for legislation in addition to this.
	And the legislation will start immediately.
	And I tell you, I've been called by Democrats.
	that want to do this and so I think you could possibly have a bipartisan situation but uh we're fed up with it and it's unfair and it's been very unfair and we'll see what happens any questions given uh your concern with twitter have you given any consideration to deleting your account to just walking away from this platform you've been so critical of well you know if you weren't fake I would not uh even think about it I would I would do that in a heartbeat.
	But the news, the news is fake.
	If you look at what gets printed in newspapers, if only the public could understand where, you know, they're reading a story and they think it's real and it's not real in so many cases.
	And I'm not saying in every case.
	You have some great journalists, you have some journalists that I have great respect for, but largely, I find, at least in a political sense, there's so much fake news, it's disgraceful.
	I would do that in a heartbeat if I had fair, if we had a fair press in this country, I would do that in a heartbeat.
	Rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account, but I'm able to get to I guess 186 million people when you add up all the different accounts and add Facebook and Instagram.
	It's a lot of people and that's more than the media companies have frankly by a lot.
	And so if I get a story that's wrong, I can put a social media.
	I don't usually use the word Twitter.
	I use I say social media, but I put something out and the next day or the next hour or the next minute, everybody's reading about it.
	So I'm able to refute fake news.
	And that's very important.
	I'd like to ask the attorney general, please, to say a couple of words.
	And he's very strongly behind it, backing it very powerfully.
	And again, we're going to be doing this.
	We're also going through Congress.
	Well, as you mentioned, Mr. President, one of the things that I found has the broadest bipartisan support these days is the feeling that this provision, Section 230, has been stretched way beyond its original intention.
	And people feel that on both sides of the aisle.
	This was adopted 25 years ago to protect the fledgling industry.
	And its purpose was to allow websites that were serving as essentially bulletin boards for diverse third-party content coming on to say that you're not responsible for the content of that third-party information.
	Now it's been completely stretched to allow what have become really bohemoths who control a lot of the flow of information in our society To engage in censorship of that information and to act as editors and publishers of the material.
	So when they put on their own content like fact-checked content onto other people's content, And when they curate their collection, and when they start censoring particular content, including in many cases in the direction of foreign governments like Communist China, they become publishers.
	And they shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier.
	Now, this executive order is a very strong step toward addressing this problem.
	It sets up a rulemaking procedure that will eventually be under the FCC to try to get back to the original interpretation and understanding of Section 230.
	So this is an important step to get back to the original understanding.
	You know, there's a bit of a bait-and-switch that's occurred in our society.
	These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums, as free public forums where a variety of voices and diverse voices could come on and be heard.
	That's how they grew.
	That's how they attracted the eyeballs.
	That's why people joined them.
	But now that they have become these very powerful networks of eyeballs, now that they've grown by holding themselves out as free public forums, they've now switched.
	And they are using that market power to force particular viewpoints.
	And that's wrong.
	And it has to be addressed not only through this executive order, but I think litigation going forward, and by further action on Capitol Hill.
	Mr. Attorney General, not only have you been against Section 230, and the President has been against Section 230, the Vice President has said he's against Section 230.
	Do you believe that the executive order that the President is about to sign in any way repeals or amends Section 230?
	No, it doesn't repeal Section 230.
	And I'm not against Section 230 if it was properly interpreted and properly applied.
	But it's been stretched.
	And I don't know of anyone on Capitol Hill who doesn't agree that it's been stretched beyond its original intention.
	I think this will help get back to the right balance.
	What I think we can say is we're going to regulate it.
	It's a provision and we're going to regulate it.
	You take a look at this as an example.
	This was just at Twitter Moments.
	On the Muller Witch Hunt.
	So we won, we were in the right.
	You see what's happened?
	It's a total fraud, it was a total fraud.
	76 to 1.
	Okay, 76 to 1.
	You look at it, you think that's fair?
	Twitter classifies the term illegal alien as hate speech.
	Illegal alien.
	But, and viciously.
	You look at what China, I mean, just article after article.
	Here's one, this is our, this is the arbiter.
	This guy.
	He's the arbiter of what's supposed to go on Twitter.
	He's the one he thought that he thought and if you CNN as a guide, CNN which is fake news, they use the CNN as a guide.
	His name is Yoel Roth.
	And he's the one that said that mail-in balloting, you look mail-in, no fraud, no fraud, really?
	Why didn't you take a look all over the country?
	There's cases all over the country.
	If we went to mail-in balloting, our election all over the world would look as a total joke.
	It would be a total joke.
	There's such fraud and abuse, and you know about harvesting, where they harvest the ballots, and they go and grab them, and they go to people's houses, and they say, sign here.
	Now, it doesn't work.
	Now, an absentee ballot, you can't be there, or you're sick, and you go and you register, and you do all sorts of things to get that ballot.
	And there's good security measures, but where they send out, like in California, millions and millions of ballots to anybody that's breathing.
	Anybody in California that's breathing gets a ballot.
	But Mr. President, that's not true.
	California is- Excuse me, wait a minute, I'm not finished.
	So here's your, here's your man, and that's on Twitter.
	And the amazing thing is he's wrong.
	And even, no matter who it is, they will admit that he's wrong.
	Because there's tremendous controversy on mail-in voting.
	There's ballot harvesting where all of us, you know, we had seven elections for Congress.
	And they were like tied and they lost every one of them because they came and they dropped a whole pile of ballots on the table.
	But you don't think that they rip them out of mailboxes.
	It's all the time you read about it.
	You can read about it.
	Take a look.
	They do worse than that.
	In some cases, they won't sell them like.
	No, you have to go and you have to vote.
	Voting is a great thing.
	Voting.
	to send the ballots to those communities.
	And there's no way of checking.
	No, you have to go and you have to vote.
	Voting is a great thing.
	Voting, we would be the laughing stock of the world.
	And if you just use common sense, you know that's gonna happen.
	They can even print ballots.
	They get the same paper, the same machine, nothing special.
	But you have tremendous potential, and you have tremendous fraud and abuse, but you have tremendous potential for fraud and abuse.
	Go ahead.
	Mr. President, you had said in one of your tweets that you would consider shutting down Twitter and social media companies.
	Did you actually mean you would want to shut down an American company?
	Well, I think it's going to be, you know, I tell you what, I have so much It seems influence over Twitter in the sense of people wanting to see go Twitter because of what I have.
	I have a vast number.
	We have a number of platforms, as you know, we have millions and millions of people.
	I think this if Twitter were not honorable, if you're going to have a guy like this being a judge and jury.
	I think you shut it down as far as I'm concerned, but I'd have to go through a legal process to do that.
	How would you shut down an American website?
	I don't know.
	I'd have to ask the lawyers.
	I'd have to go through a legal process.
	If it were legal, if we were able to be legally shut down, I would do it.
	I think I'd be hurting it very badly if we didn't use it anymore.
	I mean, we have other sites we could use, I guess.
	But we'd have to develop other sites.
	And I'm not just talking about Twitter.
	Look at Facebook.
	Look at the tribunal they set up at Facebook.
	This woman who you remember testifying recently in Congress, her hatred was so incredible toward the Republican Party and me that there is no way you can get a fair trial.
	So, this is not like it's supposed to be.
	This is not like it's supposed to be.
	So we're going to see what happens.
	And you know what?
	I guess it's going to be challenging court.
	What is it?
	But I think we'll do very well.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	There is litigation going on all the time on Section 230 and its scope.
	And we would look for appropriate vehicles to weigh in and file statement of interest.
	So you wouldn't be filing individuals?
	will ceremony.
	Okay, thank you.
	So let's go through the Trump's President Trump versus Twitter Trump's executive order today, preventing online censorship.
	It starts off with saying what the authority for his order is, which he cites the Constitution, as well as the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, and then the inherent power of the executive branch.
	goes into the policy that is behind the executive order, which is about protecting free and open debate in the public square, recognizing the Supreme Court has referred to these social media sites as the public square in the modern age.
	In addition, detailing the scope and scale of the problem, including selective censorship in particular, that is constricting arbitrarily the free and open debate that is supposed to take place in this digitized public square.
	It goes through about the online platform's flagging content as inappropriate, even when that content does not in any way violate its own stated terms of service or any other law.
	The third area of concern that it cites for big tech needing to be regulated or needing to be supervised or needing to conform to constitutional standards is their relationship in particular with foreign governments, especially China.
	It goes through how Google, for example, agreed with China to blacklist searches for human rights in China.
	And engaged in various conduct that allowed and facilitated the Chinese government surveilling its own citizens and taking punitive action against them.
	It notes the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, and the lack of manageable, governable standards of care for people that utilize these social platforms as they expand and extend their influence into the United States, particularly as it relates to the United States.
	Elections now upcoming.
	What it calls for is protection against various forms of arbitrary restrictions, particularly the need for clear, non-discriminatory ground rules that conform to free speech principles in order to continue to have immunity from liability under Section 230C of the Communications Decency Act, colloquially and popularly known as Section 230.
	It notes in particular something that in fact basically almost the entire executive order reads like what we called for here about a year ago.
	In fact the basis for it is listed.
	You heard Attorney General Barr go through the terms of what Section 230 was originally intended to be.
	That is the argument that has been principally made here, as much as anywhere, over the last year.
	In fact, I brought litigation against Twitter in California on that exact ground, and when it was clear, the courts would continue to be closed to meaningful remedy.
	argued that in fact we needed to take meaningful action across the board and the executive branch needed to take meaningful action because section 230 was being misapplied and overly applied by courts across the country.
	Courts interpreted section 230 as being a de facto immunity from any kind of suit regardless of whether their conduct was like a sensorial editorial publisher or that of a simple online internet service provider platform.
	This goes through that exact same history.
	In fact, you could probably go back and look at some of the prior broadcasts on this program and related broadcasts on the sponsor of this program, and you would find that this is in fact what we were talking about a year ago.
	That the real history of Section 230 was that it was designed to allow for things like message boards, the new emerging social media platforms, Then an open competition to not be at a disadvantage due to First Amendment law in the United States that could hold them liable in certain contexts for publishing the content of someone else.
	So the objective was that they would not be legally limited in their ability to not be held liable for whatever somebody says on their platform.
	Literally acting like a platform.
	A platform coming from when somebody physically stands up on a wooden platform in the public square.
	That if they were simply no more than the means by which someone was allowed to speak in the public square, they should not be held responsible or legally liable for what that person says.
	The goal was to not treat a platform as a publisher.
	While that, in fact, distinction does not exist in the law itself, it was the policy premise and predicate for its existence in the first instance.
	In fact, this is critical if we're going to have content boards, if we're going to have the ability to have users make comments on various sites.
	This is necessary protection and immunity from whatever they may say.
	The goal was never to say that if Twitter or Google or YouTube or Facebook or any of the social media giants decided to act like the New York Times and become an editorial, censorial publisher,
	That they shouldn't have any of the legal liability or responsibility of the New York Times, simply because the means by which they edit, the means by which they censor, the means by which they publish, is that of a social media internet site, rather than some other location or place.
	Anybody else can be sued.
	Anyone else who has a site can be sued for what they edit, for what they publish, for what they take authorial responsibility for.
	They can be held accountable for it.
	And yet Big Tech has escaped that because courts over-expanded Section 230 to just give them complete immunity, period.
	They treated them like the railroads of the 19th century.
	Where the railroads in the late 1800s and early 1900s were given expansive immunity so much so that in law school I used to call it the railroad rule.
	Which is that whichever side the railroad was on, the railroad won.
	No matter what the actual law had been going up to that context.
	They were treating Big Tech in the same way.
	And this was conservative judges, liberal judges, Republican judges, Democratic judges.
	All of them were scared and terrified to contest or challenge Big Tech in any suit, any place, anywhere.
	Big Tech began to infiltrate the legal academy, bought off many of the legal professors commenting on these issues.
	So if you see a lot of the legal scholars saying, no, no, no, you can't do this, just look up whether or not the chances are they have been or will be on the payroll of some big tech company in the near future, because frequently they often are.
	That is what I found in experiencing this and litigating these cases myself on the front lines.
	It is good to hear both Attorney General Barr and the President confirm today the very argument we've been making about Section 230 for more than a year.
	It's been misapplied.
	The original provision in the references in here was something called Good Samaritan blocking.
	Originally the provision was simply two-fold.
	Section 230 said that if somebody made a comment On your internet site, and you were simply the provider of that internet site, you were not responsible for that comment if you were not the author, editorial, or censor of it.
	Secondly, it allowed you to act as an author, editor, publisher, or censor if what the person was doing was otherwise illegal, effectively.
	And this was the Good Samaritan provision.
	So this said that as long as you were acting in good faith, You could then censor, edit, control, remove, block, etc.
	if they were doing something that's already outside of First Amendment protections.
	This was to make sure that big tech platforms could have the liberty of action in order to remove pornography, obscenity, violence, stalking behavior, harassing behavior, without being able to be sued for it.
	And that's what that provision was for.
	It was never meant, never intended as a wholesale, broad-scale, complete immunity if Twitter just decided to act as the New York Times but not do it under the name the New York Times.
	It goes through that increasingly there's been more and more editorial conduct by big tech outside of the original intended scope of the Good Samaritan provisions.
	That the good faith requirement to avoid civil liability is not being enforced by state and federal courts all across the country.
	This problem is largely a problem, partially a problem of legislation and strafting, but it's largely a problem of courts failing to do their job.
	Courts could have interpreted Big Tech as being the digitized public square equivalent to the Pruneyard case, which of note is quoted and commented upon in this executive order.
	It specifically references that case.
	Very few cases are referenced.
	That one is.
	And the reason why Pruneyard is mentioned in the executive order is because that is the case that in California, where the California courts where almost all these big tech companies are located and domiciled and operate out of, They said that if a private mall could not discriminate or could not censor or could not act as a publisher of people protesting inside their private mall.
	Why?
	Because they said the alleyways of the private mall were the equivalent of a public square.
	This followed a prior decision going that the U.S.
	Supreme Court had applied that doctrine that when a corporation owns the public square, it has First Amendment responsibilities.
	The logic was that's the same equivalent in shopping malls.
	Now, the U.S.
	Supreme Court in a separate case decided not to extend the doctrine in that way, but the California Supreme Court continues to do so.
	Logically, that should have meant that the court should have said, you know what, all of you are basically the equivalent of the modern digital public square.
	All of you are making money off of it.
	All of you have made promises to abide by it.
	All of you are engaged in that kind of activity at a monopolistic level, equivalent to private ownership of it.
	That it makes you liable under the First Amendment standards like any private mall would be, or like any company town would be.
	Yet what has happened in California is the courts have turned a blind eye to enforcing the law as it relates to big tech companies.
	Instead they've found excuse after excuse, pretext after pretext, to find that big tech is given special immunity because it construed Section 230 as a federal political mandate To help big tech survive in the legal space by giving them special immunity rather than a very specific circumscribed solution to a specific set of potential problems.
	That is why the President and the Attorney General have had to take action now because the courts have failed.
	That is why, because the courts have failed to protect ordinary rights, First Amendment protections and the original intention of Section 230.
	So what does the executive order effectively accomplish?
	Well, first it requires that rulemaking go into force by those agencies that do have some regulatory authority concerning big tech, and making sure that in fact, one, that they're complying with their own terms of service, but that they create rules that are fair ground rules.
	In fact, the solution is almost exactly the same solution that I had proposed to Twitter over a year ago.
	in a litigation involving them, which said that all they had to do, and the same proposal I pitched to Senator Hawley and others, and it's nice to now see this starting to result in executive action, and that is twofold.
	Big tech can solve its problems easily tomorrow.
	They can keep Section 230 immunity as long as they comply with First Amendment standards when they have a certain market size.
	So if you're a publicly traded big tech company, so this wouldn't even apply to your small message boards and other places, just those companies that have such a mark that are publicly traded or have such a substantial market share that they're the equivalent of a monopoly under the antitrust rules.
	And that's that is always the case and has been the case for a decade plus concerning Twitter, concerning Facebook, concerning Google, concerning YouTube.
	All of them have more than 75 percent of the market share in their particular relevant portion of the public square, that they have to abide by First Amendment standards if they want the carrot of Section 230 immunity.
	All of them want it.
	They don't want to deal with the consequences of trying to comply, being sued by everybody everywhere if they don't have Section 230 immunity.
	So they would likely comply overnight because their ability to legally and financially function is contingent and dependent upon it.
	So that is how, in fact, it can work.
	The second component that we have been proposing that is right inside this executive order is that there needs to be a examine these big tech companies for due process issues and consumer protection issues.
	So what my argument had always been when I sued Twitter before ultimately led to a settlement in that case.
	But we looked at potential suits down the road.
	It was that all of these companies induced their public monopoly over the public square by promising to protect free speech and free communication and free expression.
	They lied.
	Every other big company that lies gets to get sued for it.
	They have been misusing and abusing Section 230 to claim they're even immune from their own lies, from their own deceit, from the means by which they acquired all this money.
	They promised people that, hey, if you come in and participate in Facebook or Twitter or any place else, and you bring other people with you because they want to see your content, Then what we're going to do is we're going to protect the freedom of your expression because you're monetizing that content.
	You're monetizing it for us.
	By bringing those people to us we get their information.
	That information we can turn around and sell to advertisers.
	So in exchange for freedom of expression promise we will receive the benefit of you bringing your audience to us.
	After achieving, uh, getting millions of people, uh, from a wide range of people, probably most prominently Alex Jones and InfoWars, but also others, the pattern, they, what do they do?
	They suddenly reverse themselves.
	And that is why today they say there needs to be investigation with the states at consumer protection violations, and they need to impose due process standards.
	No more summary, summarily reversing people's rights and protection under their social media contracts because of it.
	So that's where we start off tonight.
	We'll get into next with a wide range of issues and subjects with Jordan Schachtel.
	And we'll be discussing race riots and pandemic politics up next.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	The other area where we're seeing a wide range of distortion of information, not only in social media but through mainstream media and through many of our political actors as well, and then some of those who are not overtly political but indirectly political, serving whatever agenda they have, has been in the lockdown context over the past two months.
	As a wide range of misinformation has been continuously pushed out and propagated against all of the available public science and against often just common sense and basic logic.
	Indeed, things have been pushed out as quote-unquote science and data, politicians saying they're just following the science and data, when in fact the science and data not only didn't support them at the time, as some of us, including our next guest, forecast and explain then, but has not supported them as we have continued along.
	Indeed, some of us have been increasingly right, and some of us, particularly those within the political lockdown arena, especially wrong.
	Yet you wouldn't necessarily know it in parts of social media or the mainstream press as they continue to push fake narratives.
	Even the New York Times had to admit they'd made up other stories concerning people dying that didn't not die from COVID, such as a murder victim, but also rose recently a 26-year-old doctor that they had claimed that this terrible tragic story had happened concerning COVID-19.
	It turned out almost the entire thing was fake.
	That's how you could describe much of the news.
	Indeed, I have next to me just all the different articles and studies All over the place, that document in detail how and why the COVID-19 lockdowns were unnecessary and counterproductive.
	And that's just a small sampling of what's out there.
	Yet, if you're in the institutional press, you often don't know these very elementary facts.
	But our next guest knows them well and has pushed them out to the world, despite the efforts to resist and push back against them.
	We have with us Jordan Schachtel.
	You can follow him on Twitter at Jordan Schachtel, S-C-H-A-C-T-E-L, at Twitter, where's his main location.
	He's been a writer and commentator on a wide range of political subjects, including national security, for some time, and has been one of the leaders in pushing out accurate data concerning what is really happening with COVID-19.
	in the lockdown context, despite a lot of resistance from the institutional press and some of the conservabros, as they sometimes call them.
	So, Jordan, glad you could be with us.
	Yeah, thanks for having me.
	How shocked have you been in terms of not only how right you ended up being in terms of predicting and forecasting things, but the fact that so many on the other side, on the lockdown side, have doubled down and tripled down, even when all the science and data has rebutted what they're claiming?
	Yeah, right off the bat, those of us who kind of took a step back and looked at the situation rationally were the people that ended up being right.
	You know, it's a life lesson that was learned difficultly because of this epidemic.
	And you know, all this stuff that we were talking about months ago seems to have come to fruition.
	And that was because we never really panicked.
	And so many people panicked.
	And unfortunately, the people that aren't living in fear and terror are, I think in America today, distinctly in the minority.
	And we need to do what we can to wake people up.
	And to, you know, get their sanity back.
	There's not only 41 million jobless applications, there's tens of millions of Americans who have been driven to a state of, you know, clinical anxiety because of this because they've been told by the media and by the politicians and by the bureaucrats that they're going to go outside and they might drop dead at any moment.
	So we need to get back and I think the president can do a lot of work with his reopening campaign and getting the right facts out and getting people to acknowledge that maybe this thing isn't as terrorizing and as damaging and as lethal as we thought it once was.
	Yeah, can you give people a summation of the data that we've seen from the last two months in terms of how dangerous and deadly and transmittable COVID-19 really is?
	So the CDC released a report this week that basically acknowledged that the death rate, the case, the infection fatality rate of the coronavirus is at least 12 times lower than the initial World Health Organization estimate of 3.4%.
	So in terms of how deadly it was, they were way wrong.
	And they also missed the number on spread as well.
	They thought that this would spread asymptomatically, when in fact it appears asymptomatically, meaning people without symptoms are spreading the virus.
	But now, you know, there's exhaustive studies that have shown that no, this coronavirus operates similarly to a lot of other coronaviruses.
	And basically if you're sick, if you're showing symptoms and you sneeze next to someone, you're sitting next to someone and then you can basically get them sick.
	So most people are spreading it, the overwhelming majority of people are spreading it symptomatically.
	So the whole thing about the asymptomatic threat from people that are carrying the virus never really turned out to become reality.
	In terms of like the prescriptions for containing the virus, such as lockdown, we know that it was ineffective because in the United States we basically employed this loose lockdown measure that allowed people to continue to go to the grocery stores in New York City, continue to ride the subway.
	And it was ineffective in stopping the virus.
	And because it transmits in close, confined spaces, there's an argument to be made that lockdown actually kind of just accelerated the spread.
	And by acknowledging such a low case fatality rate, the CDC in turn is acknowledging that at least 40 million Americans have been affected with the coronavirus.
	And while that sounds like a scary number, that means that You have a very low chance if you're infected with the coronavirus of dying from the coronavirus.
	So it's actually good news.
	And can you explain if for sort of we break it down by age, if somebody has a child under the age of 15, what is the risk to them of dying from COVID-19 as compared to say the seasonal flu?
	It's significantly higher with the seasonal flu.
	The cases of People under 15 years old dying with the coronavirus is close to zero.
	I wouldn't be surprised if it was absolute zero when you take into account the post-mortems.
	And there really isn't much evidence whatsoever.
	I think if you have children, your children are basically as close to zero risk from the coronavirus as possible, unless they have some severe potential underlying conditions related to maybe asthma and diabetes.
	But in terms of no children in America should have been impacted by this.
	And instead, Every state, every college shut down.
	It is a very unfortunate decision driven by panic.
	And, you know, even at the time we already had the data out of Wuhan, China, and places like Italy and Spain that were really blown up from the virus, that kids were never particularly impacted.
	So it's kind of sad that, you know, these policies were just driven home based on nothing, based on a fear of a virus Especially for children, or really anyone under 60 years old has much more to worry about from the flu than they do from the COVID-19 strain of the virus.
	And from looking at the medical literature, what can you tell people about how much scientific data is there behind the idea that social distancing actually prevents transmission of the disease, and particularly and also the context of the indoor-outdoor difference between how this disease is transmitted?
	So there's still no legitimate scientific studies showing outdoor spread being a problem.
	There were studies, they were revoked shortly thereafter.
	In terms of indoor spread, yeah, that's the predominant cause by far.
	When it comes to social distancing, this is basically an ongoing social experiment.
	There's no proof that social distancing works.
	There's no proof that outdoor mask wearing is going to stop the virus either way.
	And we've been basically just sold a bill of myths Social distancing has absolutely no science behind it.
	I know it's hard to hear that and think like, how could these public health officials just be lying to us constantly?
	But I think that's just the reality of the situation that, you know, they got behind this concept of social distancing six feet.
	They're just very arbitrary numbers.
	How did they get to six feet?
	Well, you know, they said that if you sneeze, maybe the droplets will travel six feet.
	Maybe they'll travel five feet, maybe seven feet.
	They didn't really know, so they went with six feet.
	And then people, I think people that aren't really familiar with the bureaucrats in D.C., thought that six feet must have been some hard science.
	No, there's no hard science to it.
	It's just they decided on six feet.
	Whoever was in charge of the CDC's press shop said, OK, six feet, let's do it.
	And those are the guidelines for the entire country now.
	So it's just kind of how that worked out.
	And can you describe for people what the data is behind masks?
	I mean there we've had contradictory messages from public health officials.
	To what degree is there actual clinical studies or science that you've seen that says masks will prevent people from getting COVID-19?
	So you need an electron microscope to see a virus.
	You need 10 million times magnification.
	So when you're wearing like a bandana on your face that isn't really particularly sealed, it's hard to really state that there's science behind this idea that masks work.
	A lot of people point to the epidemic in East Asia But, you know, they were really driven.
	There's multiple factors there.
	They really did a good job isolating the symptomatic and getting on top of the virus way earlier in terms of like what South Korea is doing.
	With what Japan's doing, they also have universal masking, but they remain open the entire time.
	And they have a lot more health positives than we do.
	Japan's obesity rate is 4%.
	Ours is 36%.
	And we know that for people that aren't in nursing homes that are dying from the coronavirus, the top three comorbidities are obesity, diabetes and asthma.
	And numbers two and three, diabetes and asthma, are also a lot of times related to obesity.
	So if we have a nine times higher chance right off the bat of dying from the coronavirus, And we have this liberal counting measure and Japan has around 1,000 documented coronavirus deaths as opposed to our 100,000.
	And Japan doesn't really have our senior care issue as bad as ours is.
	You can kind of tally up the data and see that masks didn't stop the spread because we know that they have serology studies there.
	So it's the fact of why are people dying in the United States and why are they not dying in Japan?
	I think it's largely because we're a much less healthy society.
	And they take care of their seniors better than we do.
	And they didn't have officials like Andrew Cuomo ordering sick people into nursing homes and basically wiping out entire populations of nursing homes.
	Yeah, can you talk about one of the key barometers that's coming up that we were talking about way back in March publicly about the need for a nursing home specific set of policies given the high risk from the data available from China and Italy about who was most impacted by this.
	Can you talk about what so many democratic politicians up north did, some politicians in Sweden and other places did, where in the UK, in Canada, and in terms of how that impacted, how many of the deaths come from just nursing homes and how that came about in the first place?
	So, of course, this starts with the models, right?
	Because the models said 3.4% of people that are going to get the virus are going to die.
	So this freaked a lot of people out.
	And in Europe, you know, they have the socialized healthcare system.
	So they basically set a number and said, if you're under 70, if you're under 75, whatever, We're just not going to treat you because we're expecting a giant explosion in the general population in the hospitals, and that general explosion in the hospitals never came.
	So what happened with Italy, what happened with Spain, what's happening in Sweden is that, you know, even though Sweden remained open, Sweden also has very poor care and nursing home facilities and executed the similar policies that you saw in Italy, Spain, in New York, in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, in Minnesota, in Michigan.
	That they decided, and they won't acknowledge this now, but they decided that the elderly population basically has to be sacrificed.
	They're playing a game of age eugenics.
	So they said, we have to free up room for the healthy people in society.
	And what's ironic about that, it's so paradoxical, That these were the people who were all on the lockdown side telling us that you need to stay in your home to make sure grandma's okay, but they were sending patients back into nursing homes and killing grandmas in huge quantities because of these policies.
	Because they thought that people in the general population were going to get the coronavirus and they needed the hospital capacity for those people and they never They never showed up to the hospitals.
	So, well, there's anecdotal evidence, but in terms of, you know, wide swaths of the general population, we have 1.5 million seniors in nursing homes and, you know, 328 million other Americans.
	And of those 328 million Americans, a significant amount got the coronavirus and just never showed up to the hospital.
	So we just ended up needlessly killing, unfortunately, I think tens of thousands of senior citizens.
	Can you also describe the ongoing issue with how deaths are being counted?
	Because as we discussed early on, the flu was mostly estimated data, but they've decided to apply completely different standards for COVID than they have anything else in terms of the accuracy of the data and how we can utilize that data in public policy decisions going forward.
	So this issue really comes from the federal bureaucracy.
	The CDC guideline is basically that if this person tests positive for coronavirus, it's a coronavirus death, no questions asked.
	There was even someone on social media a couple weeks ago that was was interacting with like the Alabama Health Department, I think it was, and said that if someone who's COVID positive gets hit by a bus and dies, is it a COVID positive death?
	Is it a COVID death?
	And the person said, yes, it's technically a COVID death per the CDC guidelines.
	There's only one state in America, I believe, and it's Colorado, that is separating the deaths from COVID and the deaths with COVID.
	And they're finding that a significant percentage of people who are dying with COVID, basically, you know, it's just one of many comorbidities and it may not have had much to do with their deaths.
	So we certainly have, among the reported death total, not including, you know, the people who may have died at home from a variety of ailments because of the lockdowns, We certainly have an inflated number.
	That's 100% certain because people are relying on CDC guidelines in 49 to 50 states.
	And can you describe for people, in terms of the economic impact here, first, for that population, most of the working population between the ages of 16 and 60, who don't have any other comorbid condition, what was their risk in the first place of dying from COVID?
	And secondly, what has been the economic fallout of the policies that prohibited them from being able to work?
	Yeah, the lockdown only caused negatives.
	The risk of someone basically, if you're under 60 and healthy, you have less than a 0.01% chance of dying from COVID if you get infected with COVID.
	So that's not even counting, you know, the people that just avoid the infection entirely.
	So the idea that we needed to do this to save lives was always wrong because there's two specific portions of the population that are really high risk.
	It's people in nursing homes and people that are super morbidly obese that have developed conditions because of their obesity.
	And for some reason our health officials just never discussed the latter issue and they don't really want to discuss the former issue because they had a lot to do with the nursing home policies.
	So now we put Tens of millions of Americans out of work for no good reason, really.
	And unfortunately, there's a lot of officials pretending like, oh yeah, you made such a great sacrifice, continue on, you know, wear a mask, let's stop the spread.
	But in reality, the hard truth is that you staying at home for a few months did absolutely nothing.
	And You did not make any great sacrifice.
	Public health officials have just ruined people's lives needlessly.
	I know people don't want to hear that.
	They want to think that they're contributing to a particular effort, but it's just not the case here.
	If you're sitting at home doing nothing and you go to the grocery store and get coronavirus anyway, that's happened to a lot of people.
	There was no point in this whole thing is what I'm trying to say.
	And can you describe for people what some of the adverse public health consequences have been in terms of people not getting cancer treatments, not getting, not going to the hospital for a heart or other conditions, people, suicide risk, opiate risk, abuse issues.
	Can you describe what happened because of the lockdowns in terms of those deaths or health consequences that are not COVID specific but are lockdown specific?
	Yeah, it goes all the way from what you're talking about to an individual level to a national power level.
	Cancer screenings, dentistry, you name it.
	Human beings are never meant to be sitting in cubes for months at a time.
	We're very social people.
	There was a new study came out that anxiety and depression has spiked dramatically.
	Suicide spiked dramatically.
	In a lot of places in the United States, suicides are way outnumbering COVID deaths.
	And I think a lot of people don't realize that on a national scale, it's really hurting us vis-a-vis China, which is open right now.
	And we are still going through this really bad recovery, largely for two reasons.
	One, because we're still under severe restrictions.
	And second, because the American people have been so terrorized into believing that this virus is so much more lethal than it is.
	So they're afraid to go outside and contribute to the economy.
	And you come at this both from a national security perspective and have looked at the economic consequences.
	Can you describe where we're at from a national security perspective because of these policies vis-a-vis the economy concerning China and other places in the sense that we are now at a competitive disadvantage in the world economy while China's full-scale and we're still at some version of 70% power?
	For sure.
	Whenever we're dumping trillions of dollars into bailing out our economy, those are dollars that are not being used to secure our nation.
	And when we're late to the recovery game, to the reopening game, other nations are getting a competitive advantage over us.
	It's happening throughout the West.
	The United Kingdom has an absolutely brutal lockdown.
	And I think some countries, some important allies, will spend years trying to recover from this.
	And hopefully that's not going to be our country.
	Hopefully we'll have this V-shaped recovery.
	But because people are so terrorized, it's hard to see it right now.
	And there's all these plans being floated by politicians and Uh, policy makers saying, oh, we're going to take the fight to China.
	We're going to reorient the supply chains, all that good stuff.
	And I agree with that.
	I agree that we should get off of, um, all this trade, all this trade, reciprocal trade with China.
	I think it doesn't do any, it does a disservice to the United States, but at the same time, we might not be in a position to take an economic, uh, you know, go total economic warfare with China right now, because China is in a much more advantageous position with their coronavirus recovery.
	And we are still really in the first year.
	So we need to get out of this as quickly as we can.
	So we don't, you know, wake up in a couple of months and then realize that China is the predominant world power.
	So it's a giant threat.
	And the coronavirus, the countries that have responded to this the best have gained, perhaps caught up years on other countries in terms of the health of their nation, the economy, their military.
	This is how Because of how much we spent on this, it's been absolutely, it's absolutely decimated the United States.
	And I hope that people will start to wake up and start contributing to the economy, start to realize how essential it is that the United States remains the most powerful nation in the world.
	But we can't do that until we get out of this coronavirus madness.
	Exactly, this sort of lockdown insanity that is itself the major flaw.
	What do you think the president should do, sort of as a last question, what do you think the president should do and what can he do to both get the country back, the economy back up and going, restore his re-election prospects, particularly given the hole that has been dug for him over the last several months?
	I love the idea that was being floated around social media by some of the president's supporters, that he needs to come out To the country, all over the country, and just do reopening rallies.
	Declare victory over this virus.
	We know that the epidemic is largely declining and is going to be pretty much over soon.
	The epidemic has followed the same path in basically every single country that has produced with a similar climate, similar demographics.
	So I think that the president can take advantage of this moment, have reopening rallies, tell the American people that they don't really have much to worry about anymore.
	Stop with the mask nonsense, because that's just going to stop the recovery and make people more petrified, I think.
	And I think that the president can just say, you know, listen, you know, the worst is behind us.
	It's time for this grand economic reopening.
	And it's time for America to get back to normal again.
	No more new normal stuff.
	But, you know, we're ready to take on the challenges of the future.
	And I think that he should host his first reopening rally in Georgia and credit the governor of Georgia for taking such bold, aggressive steps in setting the path forward for allowing America to get back to a sense of normalcy.
	Exactly.
	Big outdoor Trump re-elect America, re-open America, re-restore America rallies would be a great way for him to do it.
	Thanks for being with us, Jordan.
	Yeah, thanks so much.
	We also encourage you to continue to support our sponsor that makes this platform possible, bringing you independent information for people like Jordan.
	That's InfoWarsStore.com, where you can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser by getting products that you like at a deep discount.
	with the Memorial Day sales now being extended through this weekend.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Just go through some of the articles, surveys, and studies referenced by Jordan Schachtel and that excellent summation of the truth behind the COVID-19 media hoax, political hoax, trying to exaggerate the fear and the risk from it.
	Two people who are never at risk in ways that has now favored politically, economically, and socially their allies.
	Billionaires got richer during this.
	China got more powerful during this, putting the president under the eight ball for re-election prospects due to the devastation in the public economy.
	Another two million unemployment claims filed today.
	We're now well over 40 million people and more than double-digit unemployment, while the government has gone trillions, trillions into debt.
	And that doesn't even include all the money the Fed is printing.
	Given to its Wall Street pals and allies.
	So let's go through just a few of those articles that also reference that have been published in the last day or two and studies and surveys.
	There's one from The Spectator.
	It's time to end the lockdown and switch to voluntary social distancing of any kind.
	Going through how all of the information shows over and over and over again.
	Those who look at the details and the data in details seeing that the lockdown produced far more harm than benefit with doubts as to whether it produced any benefit at all.
	Similarly, from the Telegraph, the lack of evidence the lockdowns actually worked is a world scandal.
	The Telegraph goes into detailed studies from the University of East Anglia, from JPMorgan Chase, from Professor Levitt, from other professors and scholars around the world, Ioannidis and others, documenting and detailing both in advance, during and now, the problems with this evidence-free approach.
	That was not predicated on science, that was not based in data, but was based in fear-mongering meant to terrorize the Western world into submission to a Chinese social credit model system that they're trying to introduce through testing and tracing and tracking, that they're trying to introduce through spying and informing, that they're trying to do through massive forms of invasive actions in terms of both your privacy and potential forced vaccinations.
	There's no evidence that any of this had any evidentiary or scientific basis as being either necessary or reasonable in regards to the COVID-19 threat that was greatly exaggerated, both in terms of how much it could spread and what danger and harm it could cause.
	In addition, going to that University of East Anglia study, it was the impact of what they called non-pharmaceutical interventions.
	That means various things like social distancing, lockdowns, anything that concerns other than the actual treatment of medicine.
	Because medical treatment is actually giving you medicine.
	Social distancing is not medicine.
	Social distancing is a form of social control and mind control.
	Wearing masks is not medicine.
	Wearing masks is a form of social control.
	And the question was, were these non-pharmaceutical, you could call them non-medical, interventions in people's everyday life, through social mandate, through either social shaming and private employers doing it, or through the state itself requiring it and compelling it, what was the evidence in Europe that it worked?
	And they went through great detail, and what they found was, ultimately, they said the current epidemic is only unprecedented in the kind of interventions that it had.
	So here's more medical literature, more scientific literature, more professorial literature, more academic literature, confirming what we talked about, what Jordan just talked about, for months on this show, which is, there is no basis for this in history.
	We've never done anything like this.
	We didn't do it during the Black Plague.
	We didn't do it during the Spanish Flu.
	Which, by the way, a little side note, at the time, they didn't know that it was a flu or influenza.
	And if you go back and read some of the letters of the author of Great Gatsby, Mr. Fitzgerald, to people talking about his debates with Ernest Hemingway from the 1920s, where Hemingway was out and about doing whatever he wanted while Fitzgerald was hiding in his home and stocking up supplies, and Hemingway kept telling him, you don't have to worry about this too much, this is just another form of influenza.
	And Fitzgerald was like, no, no, you don't know what you're talking about, Hemingway.
	Well, it turned out, of course, Hemingway was right.
	The Spanish flu was just another form of influenza.
	Hemingway was ahead of all the public health officials all the way back then as to understanding what was going on, and he refused to limit his life in the name of some politicians' orders.
	But even those politicians didn't order anything like what we've been through.
	As this study confirms and reaffirms, indeed, there's no evidence in history to support the scope and scale of what took place here.
	But it goes beyond that, it looked at whether or not what's called the R number, that's the R0, sometimes designated by R0, the rate of replication of the transmission of the disease by number of people one person can infect.
	So R1 is one person can infect one, R2 is one person can infect two, R3 is one person can infect three, and so forth.
	They were projecting that this would have a high R-naught rate, way above 1, likely in the 3 to 4 range, and that thus it would spread at exponential levels and would spread to a wide percentage of the population.
	It presumed that nobody was immune.
	It presumed a degree of transmission that had never happened in the history of these kind of flus and viruses in such a compressed time frame over a wide, geographically diverse space.
	Well, in fact, as it goes through, it noted that we found the closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings, the closure of some non-essential businesses, that was associated in certain instances with reduced incidence of transmission of the disease.
	So, in other words, mass indoor gatherings where there's poor ventilation, where everybody's in close, continuous contact in confined quarters.
	For example, sending old people that are infected back into nursing homes with bad ventilation and very vulnerable people.
	That will increase the rate.
	Not doing that, like Florida did, Florida did not do it, led to a decrease rate.
	So even though Florida is one of the highest percentages of elderly people in the United States, it had one of the lowest rates of disease transmission and death from this virus.
	While New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, other places had a New Jersey, higher rates.
	And many of these states, the public health officials or the politicians, required nursing homes to take infected people, even though they had poor ventilation and didn't meet CDC standards for taking them at the time, leading to over half of the deaths in many of those states.
	In some cases, it looks like as high as two thirds of the deaths coming solely from nursing homes.
	De facto death panels of the kind Bill Gates, just coincidentally, I'm sure, said he himself is for some years ago.
	It noted, however, that stay at home orders Closure of all businesses requiring the wearing of face masks or coverings in public was not associated with any additional impact on the transmission of COVID-19.
	And this is an expansive study from the University of East Anglia in London, in England.
	The most important COVID-19 statistic?
	Almost half of the U.S.
	deaths come from less than about one-half of 1% of the population, as Forbes reported today, detailing that, again, the nursing home epidemic is what this really was, not a COVID-19 epidemic.
	Additional joint statement from hundreds of doctors and medical professionals coming out against the lockdowns due to the deleterious and detrimental effects in the public health sector for ordinary people, people not getting cancer screenings, people not getting diagnostic treatment.
	People not getting heart treatments, people not getting a wide range of conditions diagnosed in the first place, in other cases not getting the medical treatment they need, not getting the various forms of surgery they may have needed, not getting emergency treatment in a timely manner, is causing an increase of death just from the absence of health care available to them solely based on this panic-driven lockdown politics.
	The lockdown is not driven by science, it's directly contrary and contradictory to it.
	In addition, there's two publications in Medium about the coronavirus shutdown effectiveness, which you can have it visualized in two major studies, both in the United States and Europe.
	What do they conclude?
	The various forms of social distancing and shelter-at-home orders had no positive effect by any of the evidence, by any of the data, whether measured by Google Mobility, measured by timing of shutdown, measured by timing of infection and death and the date of death.
	None of it.
	No correlation whatsoever that any of those things had any impact on reducing the transmission or the mortality or lethality of this disease.
	Meanwhile, there's talk about how the COVID-19 post-lockdown politics will, as is reported by Sky, police prepare for a post-lockdown gang violence fueled by social media.
	Indeed, we saw in Minneapolis yesterday some of the consequences of all this pent-up activities.
	Now, there may be more to it.
	There are people who are on social media saying they believe some of those involved were deliberate instigators trying to accelerate controversy and conflict in a political time, rather than being motivated sincerely and seriously by the civil rights issues of concerns from what appears to be We do not yet know the wrongful death of an individual caught on videotape by police officers.
	There's at least been that allegation.
	We don't have all the documents or the data or the evidence to know for certain what took place or transpired there.
	We do know there have been various material misrepresentations made about the police officers, but from my initial viewing of the tape, I suspected it's someone who exercised excessive force in what he did.
	The person was saying that he needed to breathe, he was putting his a knee on the back of his head in such a way that can be a permissible means of detaining someone, but not to the purposes, not for the abusive purpose of causing him undue, unnecessary harm or death.
	In addition, appears that some of the police officers involved in that case have not only been terminated from enforcement based on an internal investigation, but also there are issues about whether they have a past history of problematic behavior.
	But a lot of this is being prefaced and premised and predicted by the nature of the lockdowns.
	The lockdowns are creating the smokehouse atmosphere where those kind of fires can light a flame, different political controversy and gang violence across the Western world.
	In addition, lockdowns hurt economy but failed to change the course of COVID-19.
	Washington Times reporting on the JPMorgan Chase study that went into great documentary detail on this.
	The Washington Times also reporting the coronavirus hype was, quote, the biggest political hoax in history.
	As referenced by Jordan Schachtel earlier, another new study, isolation, the form of social distancing requiring forcing people in isolation, can increase chances of early death by as much as 50 percent.
	We're going to have all kinds of people who ended up with severe medical and physical and psychological health problems solely because of this lockdown forced upon them, where they're basically effectively forced into isolation like they were in a prison for, and that's where the word lockdown comes from, it's a prison word for locking down people, basically putting them in isolation for putting them in the tank, as they call it in many jails and prisons, for the better part of two months.
	In some places it's still ongoing in some parts of the world.
	Including here in parts of New York and California.
	Meanwhile, just as the Denmark health officials came out and recognized the lockdown had no positive effect, now even Norway's health chief admits the lockdown was not needed to deal with COVID-19.
	It was a mistake from the get-go.
	And if you want to look at a detailed study of all of it, some of what was reported in JPMorgan Chase and others, the CEPR Press has put out a COVID economics vetted in real time papers.
	It goes through the issues of Sweden, it goes through the issues of herd immunity, it goes through all the different measurements, and it talks about who is and was not working, what the economic effects, it's about Couple of hundred pages thick and it goes through details that again backs up and confirms and corroborates what Jordan was talking about earlier.
	This lockdown was the greatest public policy debacle of the 20th century in terms of public health in the United States in the West.
	Meanwhile, we have what we saw in Minneapolis.
	And for that context, it's useful to note that not only is this partially the product of lockdown-driven policies and politics, but it's also driven by people who want to manipulate events concerning police abuse and misconduct, or public abuse or misconduct, for politicized purposes.
	Indeed, I do a lot of civil rights cases all across the country.
	Have been doing so for two decades.
	Not afraid to call racism out for its name.
	People who experience it on a daily basis in the United States of America.
	It is long, while it may be partially forgotten, it is not forsaken in many parts of the West.
	So it is a functional and everyday reality.
	But what I find is that in those cases that are civil rights cases, the most effective way to pursue civil rights solutions for those civil rights abuses is to have unifying cases.
	Cases that Scott Adams was talking about, the best way to distinguish between a politicized case and an honest case is that a politicized case will try to be divisive rather than uniting, will try to isolate rather than universalize the experience.
	Scott Adams pointed it out in the context of AIDS that the people fighting for therapeutics for AIDS treatment did a very good job universalizing the concern about AIDS so that it wasn't isolated to people of a particular set of behaviors or lifestyle.
	And that, in effect, led more people to be concerned, to be compassionate, and to take meaningful medical action and public policy action that could help produce it.
	In the same context, good civil rights cases are built in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which was about making sure that everybody understood that police abuse anywhere, anyplace, anytime is a threat to everyone, everywhere, every time.
	Abusive cops will not be limited by race or by gender or by creed or by color or by region or by location.
	Abusive police officers, abusive government agencies, Abusive government agents are simply that way, period, and they're that way across the board.
	Indeed, there's substantial evidence of civil rights abuses that happen to people of all races, all gender backgrounds, all ethnic backgrounds, all religious backgrounds.
	So it's not isolated to a group of people, even if there is often a racial coloration to what takes place by people who are either racially prejudiced or often simply believe they can get away with it in those contexts because of politically marginalized groups of people in the country.
	So, the first way in which to meaningfully impact civil rights change is to universalize the case, to recognize this is unhuman, anti-human conduct when police abuse takes place, to be outraged by it, and to want to seek social change for it.
	I generally have pursued civil rights cases that have been universalizing in their nature.
	They unite people.
	When people dig into the facts, they recognize that this was wrong, this was anti-human, they don't want that to occur, they want remedy to take place, they want to deter it from happening in the future, they want political reform where needed, employment laws changed if required, and various forms of civil rights laws to be enforced and acted upon as necessary.
	However, what I've noted in so many cases over the past half decade, much like many of the cases of the late 1960s, there has been a continuous effort to effectively push a different narrative.
	They take cases that have bad facts.
	Why do they do that?
	They take a case that will be political, and in order for it to be political, it needs to be divisive, not uniting.
	So what you find disproportionately is in cases like Trayvion Martin, cases like Michael Brown, cases like Tamir Rice, cases like Ahmaud Arbery.
	In those cases, you'll often find bad fact patterns.
	You'll find fact patterns that really don't support the narrative that's being pushed.
	That serves the purposes of it being divisive.
	A uniting issue is not politically impactful.
	A uniting issue is not politically effective for partisan purposes.
	You need a divisive issue.
	And the beauty of a divisive issue is it will do two things.
	The bad facts will make it so that that side of the political aisle that wants to look at the facts will say, you know what, this is bogus.
	This is, in fact, sort of a fake scandal that's being reported.
	And it will lead them to be more skeptical of other legitimate civil rights cases.
	At the same time, these cases also achieve divisiveness by reinforcing stereotypes, reinforcing stereotypes for the people that are outraged by what happens, often based on a misleading narrative, saying, wow, if I go out, if I'm African-American, I walk out in the street, maybe I can get randomly shot, randomly chased down, I walk out in the street, maybe I can get randomly shot, randomly chased down, randomly beat When you have that mindset and mentality, it's going to increase a sense of political futility, particularly when you look at cases and increase your sense of risk, like COVID-19.
	Have people scared to even walk out the door thinking the disease might get me from anywhere.
	Maybe my neighbor, maybe my family, maybe my friend.
	Make you afraid of your own intimate partners because you think, wow, maybe they're going to spread it to me.
	That's the mindset and mentality of the COVID-19 fear machine.
	Well, the fear machine and racial divisiveness is no different.
	They want the people that are African American, or in some cases Latino, depending on the nature of the case, to be scared and terrified that the whole rest of society wants to cause them harm.
	That's step one.
	Step two, they want them to feel politically useless.
	They want them to feel futile.
	And how do you do that?
	By taking a case with bad facts.
	Remember, a case with good facts Uh, will be a universalizing case.
	So you won't achieve the first benefit, because you'll be able to isolate this to a bad actor.
	You'll see if you're within the African-American, Latino, or other communities, then 90% of the people are with you.
	And when 90% of the people are with you, then there's no reason to fear everybody.
	Then you're just fearing the, like a woman out on the street fears the rapist or the stalker, doesn't fear every man she sees.
	Uh, if they know that's an isolated incident, not a commonplace incident.
	And so the need for divisiveness means they have to have the person afraid of everybody, which means they need cases that are not uniting, which means they need cases that are bad on the facts in general, or pushing narratives that will achieve that.
	So step one, make sure that they're scared of everybody, that they're terrified of each other, ideally.
	We'll get to that second step in a minute.
	The second part of it is they need to feel politically futile.
	They need to feel their only means of remedy is to speak outrage or to support a particular political party or cause.
	In order for that to happen, they need bad facts.
	Cases like mine that have good facts are much more likely to win, much more likely to prevail, much more likely to see results, much more likely to see change.
	When you can't see that happening because the case that was pushed upon you was a case with bad facts, You believe the false narrative, like the narrative around Ahmaud Arbery, or Trayvion Martin, or the Michael Brown case, or the Tamir Rice case.
	When you have questionable facts, then you're in a position where you believe a fake narrative.
	The fake narrative gets exposed in court.
	All of a sudden you feel like, wow, I never get legal relief.
	I never get legal remedy.
	It's going to be Rodney King all over again.
	So they need divisive cases with bad facts in order to propagate the political agendas that they have.
	So step one, make sure people fear everybody, make sure they fear each other.
	Second, make sure the case doesn't actually have likelihood of success because the facts actually don't support the narrative.
	And step three is also to reinforce stereotypes on the other side.
	So to achieve that, if it's a case with bad facts, Then it achieves that because you have someone like Armand Arbery, who now people be, oh yeah, that's just somebody jogging.
	Right?
	Just another jogging story.
	When he wasn't out jogging, that isn't likely what the evidence will show.
	It was likely that he was casing out properties, probably to steal and criminal trespass upon them.
	That doesn't mean the outcome is a justifiable outcome, but it does mean that the jogging story, like he was Obama's sort of fictional son like Trayvion Martin, it was a bogus story to push and pitch.
	But that's what happens.
	You get people on the politically opposite side to say, oh, you're just making stuff up, you're just exaggerating, and ideally, that's why they pick cases like Michael Brown, cases like Tamir Rice, cases like Trayvion Martin, people that will have a history of bullying behavior or criminal behavior or bad behavior in general.
	It increases the stereotype effect towards people that are African American or Latino.
	So it helps propagate racial prejudice on both sides.
	Have one side terrified that the other side wants to harm them, have the other side caricaturing and stereotyping them to think they are the image that the racial prejudice originally produced, the original initial action in the first place.
	This is the nature of these kind of politicized narratives and that is why in the context of The Minneapolis case, where at least on paper you have a legitimate factual case, a case that could be unifying, a case that could be uniting if the facts continue to develop in a favorable way in that particular case for the side that says this was a civil rights violation.
	All of a sudden you suddenly get riots.
	You have to ask yourself at some point, riots that will reinforce all the negative stereotypes, riots that will reinforce racial prejudice, riots that will reinforce people that have skepticism and questions of civil rights claims.
	Ask yourself, if riots are completely just sporadic events, spontaneous events, just a sort of unleashing of outrage without being able to control it or cabinet, ask yourself, if it makes sense that the riot is in fact that way, why does it always happen on almost a predictable planned schedule?
	If the case is a very good case, somehow you get riots behind it, like Rodney King.
	So, like what happened in Minneapolis.
	But otherwise, if the case is a bad case, then often you don't get riots.
	So the better the case, the more likely you're going to get riots that achieve the same politically divisive objective as a case with bad facts.
	That somehow, whenever they pursue it, they mostly ignore cases that are good fact patterns.
	That's what the press does.
	That's what these political actors do.
	That's what these social media manipulators do.
	And yet here, when you have a case with good case, somehow ends up with riots, and these riots seem to coincidentally coincide with political efforts or election seasons.
	If riots are truly spontaneous, they should just happen randomly.
	You shouldn't be able to predict them and correspond them to the timing of an election, to the corresponding of the timing of some other public or social event.
	And these riots often appear...
	Uniquely presented.
	In other words, in order for a riot to happen, you have to have a lot of things that take place.
	And for that, let's go back to the politicization of riots in general.
	In the United States, legally, riots used to be that if a riot occurred, the local police force had to pay all property damages that occurred.
	Strict liability.
	Didn't matter if they did anything wrong.
	If a riot occurs, the whole purpose of a police force is to avoid riots.
	That was the logic of it back in the day.
	And if you have a police force, and a riot happens, they're on the hook for every penny, nickel, diamond, dollar of property damage.
	Suddenly that changed for the first time.
	In our history, in the late 1960s, right before we suddenly had a bunch of ravaging, raving riots across the United States.
	Is that supposed to be a coincidence?
	Or are they politically facilitating a riot occurring in the first place?
	When police had risk by not disciplining or controlling a riot, a lot of riots didn't happen, right?
	Riots were rare.
	Suddenly, when the only risk for a police official is intervening in a riot, did suddenly riots start to skyrocket.
	And they appeared to be politically coincidentally convenient to certain partisan actors and often had close proximity to election season.
	So you have to question how much riots are really authentic, organic expressions of spontaneous rage and how much they are being politically manipulated to occur by the actions that politicians take, actions that police forces take, actions that the press takes that help facilitate it.
	But we can't ignore the possibility, being reported on social media today, that there were false actors, agent provocateurs, amongst the rioters in Minneapolis, particularly as to violence, particularly as to the fires that were lit.
	That this was not lit by people from the Minneapolis area, but instead may have been lit by outsiders who were attempting to increase the level of violence and conflict and confrontation.
	In that regard, too many Americans have forgot the long, notorious history of the United States government and various actors infiltrating political movements in the civil rights context, instigating politicized violence in a wide range of circumstances.
	And in that context, you have to go back to something called COINTELPRO.
	And by note, COINTELPRO was the FBI's counterintelligence unit.
	And the only difference was they started to apply the same tactics they learned in counterespionage to domestic political movements in the United States.
	Not only that, who they went into bed with was also critical and essential.
	They often worked with criminal elements in the United States and around the world, just as they had done in the CIA OSS context, involved in everything from drug trafficking to basically cooperating and corroborating with the mob.
	If you want to understand how the counterintelligence units helped clean up the ports of New York during World War II from various forms of alleged German-Italian sabotage, you have to look no further than the release of Lucky Luciano from his upstate New York prison.
	And when you understand that these people are participating on a daily, repeated basis with criminal elements, then you understand how easy it is for them to be part of instigating politicized violence in the United States.
	So you can't ignore the possibility that some of these rogue actors were not there to support civil rights, was not part of a spontaneous outrage, but was intended to sort of light the flame to lead other people to take additional criminal actions in the hopes that they would discredit the civil rights issues that legitimately arose from that case and try to politically inflame
	the partisan divide to serve the interest of those people who want to undermine certain electoral options of certain political candidates in the upcoming election.
	Indeed, when we come back, we're going to get into some of the details.
	We're going to talk about the Citizens Committee to investigate the FBI, in a documentary called 1971 that was the first to expose COINTELPRO in the United States.
	We're going to show you videos from the church committee where people were actually, including members of the Klan, were actually undercover FBI agents and informants who instigated violence at the behest and behalf of their superiors and to the knowledge and acquiescence of those superiors.
	So we cannot ignore the possibility that some of the divisiveness we're witnessing in today's politics is not authentically originated from people making spontaneous objections, but are instead the product of a deliberate politically divisive narrative, but also a particular agent provocateur actors cannot be excluded or but also a particular agent provocateur actors cannot be excluded or precluded from the possible explanation as to the scope and scale of what took place Indeed, there's a long history of COINTELPRO.
	One of the leaders of COINTELPRO spying on the civil rights movement, spying on Marcus Garvey, spying on the people like Paul Robeson, spying on people like Ernest Hemingway, actually to the point where they almost they probably did drive him in Partially insane, from the degree and scale of their invasive actions on him, to spying on Martin Luther King, sabotaging Martin Luther King, using the tools of surveillance and sabotage to achieve it.
	Whatever they try to do in the counterintelligence unit, they try to do to counterinsurgency in the United States.
	Any politically dissident movement, whether it was civil rights, whether it was labor, whether it was anti-war, whether it was anti-empire, Whatever it may have been that was considered a threat to the powers that be that controlled the political levers of power over agencies like the FBI.
	Is it any coincidence that the same counterintelligence unit, counterespionage unit, ends up heading the anti-Trump activities?
	We'll get into that as well.
	Certain patterns and pathologies that are present in both cases.
	Is it any coincidence that Mark Felt used to run COINTELPRO and you knew him as Deep Throat?
	So come back and we'll talk more about the ways in which the politicians and the press and the public actors provoke dissidence that's not real and authentic in its nature, but to undermine it, not achieve it.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	The way to research COINTELPRO started all the way back in the 30s.
	It began from the very beginning of the FBI.
	Its formalization was later in the 50s and 60s, but various of its activities are known to have occurred all the way back then.
	It involved being in bed with the mob, being involved with drug runners and drug dealers, as we saw from MKUltra's CIA OSS project.
	It had similar origins in domestic federal law enforcement, just as narcotics officers were the foundation of the CIA operations of human experimentation in the MKUltra on vulnerable populations, marginal populations in the United States, as documented in a range of documentaries and other books and stories and actual government documents themselves.
	You can find it at the Freedom of Information Act, the FOIA page on the CIA site.
	The same is true of the FBI, operating in the same way.
	They maintained, in order to help achieve and accomplish this, a range of offices all across the country, including in a lot of small towns and suburbs.
	Well, that ended up backfiring on them when a group of smart, sage people decided to break into one of those small suburban offices in a little town called Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971.
	They in fact successfully, they called themselves the Committee to Investigate the FBI, the Citizens Committee to Investigate the FBI, and in it they were shocked to discover just the beginning and the tip of the iceberg of all the illicit activities J. Edgar Hoover's FBI had been involved in in decades.
	He would have basically been able to blacklist, blackball, and blackmail anyone he wanted, including presidents of the United States.
	Complicity and involvement, including in the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, President Kennedy, and Senator Kennedy, that at various levels either suggested or gave evidence towards people that were informants for the FBI, or agents of the FBI, or certain actions that the FBI took or chose not to take that helped facilitate those deaths.
	Indeed, what they're able to get is just the beginning of the little bits of information from it, and they explain some of their motivation to it here in video clip number six.
	You can get it from the documentary, 1971.
	You can find it yourself.
	Let's take a look at the clip here.
	We're clearly agent provocateurs in some of the demonstrations.
	You know, you'd see a guy with a crew cut, wingtips, and a tie-dyed t-shirt on saying, kill the pigs!
	And you're like, I think you need to go back to acting school, dude, because you're not pulling it off.
	There were groups, the FBI investigated, there were groups that were intent on tearing down the government and causing disruption in the government.
	The Weathermen were a violent element of this.
	These people robbed banks, they blew up university facilities that dealt with the Defense Department.
	So we had informants in there.
	We also did some of these things against the Black Panther Party, which wasn't just doing something for civil rights, but they committed acts of violence.
	Now it wouldn't be done, but in those days there was really no prohibition against it.
	So if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
	It was simply trying to wreck the groups that were trying to wreck the country.
	We knew very, very definitely that that kind of FBI surveillance was going to come down on a draft resistance movement.
	It was clear that that was happening.
	There were cameras everywhere.
	Everywhere you went, there was somebody taking your picture.
	And I saw how fear within the resistance community Can break the spirit of that community.
	That is, what happens when you begin to think, maybe she's a double agent.
	That kind of thing, it shrinks the discourse.
	It shrinks the possibility of resistance.
	It makes you more afraid and more lonely.
	Bill felt if the FBI was suppressing dissent, it was as important to expose that as it was to end the war.
	Indeed, it was that motivation, the recognition that surveillance and sabotage were the tools of the FBI against those they considered their political adversaries.
	You saw one of the FBI agents involved admitted their goal was to destroy them, their goal was to undo them.
	He had his various excuses and pretexts for it, but if you look at the actual FOIA files, and we only have a small, tiny sampling of them here today, you'll see that they were going after people for reasons where they had no probable cause of any criminal actions at all.
	Instead, they were trying to create the criminal actions through entrapment and other mechanisms and means.
	They also infiltrated the black Muslims.
	They infiltrated Malcolm X. One of Malcolm X's head security people was actually a secret undercover government informant.
	A key person that was connected to the Muslim group in Chicago was in fact withholding various documents and correspondence between X and the main National Coordinating Committee there in order to make sure that they could promote conflict between the groups rather than allow for unity to occur or appear.
	This was the methodology, this was the pattern and practice of these institutions and organizations going back five decades.
	Do we have real reason to believe they quit now, that they suddenly ceased doing so, given especially in light of the FISA abuses that took place by the counterintelligence units of the Department of Justice and the FBI against President Trump, leading President Trump to promise to veto FISA legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which such foreign intelligence was so misused and abused as it got exposed in the Church Committee in the 1970s, that led to the creation of it in the first instance.
	And here it was used again as a pretext and predicate to undermine domestic political adversaries of those who had the levers of political power in law enforcement and the Justice Department.
	Indeed, to understand some scale and scope of what took place, let's talk about the FBI's role in helping to instigate, promote, acquiesce in, and allow for violence by the Ku Klux Klan amongst its own informants.
	Let's take a look at video clip number seven.
	In connection with the Freedom Riders incident that you mentioned, did you inform the FBI about planned violence prior to that incident?
	Sir, I gave the FBI information pertaining to the Freedom Riders assault approximately three weeks before it occurred.
	And what did you tell them?
	I stated to them that I had been contacted by a Birmingham City detective, who in turn wanted me to meet with a high-ranking officer of the Birmingham Police Department to set a reception for the Freedom Riders.
	You mean the Birmingham policemen set up the beating of the Freedom Riders and you told the FBI that?
	That's correct, sir.
	And then were they beaten?
	They were beaten very badly, yes.
	And did the Birmingham police give you the time that they promised to give you to perform the beating?
	Yes, sir.
	We were promised 15 minutes with absolutely no intervention from any police officer whatsoever.
	The information was passed on to the Bureau.
	We had our 15 minutes.
	Approximately 15 minutes after the Freedom Riders were attacked, a police officer ran over to me and stated, God damn it, God damn it.
	Get out of here.
	Get them out of here.
	Your 15 minutes are up.
	We're sending the crew in.
	So there you have the FBI complicit in the notorious beating up of Freedom Riders in the 1960s.
	That's who the FBI was and is capable of being.
	That's why the building is still called the J. Edgar Hoover Building to this day.
	So we can't discount the possibility of such infiltration and agent provocateur activities even to this day in the FBI.
	Let's just take a look at some of the information that's been disclosed.
	Remember, many of the Hoover files have disappeared and vanished from public view.
	We don't have them.
	They vanished after his death.
	The person who was ahead of COINTELPRO was Mark Felt.
	Mark Felt would be better known to you later and probably better known to you today as Deep Throat.
	That's right, the guy who managed counterintelligence insurgencies, counterintelligence sabotage, counterintelligence surveillance on domestic political adversaries, was the guy who helped take out and lead the takeout of President Nixon.
	Probably just a coincidence there, too.
	Maybe that is why, as I asked years ago, Ben Bradley, the publisher responsible for the publishing of the Washington Post, during that time frame, maybe that the reason why he had kept, this was before it was known that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, but I simply speculated that the reason, and guessed, that the reason why both he and Bob Woodward were keeping the identity of Deep Throat secret was not because, not to protect Deep Throat, not to protect anonymity in general,
	But because if the world knew that the head of counterintelligence, the guy who was mad that he wasn't made the head of the Hooverized FBI after Hoover's death, the guy engaging in a personal revenge campaign against the Nixon administration for one of the better things they did, Try to de-Hooverize the FBI, that that was the guy in charge of taking out Richard Nixon.
	It wasn't some honorable, conscientious, thoughtful public administrative official blowing the whistle on terrible misconduct.
	It was one of the worst actors of government misconduct in the history of this country, orchestrating a coup against his political adversary because he wanted the FBI to stay as rogue and reckless and criminal as it had been for half a century under his boss and idol and mentor J. Edgar Hoover.
	That was the real reason.
	As I mentioned to Ben Bradley at the time, I said maybe the reason you guys don't want to disclose who Dee Throat is, is because he would embarrass you, the press.
	Because he would change the institutional narrative about what took place there.
	Because he would suggest your complicity in illicit actions and activities.
	And that the Dead wouldn't have this nice, clean, rosy, hagiographic view that it had at that time.
	And that was back in the early 1990s, when I was a student at Yale.
	So the in fact later of course it would be confirmed that probably the worst possible person it deep throat could have been was that person in Mark Felt and much of his history has still been covered up and much of his misconduct and malfeasance not dealt with because to the left he's a hero and icon for taking out President Nixon when in fact he was a reflection of some of the worst age of domestic law enforcement in the United States.
	He was part of more of the perversion of justice in the United States than maybe any person other than Jay Edgar Hoover in the history of the FBI.
	That's who Deep Throat really was.
	It gives you a sense of the context of who they are and how they act.
	Well, but we do have some of the documents left, in part because, as we mentioned in that documentary, those folks ended up being inspired by the illicit surveillance and sabotage taking place.
	to decide to break into the FBI's offices, which at that time they had a bunch of small little offices in small towns and suburbs across the country.
	Hoover would learn his lesson and quickly shut down all those offices after what happened.
	What happened was they successfully broke in to the offices in Media Pennsylvania, discovered just the tip of the iceberg of the scale and scope of COINTELPRO, And imagine how big COINTELPRO was.
	This domestic sabotage and surveillance campaign on political adversaries.
	A true enemies list far past what Richard Nixon ever could achieve or accomplish or even dream of.
	That a small FBI office with a few agents in a tiny suburb outside Philadelphia could have that many files on that operation.
	That gives you an idea of how big it was, how broad it was, how deep it was, how broad scale and wide scale it was.
	And it was in that context they got documents that led people later to COINTELPRO.
	So some of those documents they haven't been able to hide in time.
	And we'll just take a look at just one section.
	You can find it yourself if you go to the Freedom of Information Act, the FOIA page of the FBI, and just search COINTELPRO, C-O-I-N-T-E-L-P-R-O, which just stood for counterintelligence.
	And here they have at least some of the documents that they've admitted they had that had to be produced in the early 1970s.
	And there we'll see, and this is how these FBI agents kind of reports tend to work.
	This is from the special agent in charge.
	That's what SAC means, Albany.
	And this was in August 25, 1969.
	It was personal attention to all offices, so they're not trying to keep this secret or hidden from anybody.
	They're just trying to keep it secret and hidden from the public, but not amongst their own agency.
	It tells you whenever somebody says, that conspiracy couldn't happen, that requires thousands of people.
	Well, almost every successful governmental conspiracy, and there are many, involved hundreds and thousands of people successfully.
	I mean, that's how we built the A-bomb, for example.
	So the idea that you can't keep a secret amongst a large number of people is nonsense.
	No one studied history who believes that.
	Indeed, because this stayed a secret for a long time.
	The COINTELPRO, this counterintelligence program, they just called them black nationalist hate groups.
	That was their pretext and excuse to target civil rights groups.
	They would also target anti-war groups.
	They would also target a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties groups across the country, religious dissident groups.
	You name it.
	Waco was sort of a continuous reflection of this kind of mindset within parts of federal law enforcement.
	And they would talk about it as internal security.
	That was their code word.
	Because their whole pretext for all of this and their pitch was, hey, you know, all we're really doing is making sure that the Russian spies aren't infiltrating us.
	You wonder where they got the idea to do what they did with Trump.
	It goes all the way back to this.
	And it talks about offices receiving copies of this letter are instructed to immediately establish a control file to assign responsibility for coordinating counterintelligence program to an experienced and imaginative special agent.
	Why do you need an imaginative special agent?
	Because that's the nature of sabotage, not just surveillance.
	Surveillance without probable cause of a crime.
	Sabotage trying to create or commit crimes against others for the purposes of political propagation purposes.
	The special agent must be well-versed in certain investigative tactics.
	The field office will use the file to maintain it in this way.
	And it goes through.
	What's the purpose of this new endeavor?
	Is it what that FBI agent said on the documentary?
	Oh, we were just worried about certain groups like the Weather Underground and some gang units that were part of the Black Panthers party?
	No.
	This is when the honest internal documents disclose the real truth of what they were doing.
	The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose Disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or neutralize the activities of black nationalist groups, organizations, their leadership, their spokesmen, their membership, and their supporters, and to counter them for committing civil disorder.
	The civil disorder part is the last part.
	So it's exposed, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize their leaders, their speakers, their members, their supporters.
	Go at them full-scale, wholesale, to achieve this.
	Indeed, at times you have to take advantage of all opportunities, promptly, to inspire action in instances where circumstances warrant.
	You must expose these groups for their duplicity.
	You must do maneuvers to expose them to public scrutiny, to neutralize them.
	This went to every single special agent in charge's office in every single office across the United States.
	That's how broad this was.
	This was from the top, from J. Edgar Hoover, as a high top priority, to do all of this activities just towards civil rights groups and the rest.
	Talks about ways to recruit people to infiltrate them, to consolidate forces, to create conflicts between them, to expand on those conflicts with false information, to make sure individuals active have, quote, try to either entrap them or expose them for so-called backgrounds of try to either entrap them or expose them for so-called backgrounds of immorality, subversive activity, criminal records, investigate them
	Try to endeavor, quote, to establish their unsavory backgrounds, try to look at funding issues, look at financing issues, personal behavior issues.
	Talks about intensified attention to who are some of these dangerous, dangerous groups.
	Well, let's actually list them here.
	These so-called hate groups, according to J. Edgar Hoover, were the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Deacons for Defense and Justice, The Congress of Racial Equality.
	So not just individuals like Stokely Carmichael, Elijah Muhammad, or Malcolm X, but also Martin Luther King and a wide range of ministers.
	And remember they said focus on their members, focus on their supporters, focus on their subscribers, focus not just on the leaders, but everybody connected, associated, or affiliated with them.
	Do the things necessary to blacklist them.
	Do the things necessary to blackball them.
	Do the things necessary to blackmail them.
	Do what's necessary to destroy and disrupt by any means possible.
	That's who the history of the FBI and government agents and actives are.
	And if you think the Stasi in East Germany Or the KGB in Russia, or the Chinese, the CCP, the Chai Koms, are any different, then you're in a different world of naivete and delusions than even the continuous lockdown supporters and Hoover backers are, then or now.
	Indeed, in this context, we'll show a brief part of a documentary that was recently done by the Epoch Times that show how these kind of behaviors expand and extend even to environments like COVID-19.
	Let's take a look at part of a documentary on that in video clip number five.
	A report from the journal Science published online challenged that story.
	The report cited a paper in The Lancet, one of the world's top medical journals, and questioned whether Wuhan's novel coronavirus pneumonia could not have originated at the market.
	The paper titled, Clinical Features of Patients Infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan, China, was published in The Lancet on January 24.
	The first author of the paper is Huang Qiaolin, Deputy Director of Jinyintan Hospital, the first designated hospital for treatment of unknown pneumonia in Wuhan.
	Why would this come as a challenge to the official narrative?
	I think this journal article is very important.
	It reveals a lot of important information.
	For example, this paper talks about the first patient onset was actually on December 1st.
	These patients were not related to Huanan seafood market.
	And also no epidemiological association was found between the first patient and subsequent patient.
	And then also on this paper I talk about on December 10th, there were three more onset cases, two of which were not related to Huanan Sifu.
	- The latest coverage is that a total of 41 patients were counted in this paper, and 14 of them proved to be unrelated to the seafood market, accounting for more than one-third.
	No one sells a bet at the seafood market too, and the official from CDC is at Jin Yin Tan Hospital, of which 50 had no history of exposure to the seafood market.
	According to the New England Journal, of the 425 cases confirmed, 45 cases onset before January 1st had no history of exposure to the seafood market.
	Notably, the authors of the two Lancet papers in the New England Journal of Medicine are doctors and medical experts in mainland China.
	Daniel Lucey, an epidemiologist at the University of Georgetown, said in response to the Lancet paper that if the data were accurate, the first case would have been infected by the virus already in November 2019.
	Because of the incubation period between infection and symptoms.
	This would mean that the virus was quietly spreading between people in some parts of Wuhan before the cluster of cases with a history of exposure.
	The Huanan seafood market began on December 15.
	On January 10th, China disclosed the full genome sequence of the Wuhan novel coronavirus And many of the world's top virologists began analyzing it.
	As early as January 7th, an academic, Zhang Yongzhen, from the National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, along with the School of Public Health of Fudan University, submitted a joint paper to Nature.
	The paper was published on February 3rd, and pointed out that the Wuhan coronavirus is closely related to COV-ZC45, And COVZXC21, two viruses sampled from bats in Zhushan by the People's Liberation Army.
	The Wuhan coronavirus has an 89.1% nucleotide similarity to the COV ZC45 virus and even exhibits 100% amino acid similarity in the NSP7 and E proteins.
	Shortly after the paper was published, other scientists used BLAST, a program developed by the National Institute of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information to compare the viral sequence based on the data submitted by Chinese authorities on January 12th.
	The results matched with Zhang's findings.
	Another scientist, Lu Raojian from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and their team also published a paper in the Lancet on January 30.
	The paper stated that the Wuhan virus has an 88% similarity to two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses collected in Zhoushan, Zhejiang province of China.
	The earliest discovery of this bat-derived virus is by an expert from the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command.
	A paper published in 2018 states that scientists from this institute detected many SARS-like coronaviruses in bats from Zhoushan City, also known as bat-like coronavirus, Zhaoshan virus.
	In short, scientists found the Wuhan coronavirus, the current pandemic, is highly similar to a fat, SARS-like coronavirus previously discovered by the Nanjing Military Research Institute, showing 100% amino acid similarity in NSP7 and envelope protein, the E protein.
	What does this high similarity reveal?
	Hard to see proteins 100% identical when the virus jumps species.
	And so that was suggesting maybe the virus could be generated with reverse engineer process.
	I certainly believe that the 100% amino acid similarity says it can't possibly be a natural mutation.
	On January 21, researchers from the Institute Pasteur, Shanghai, Chinese Academy of Sciences published a paper in Science China Life Sciences that mentioned an important phenomenon.
	The sequence of a key part of S-protein of Wuhan virus has high homology with the SARS virus.

▲