All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2022 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
36:32
FBI Plays Central Role In Twitter's Election Manipulation Operation

As the threads of "Twittergate" continue to unravel, one common theme continues to be the role of the FBI - both current and former members - in the scandal. From phony Russiagate to suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop just before the election, the FBI is front and center in the operation. Also today: Are weapons for Ukraine surfacing in west Africa?

|

Time Text
Exposing The Lying 00:11:03
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
I'm doing fine.
Ready and rearing to go.
Good, good.
Lots going on.
Lots going on, but simple.
We can take care of it.
Actually, I believe a little bit of that because I think we make our problems complicated.
And the more we get the government involved, the more problems we have.
So it is simple.
Just have a non-interventionist society.
Mind your own business.
Take care of your own business.
Take care of your family.
And leave everybody else alone, especially other countries.
But that's not the way it is.
And it looks like it's been that way for a long time.
And we're going to have to contend with it.
But a little bit of good news over the weekend.
Elon Musk is, for some people, a controversial figure.
And I have my questions to ask him because he has companies that do a lot of business with government.
So far, people who do business with government soon has to listen to the government.
But so far, he's pretty independent.
He's right now has done everybody a favor because he paid a couple bucks for Twitter.
And somebody said he was taken before.
But anyway, $44 billion, what the heck.
Especially since he has tried to expose Twitter and the whole system all the way back to Hillary and Biden and Biden's son on what really is going on.
And getting to the bottom of this issue, finding out the truth.
So we look at that as a positive thing and putting the best light on it.
What does this really mean?
But it means we know a lot more now than we knew two or three days ago.
One of our friends who we've known for a good many years has written about this extensively.
This is Jonathan Turley.
And he's been writing about it again and giving us analysis there.
And it seems like he's pretty excited about what's coming, that we're getting to the truth, because he's worked a long time.
He's an honest journalist, but over the years, he has not gotten the credibility that he deserves.
Of course, we were always pleased that at least he would come to our luncheons when we were in D.C. and present his ideas.
But anyway, he's excited.
I'm excited about this because anything that will lead to getting to the bottom of these issues and tell the truth, I think, is good.
I think what they have to deal with are, you know, when it comes to lying, it seems a lot of people tell lies in Washington.
I'm looking for somebody that always tells the truth.
And to me, it's people, they're really experts in lying.
But I think what these articles do for us is they expose the lying, at least raise a lot of questions, because this was all known a couple years ago.
Of course, the big story now is some of the details on how they censored getting this information.
Now, it turns out that a lot of people have admitted that probably Trump is argument.
It might not be as polite as some people like, but he was arguing that there were a lot of shenanigans going on.
And I can't see how this information really hurts the credibility of Trump.
Although I don't think the average public relations firm or the mainstream media will actually be able to turn this around and twist it and blame them for it.
That's what happened.
But anyway, the information is out.
I think we're a lot better off now than we were a week, a couple weeks ago, and a lot better off than we were back during the campaign.
It really was a dramatic development on Friday night.
And I think what happened is, as you say, Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter, and then when he finally got it, he opened up the hood and looked under the hood, and he couldn't realize what he couldn't unbelieve what was going on inside there.
And someone, I think, on Twitter, he's very responsive on Twitter, but someone tweeted to him a week or so ago that, you know, you should really reveal all of the inside documents that you have about Twitter's censorship policies.
And he responded something like, I intend to do so.
And I think that put everyone on notice.
Uh-oh, the cat's out of the bag.
Something big is coming.
And so that's what happened on Friday night.
And he entrusted Matt Taibbi, who's an independent journalist.
And you remember Matt, he came by the office on Capitol Hill during the 2008 financial crisis because he wanted to get your take on a lot of things.
I think you talked with him for a while.
He's one of the few reporters who really got to the bottom of it.
And he's one of the reporters who were beyond left and right.
You know, they're looking for the truth.
And there are a few of them.
So Matt Taibbi released this info on Friday night.
We could put up that first clip.
But as we say, there was a lot going on about the censorship inside Twitter.
But one of the things that caught our attention is the role of the FBI, both current and former FBI employees, at the center of this scandal.
And our friend Turley, as you point out, does something yesterday, six degrees from James Baker.
A familiar figure reemerges with the release of the Twitter files.
And I think this demonstrates some really deep corruption within Twitter, which really began after the 2006 elections, maybe around the time of the campaigns, when Twitter began to actively censor political viewpoints.
But this James Baker guy, he was in the FBI.
He was at the center of a lot of the Russia gate nonsense.
All of it was lies.
We know that now.
But he had a contact within the Biden administration and the Clinton campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign, to keep pushing out and churning out this false propaganda about Russia's involvement.
Whereas all the time it was Twitter that was involved.
He had to leave.
He had to get out of the FBI after he was, as Turtle writes out, reportedly found himself under criminal investigation for his role in pushing this disinformation.
So what happens?
He gets hired by Twitter as soon as he leaves the FBI, and he's now the senior, you know, very important counsel to Twitter, basically helping them justify the censorship that they did.
And it all came to a head, Dr. Paul, with the release of the Hunter Biden laptop.
That was the crux of it.
That was a big deal.
You know, this little episode reminds me of the complaint we've made many times, is that over the years you would read about the FDA, and we've certainly read a lot about the FDA being involved in vaccines and close relationships with drug companies, this sort of thing.
And frequently it was sort of a rotation.
You'd get your experience at the FDA, and then all of a sudden they're working for a big pharmaceutical company.
This makes me think about the FTA.
Who are they training?
They're training people to go to work for places like Twitter, because they know how to couch things and what terms to use.
And they know it from the inside track, and they become valuable employees.
I mean, they sought him out, and they were delighted to have him come join.
So that just shows the process that they're professionals at lying.
And that's why it's such a delight when we meet the journalists that are not so much on our side of the issue, but on the side of truth, which puts us together so often, looking for the truth of these things and finding out why in the world they do this.
But I think this information is really, it's probably some days it's being exposed now and studied, and a lot of very important information and assumptions could be made of how things would have been different, you know, if the truth was told, you know, a few years back.
But still, I think there'll be a time when it's even more clarified.
We might find out that this stuff is even worse than we see on the surface.
But right now, you know, because I understand that they were able to cover up that Hunter computer, you know, completely and totally.
You know, if you go out and do a polling, what do you care about his old computer for?
You know, but I think maybe there'll be some more people now aware of this.
But this is in spite of the media.
But we still have the people out there that are on the side of truth and we welcome them.
And even to this day, the mainstream media lies about the laptop.
The New York Times printed an article today.
They referred to it as a stolen laptop.
It was not stolen.
Whatever state Hunter Biden was in at the time, he left a computer at a computer shop and forgot it, maybe sobered up, who knows what.
But the computer guy is the one who turned it into the FBI was not stolen.
They still report that.
So when this information started going out, and you can sort of imagine what happened behind the scenes, the people who were in the FBI that were extremely close to the Biden campaign said, we've got a problem.
We've got to suppress this information.
This could really affect how people vote.
And so they got together and they did that.
And at the center of this is Baker.
He was involved in, by that time, was working for Twitter.
I'm sure he kept his contacts with his buddies at the FBI who were pro-Biden and anti-Trump.
But they had a problem.
And this is from Turley's piece.
Global Communications Brandon Borman of Twitter, he asked if the company could truthfully claim that this part of the policy for barring posts and suspending users was relevant because they claimed that it was hacked.
And obviously it wasn't hacked.
But Baker jumped in and said, it's reasonable for us to assume that they may have been hacked and that caution is warranted.
So they jumped in for damage control on this whole thing to head off and obfuscate the Biden.
Even the communications director for Trump was banned temporarily from Twitter for retweeting the story.
They did everything they could to block the story.
And they had people on the inside.
And this is the other part of it.
And we can put up this next clip because not only we had Baker on the outside, we had people on the inside, like Elvis Chan, a FBI agent who met weekly with big tech ahead of the 2020 election.
Now, this is for another case that he's testifying.
We don't really have time to go into it, but it's fascinating.
But here's what he said when he was deposed in this case.
Why Privacy Isn't Private 00:09:42
It has to do with some attorneys general, I think, in Oklahoma, if I'm not mistaken.
He said he, along with the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force and senior cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency officials, had weekly meetings with major social media companies to warn against Russian disinformation attempts ahead of the 2020 election, according to a source at the Missouri Attorney General's office.
Basically, week after week, they're meeting with the heads of Twitter, Facebook, we know that because that came out and we talked about that a couple of months ago, every week saying, Russian disinformation is coming, Russian disinformation is coming.
And then they said, there's a laptop that might be coming out, that's going to be Russian disinformation.
So the FBI was actively involved in spreading this lie to the benefit of one presidential campaign.
And if this is not something that you would see in a banana republic, I don't know what is.
You know, there are even people today that want us to believe we have to be sympathetic because we believe in the First Amendment and these are private companies.
We've talked about that over the years, but one of my conclusions is this is not a private company.
This is a company that's already in bed with the government.
And I think any company that depends on a lot of government money, you have to be suspect and wonder what kind of pressure is put on them.
So they're saying, well, if they are sympathetic, I came to the conclusion as being, you know, one in the same.
But I thought Jonathan surely had an interesting analogy because he knows that people still think about that.
And he said, why did you think about it like a telephone?
You know, you're taking on the telephone.
The assumption is, well, there are phone companies and lines, there's probably licensing and all this.
But still, most people think when they're talking on a telephone, it's supposed to be private.
So he used that as an analogy.
Of course, that'd be, I think he wanted to, and I was visualizing the old-fashioned telephone.
But what about the telephones today with all the cell phones and everything else and all the technology available to measure everybody's telephone all the time?
This is unreal.
And I think the whole thing is that privacy is a major issue.
But I have always thought that libertarians have always been interested in this type of technology.
That technology eventually has to be used to counteract the people who are breaking the rules and spying on everybody.
But that's the government mostly and others.
But it's just that there is so much lack of respect.
And yet they're valuable people if they know how to handle this.
That's why you take a guy out of the FBI and, oh, I'm available.
I think I'll tell you how to operate this thing and how you can watch everything that they're doing and keep it legal because I'm from the FBI.
I know all the rules.
But what we're still saying is, hopefully this weekend changed everything to a certain degree.
Yeah, hopefully it did, and hopefully something will come of it.
And here's another turley piece.
He's been pretty busy because this is his bailiwick.
He is a free speech absolutist, is what he calls himself.
Let's put up this next one because this is his piece for the Hill that he wrote.
And this is where he talks about the actual what happened on Friday, the Twitter papers.
And the key word, the key word of the whole thing is when the campaign sent some tweets to their contacts in Twitter, and Musk released the actual emails, the Biden campaign released, they sent some tweets to Twitter saying, we need you to take care of these.
And they said, handled.
That means they were deleted.
These were tweets that the campaign didn't want.
Now, this also happened for Republicans, and there were also demands from Republicans, so we don't want to sound biased here, but the fact is, as Taibbi tweeted, the support among Twitter employees for the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party, as evidenced by campaign donations, I think is 98% in favor of the Democrats.
So obviously there's a political bias there, and both sides did it.
However, when you have handled, when you have people getting suppressed, James Woods, a very famous actor, he had a tweet pooled that was critical of the Biden administration.
So you're seeing, as Turley calls it, censorship by surrogate.
And that's a very dangerous thing.
But what you suggested earlier about private versus public, actually Musk tweeted something to that effect, which I think is very poignant.
It was put on this next tweet.
He says, Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a First Amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech with no judicial review is.
So he's calling out his own, the company, we call it new Twitter now because he's made a lot of changes.
He's calling out old Twitter for suppressing the First Amendment, and he even said they meddled in elections.
They interfered in American elections.
That's something we were told the Russians were doing, but it wasn't the Russians.
You were about to sweep.
It was Twitter that was manipulating the elections.
Well, he's pointed out there's a sharp line between private and government, and you should be able to define it quite clearly.
But what has happened is now they've been exposed, and the line has been erased.
More or less have erased that line, and they never adhered to it.
There was no line for them.
But even though that was used, I remember when this first really started, there was a lot of confusion among libertarians.
There's still probably some confusion about exactly where the line is drawn.
But I think he did a good job and where he draws the line.
But the one thing is, there's so many opportunities for government to get involved.
If you don't follow, say, environmental laws and you're a corporation, all of a sudden you could be watched differently and regulated differently because of all the information that they can get hold of.
And that, of course, is a real problem.
It is.
And so, well, what can we do about it?
Republicans will barely have control of the House come next time.
You've got the Senate will remain in Democrat hands.
What can we do?
Well, I was watching, and you probably saw this too, Dr. Paul, is that Republicans have stood up.
Republican senators have stood up, and I think Senator Paul was one of them, and said, we will not move forward with the defense budget until you take out these ridiculous vaccine mandates for the soldiers.
It's not going to move.
The military is not going to get funded if you do this.
They could do something like that with the FBI.
We are not going to fund the FBI.
We're going to block FBI funding until we get a church commission-style hearing where the doors are completely open, all the corruption is there, and you clean out these stables, which are full of you-know-what.
They could do that.
They have the power.
That'll be a major victory for the libertarian wing of the Republican Party because the Republican wing of the Republican Party, they didn't care.
You never heard anything from them when we really needed a lot of help.
But now, you know, there's more information, and you give them credit for that.
There's more information than ever about the corruption going on in the FDA and all the problems and complications.
I mean, it's becoming more readily available, and all of a sudden, even though they still put Fauci on the television, I think his credibility is not growing any longer.
I think it's been diminished, so I think that's why, because you have to get, in order for them to do what you said they're suggesting it's doing, be firm and stand firm and withhold something.
That's where the test comes.
Because what you are doing, if you're going to withhold it, they make you withhold this stuff that 80% of it, most of them would want to spend the money, you know, if it's in the military budget.
They say, oh, you know, I can't do that.
No, I agree with you.
But they would never allow it to be a standalone bill.
And that's where the real problem is.
Well, I do want to do a shout out to the sponsor of our program.
That's 4patriots.com.
You know, Dr. Paul was reading a very sad article earlier on the weekend that some people in the UK, in Cardiff, I think it was, were forced to resort to eating dog food because food wasn't available and they didn't have the money.
Well, good news is you do not have to eat dog food.
You can go to 4patriots.com and you can get delicious breakfasts, lunches, and dinners.
You can take care of yourself with delicious survival food.
And the good news is with the code RON, you will get 10% off your first order.
There's a lot of food, easy to cook, but there's also power generators, solar generators, ways to keep yourself warm.
Now, the Europeans are finding out what happens when you don't prepare for what's to come.
We Americans, thankfully, have a choice, and one of those choices should definitely include 4Patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com.
RON will get you 10% off.
And a $97 purchase will get you free shipping, and their stuff is guaranteed.
So you can't go wrong.
Dr. Paul, I guess we're going to move on to the next one.
And this is something that is very worrisome.
Weapons Trafficking in Africa 00:11:23
And this is something you have brought up quite a few times, and it is a serious problem.
But the principle has been around, and we shouldn't be surprised, because that's what the military-industrial complex is all about.
They're in business of making and selling weapons and blowing up stuff.
And they would never believe that they're warmongers.
Sometimes I think they're warmongers and a little war helps their business.
But even if they're not warmongers, they're weapons people and anything that can store up a weapon sale.
So you look for wars and problems, whether it's in Vietnam or Korea or the Middle East or Syria.
It's endless.
It's amazing that we've been able to afford all that.
But I also think that we're running out of the funds to keep that going.
But now they're saying that some of the weapons, and I think we even talked about the possibility of this, the weapons, especially on the weapons that went into Syria.
But now, of course, I think there was debate in the Congress to try to monitor the weapons.
Where were the weapons going?
Have audits.
They had a vote.
And I think it was overwhelmingly defeated to have it.
But I think the attitude is changing.
People should wake up on it.
But the President of Nigeria says West-supplied weapons in Ukraine are filtering into Africa.
I mean, we've always been in Africa.
We had to filter them out of Africa.
Now we're filtering them back to Africa.
I imagine the people who are making the profits, they'll risk the danger of being supportive of warmongering, but that might, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that might not be their number one goal, is to use this warmongering attitude, which is very dangerous because it so often does cause war, but it will spread.
They were going to move these around and just keep agitating, you know, so that there'll be more weapons.
And every time they blow up weapons, we'll make more.
Well, it's a real danger that these weapons are proliferating.
We can put on the first, that next clip, because this is from the webpage of the president, President Mohammedou Buhari from Nigeria, and he is very concerned.
He put out a press release at the end of last month.
He calls for tighter security around the borders in the Lake Chad basin with the proliferation of weapons from the Russia-Ukraine war.
And as you point out in your introduction, Dr. Paul, we've seen this movie before.
It doesn't end well.
All the weapons after we liberated Libya, a lot of them went down into Africa where there's horrible wars are ongoing.
And a lot of them went to Syria where the U.S. wanted to overthrow the Assam.
They just sort of conveniently end up in places where the U.S. wants to do an overthrow or a coup.
But in this case, they're winding up in Africa.
It's a real concern.
We can put up the next, this is a tweet from a newspaper down there, if we can put that one up.
Al-Mayedine in English, after Nigeria's President Mohamedou Buhari's clear warning, will we see more U.S. weapons making it into the hands of terrorist organizations?
That is the real issue, Dr. Paul.
Billions of dollars in weapons have been shipped there with absolutely zero oversight.
And in fact, you have clowns like Adam Smith from Washington, the congressman from Washington, he says even suggesting oversight is Russian propaganda.
Well, what's going to happen when planes start getting shot out of the skies?
People start getting killed willy-nilly in Europe because these weapons will find themselves there and maybe even in the U.S.
We don't guard our borders.
Who knows what's going to come in?
Our own weapons are going to come back to haunt us.
This is a real, real big issue.
And nobody, with the exception of Senator Paul and a few others, seems at all concerned about it.
You know, to get people in this country to support the war, they have to propagandize.
They have to get it very emotional.
They have to become patriotic.
And it has to show that the innocent people are dying.
And then the American people say, hey, we have to do something.
They're destroying these people's lives and all this.
And so our country then goes, well, they go along with it inevitably because of the propaganda machine.
And they send aid.
And the aid is to send it to the good guys because we've already picked sides.
In Ukraine, we pick sides pretty quick.
So we have to send it to the good guys.
But in these very many other countries, we send it in, and there's been a fight going on.
And sometimes you can't even define the good guys.
You don't know which faction it is.
But inevitably, there's records kept that when the weapons go in, you think you're giving it to one side.
For the benefit of the argument, they say they are slightly better than the other ones.
But that doesn't happen.
So often, the weapons end up in the enemy, in the wrong side, the people that would just shoot at Americans as anybody else.
So it's the whole principle that's wrong.
It just doesn't work.
And yet we do it endlessly.
We're going to do it until this country is absolutely, totally bankrupt, and we're getting awfully close because it's not viable.
We can't do that.
And yet they, the military-industrial complex, is, we argue, which is the strongest, most powerful, the pharmaceutical industry or the military-industrial complex.
But all we know is there's excesses there and the bills are coming due, and people have to remember, you're already suffering from it.
People say, oh, the next generation is going to have to pay for it.
No, this generation is.
Every time a person buys something, I can't believe the prices of this.
Then you say, well, you're paying for it.
You're paying for it because you sent people to Washington that's willing to vote for that stuff and be praised for it because of the propaganda machine.
Yeah.
Well, our last little short story, we'll kind of do a little bit on this.
And let's skip that over and go to the Financial Times clip if you can, because this is also a big deal that's flying under the radar.
The EU is trying to figure out how to steal the Russian money that it seized, and they want to use it to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Now, if you're opposed to what's happening and you think it's a terrible thing, that's fine.
That's fine.
But this is a different issue.
We're talking about $300 billion that has been seized by the EU.
They want to be able to use it.
They think they're going to rebuild Ukraine with it.
But there are a lot of dangers here, Dr. Paul, that people may not understand.
First of all, there's this principle of state immunity, you know, that state funds shouldn't be seized like that.
It sets a dangerous precedent because I know this may shock people, but the U.S. has also bombed a lot of countries and messed up a lot of infrastructure and hasn't paid a penny for it.
You have that.
But you also have, I think, the fact that Russia right now has escalation dominance.
I mean, they can escalate in a number of different ways against this, to which there really isn't a reply.
I think it is a very dangerous thing.
You know, it seems strange because most of the time this just happens.
Nobody even talks about whether they should or should not.
But for instance, this one has met some opposition.
Here, even Yellen spoke out.
He just said, this must be really bad stuff to use this money.
It must be breaking the rules.
Maybe that's a little bit of common sense on our part.
Maybe they'll lose a vote someplace in the United Nations.
Some of our funds will be confiscated or we'll be kicked out of the World Reserve Currency operation.
But they're wanting to do this.
And I keep thinking, well, they want to take this money that they've confiscated from the Russians.
Like, we still have money from the Iranians, this sort of thing.
Then we wonder why there's friction.
But it's stolen money.
Well, for this type of operation.
Well, sometimes they just go flat out, steal it from the people, and steal it from the middle class, because all you have to do is print the money or run up the debt and pay for it through higher prices.
Or you could steal it from the American people directly.
You can steal it from the Russians.
They've confiscated the money from the Russians.
And ultimately, it's doing a policy that they shouldn't even be doing.
I keep using the example of, what if we get to a weaker position where we can't say too much and it happens to us, we're not going to like it.
And that, of course, has happened on certain instances where we have this same type of policy thrown back at us.
When we do it to others, we ought to look at it.
What would we say if they did it to us?
So far, nobody's paying any attention to that because we're the powerhouse.
We have the weapons.
We have the money.
We have the reserve currency.
And we're in charge.
But that doesn't mean that the power is going to remain with our country.
Yeah.
And there could be very serious unintended consequences.
If you think about what's happening in Ukraine, yeah, it may sound good.
We're going to take you, you're going to force you to fix the stuff you broke.
Okay.
But if Russia understands that if they win, they're still going to have to pay for reconstruction.
They're going to have to pay anyways.
Either you steal it from them if they lose, or they do it themselves on their own terms if they win.
The incentive for Russia at this case would be for them to go big and heavy and win the whole thing as quickly as possible and then start reconstructing.
We already see in Mariupol where they are starting to reconstruct.
They're going to have to do it anyway, either by hook or by crook.
May as well do it on their own terms.
So the incentive is for Russia to massively escalate.
And of course that will be the draining of the blood of Ukrainians.
But von der Leyen and the Europeans, they don't care.
All they want to do is stick it to Russia no matter what, no matter how many get killed.
You know, market forces may take care of this because there's no hesitation to continue the inflation of the money supply.
And it'll be worldwide.
The inflation is worldwide.
It's just not in the United States.
So what happens if there is a worldwide correction and a real correction where you have runaway inflation?
And some people are saying that's possible.
I think it's a possibility, but not that I think it's going to happen next week or so.
But if you have the destruction of the monetary system, it doesn't matter.
You know, we're going to confiscate your funds.
So what are you going to do with it?
That's why some of these countries are starting to save their gold.
Why Save Gold? 00:04:07
Yeah.
And buy gold.
The Russians, the Indians, the Chinese are buying a bunch of gold.
Well, I'm going to close out with a couple of quick clips, just for FYI.
The Financial Times, the voice of the Western establishment, has named the person of the year.
It is Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
He epitomizes what the Financial Times views as Western values.
He's an extraordinary display of leadership and fortitude.
Juxtaposed with what happened over the weekend, put on the next clip, that same Vladimir Zelensky, he banned the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
He literally banned the church, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which is followed by the vast majority of Ukrainians.
So in a way, ironically, he does represent European values.
He shut down all opposition media.
He shut down all opposition political parties.
And now he's shut down the church.
So yeah, that does actually sound ironically like where Europe is heading.
So I'm going to close with that and thank you for all for watching the show.
Thanks to all the viewers.
Dr. Paul, back to you.
Very good.
I'm going to close with a little item coming from Washington, I guess, where it originated.
Bipartisan group of U.S. senators warns the Communist Party of China over quelling of protests.
They're warning us.
Our senators are saying, don't you do this.
If you mistreat those protesters, we're going to punish you.
I thought, well, I wonder, let's see if there's any example that we could see where our country disobeyed the principles of civil liberties in this country and punished people who spoke out on certain issues.
Well, to start with a couple individuals who became whistleblowers, we know a few of those that they didn't do well.
So this whole thing that we are going over there, you could still have that opinion.
They say that we're in a better position and we do a much better job than they think they're doing.
And you could say, you know, the Chinese shouldn't do that.
And there's principles that we believe in.
There is a higher law you should follow.
And the country in the world would be better off if you didn't do that.
And hopefully, we wouldn't have to brag, but they could look at us and say, you know, things are going pretty well with the United States.
They don't arrest people for demonstration.
You know, that January 6th is not a good example of law enforcement of people who are disrupting in public.
That is a demonstration of how we treat them.
And there are still people suffering from that.
And, you know, when I think about all these things coming out and all these, you know, the Republicans are already to do all these investigations, but so far I haven't heard much emphasis.
Because my curiosity is, I think that the neat thing would be if they got hold of all the film that happened on January 6th, because they are obsessed on this, that the opposition was not allowed to have any material.
You know, and if you think about what a kangaroo court would be like, that is a good example.
But that is just horrible.
Anyway, we still celebrate a little bit because we got more information and we think that Musk has done the right thing by releasing this information.
I hope it can continue because that's what the people need.
Because I still have confidence in people that if they have the information, they will respond in a favorable manner.
But right now it's been a challenge.
But when it finally fails and they lose all credibility and the establishment, I can't demagogue any longer.
And that's what's opening up here right now.
They hopefully can't demagogue this whole issue of the laptop computer and all the Russia gate and these things.
So I think it's an eye-opener.
I think that's great.
But I do want us to thank all our viewers for tuning in today.
Export Selection