All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
25:15
Did 60 Minutes Commit Fraud In Its Kamala Interview?

Political forces aligned with former president Donald Trump are screaming "foul!" over CBS News' 60 minutes program seemingly editing out the "word salad" answers given by Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris in her interview this week. Is it just good editing? Biased editing? Or fraud? Also today: "bake the da*m cake" baker kneecapped by a Colorado appeals court.

|

Time Text
The Messy First Amendment 00:04:43
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, welcome to the program.
We are still in our bunker, Dr. Paul.
Good morning.
How are you?
Doing well, going well.
We're going to talk a little bit today about the First Amendment.
Not that people on the television hasn't talked about the First Amendment, and there was a ruling recently dealing with the First Amendment.
It shouldn't be that confusing, you know, but it is.
They sort of mix it up.
And, you know, another thing that gets mixed up, you know, this word sound thing.
Do you think we just saw an example of what word salad is?
If you're thinking about confusion in statements and then putting that in the terms of something moral and right and correct and legal and what people are saying, it gets to be a job.
But anyway, what was done here was the 60 Minutes took a statement by Kamala and then they doctored it up, but they didn't put a saying on there.
They didn't say, oh, we doctored this up and made people a lot of unhappy.
And some people will say, boy, they can't get away with this.
This is a pure First Amendment right.
I think it's a messy First Amendment right.
And I think that we have to think this through because, you know, it's very significant about what people say and do on the television and who's going to regulate it.
There's one thing for sure.
There was deception going on in this case.
And when they switched the emeritara, but is that a crime?
Is that part of the right of people's free speech?
This sort of thing.
And I think it's an interesting thing, but I certainly think the whole thing is deception and duplicitous.
It has a goal in there and it's mean and nasty.
And people aren't honorable by doing things like this.
But is it something that says you're violating the First Amendment and we therefore have to punish you or we have to sue you or do something like that?
So, Daniel, I think it's a little bit complex about this, but I think it's pretty important.
I like to think that most of the time you can sort things like this out by emphasizing property.
You know, what can you do with what you're saying in your house or in your church or in your office and not think that this isn't permissible?
The one thing is from the early days of radio, everything was licensed and then that makes it messier.
But ordinarily, the market would handle a lot of these things when the people putting out the information got messy and they weren't producing the truth.
But it's getting messier and messier now because the political system is saying we have to control this and we're going to punish people.
We're going to cancel people.
And it is a vicious fight.
I don't think the First Amendment, Daniel, should be that complex.
Yeah.
Well, let's have a look at what we're talking about.
Now, this is the Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview that happened a couple of days ago.
And we talked about it.
I talked about it on Tuesday.
But, you know, the conservatives now are getting the vapors over the fact that it was edited.
But let's judge for ourselves.
Let's take a look.
Thankfully for us on Twitter X, someone did a comparison of the original interview and the edited version.
So, Sir Khan, let's roll that graphic.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
Well, Bill, The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
So there are the two versions, Dr. Paul, the original version, which was rather longer, and then the edited version after the show aired and they put it back up online.
They changed it to make it sound like more of a pithy answer.
So the question, was it fraudulent?
Was it improper?
Was it bad journalistic practice?
What do you think, Dr. Paul?
Well, I think that's the big question.
Was It Fraudulent? 00:07:43
Who's going to be the decider?
A lot of these people that, you know, cite this, an argument like this as if they were on the right side of it.
But they say, we have to take care of them.
But they're always the deciders and they make up their mind and not some definition.
I think what they have to ask is, who's the injured party?
Is there an injured party by this?
And some people might argue, yes, they're lying and they're deceiving people and it's interference in election.
But, you know, my problem was saying, well, it's wrong and now you have to stop it and use a cease and desist order or something like that or sue them.
But I got to thinking, what would you do to society today when so many lies are told?
And if you think there's going to be a way of monitoring things, that's a dream because you'd have a lot of prisoners arrested for this thing.
So I think people should recognize injury.
If there is, they have to talk about that.
And it also is something that they have to decide how to handle it.
Is it serious enough?
Should it go to court?
Should somebody be punished?
And I think in this way, I think it's a political problem, but I think it boils down to a moral issue and decency.
And a free society would not have a perfect society.
You'd have a lot of this going on.
But I'd like people to concentrate on property because wherever you are, you can say and do whatever you want if you haven't literally hurt anybody.
But when it gets outside and you're dealing with some agency that is part government, then the government is regulating it.
And then they assume we have to regulate that.
And when you hear Kamala and those other people, they want to be the regulators.
Do you think we could trust them to be fair and unbiased?
It may be a joke.
So overly regulating will not help.
A little bit of basic morality would help.
But if somebody comes up and say, look at what they said, they ruined my person.
They've ruined my reputation.
They've done a great deal of harm.
All these things.
I think then legitimately, they should have recourse.
Yeah, I mean, I think it was pretty obvious looking at that clip, Dr. Paul, that the media is running interference for Kamala Harris, or they think they are.
You know, obviously her first answer was pretty dopey.
She didn't say anything, but then everyone has sort of come to believe that that's kind of how she is.
So them doctoring it up.
Now, it could be done for a number of reasons.
Some of them could be innocent.
I mean, maybe they don't want a half a minute or a minute long answer to a simple question.
Maybe they want to have a pithy answer.
Now, that's a journalistic call that they may have made.
I mean, if someone submits something to the Ron Paul Institute for us to publish and it's 1500 words, and I think it should only be 700 words, I'm going to cut some stuff out.
So the question is, what was the editorial judgment of it?
But I think ultimately, at the end of the day, the people decide.
And I think 60 minutes, if they thought they were doing Kamala Harris a favor by cutting out the dopiest part of what she said.
In fact, they weren't doing her many favors because, you know, there's this thing called the Streisand effect, where if you try to hide something, it actually makes people much more interested in finding out what it is.
If they hadn't done the editing, that interview would have just kind of gone by the wayside, another dopey Kamala interview.
But now we're sitting here on a Thursday morning and we're talking about it.
We're talking about journalism.
And a lot more people are watching than probably would have watched it in the first place, thinking, wow, Kamala doesn't sound that awfully smart.
So they didn't do her any favors, in my opinion.
You know, I mentioned the fact that if we were trying to arrest everybody that violated good rules and good etiquette, we would have a lot of prisoners.
But the market, I think the market works in this system.
It would work well in a free market because the people would see this as a benefit once it's discovered.
And a lot of this does go on.
They're outraged by it.
A lot of people are leaving one party and going to the other because there's a limit to how much lying and cheating they can do.
And they think that the other thing is, is, you know, if it was a more calm free market system and the organizations, the newspapers or television or radio were doing these outrageous things, it'd be economic harm for them.
So the economy would be a punishment.
And I don't think we have to rely on more government police.
Matter of fact, that would complicate things because then you'd get into it.
But there are limits to the point where, you know, a great deal of harm is done.
These lies are intentional and are evil and vicious.
But drawing that line may require a little bit of common sense.
No, I think you're absolutely right, Dr. Paul.
The market does work.
And that's why the authoritarians are trying to shut down the market because the market in this instance happens to be Twitter X, which still allows a relative freedom of expression.
Now, the journalists at quote unquote journalists at 60 Minutes, they may have tried to edit this to make Kamala Harris look good.
But the actual individual journalists on Twitter X who took it apart and made the effort, as we watched in that clip, made the effort to do a side-by-side comparison to expose to people what the official journalists did.
Now, those are the real journalists.
That's the real market.
And that's why these clips probably get more views than the 60 Minutes program.
And of course, that's why the totalitarians want to shut TwitterX down and TikTok and the other relatively free media outlets, because they don't want people like you and I to look at this and say, there's something fishy going on here.
They want us to be handed a bowl of pablum and told to eat it and smile about it.
So the market does work.
That's why I think we have to do our best to protect the market.
Well, I think one pretty good example of this, we're not in the business of picking and choosing our candidates or political parties.
Matter of fact, that's a difficult thing to do.
But I think when some of these efforts are motivated by hate, and a lot of it is, the one party, everything they do is hateful.
And they think this is, oh, I'm going to destroy my opponent.
But just look at the efforts of the Democrats against Trump.
The more they hated, the more they did, the more they lied.
It seemed like Trump benefited from all of it.
He just used it.
He had nothing to hide about it.
And you think, well, there's no way.
This is what really gets them upset and mad because Trump tolerates it.
I think at the beginning of all this thing, I always argue that they don't like Trump because he was successful and won the campaign against the rules.
And therefore, they have to.
And so, you know, his, I thought that first they were jealous and then they became hateful.
Property Rights and Force 00:10:13
And it continues.
And the one thing is that this is an example, and you've already pointed out, Daniel, it doesn't work.
And it brings out the goodness of people.
That is why, you know, it is very important that we be very, very cautious about protecting not only the First Amendment, but other amendments too, because without that, we can't slow things down.
But basically, the founders knew and they understood it that a lot of this, if you're not going to do it by their method of just having more regulations and threatened prison and all that kind of stuff, the more they do that, the less results they have.
They have poorer results.
So I really believe in the marketplace in the area of ideas as well.
There has to be limits.
But when you turn all this justice system, just think Department of Justice, how many people now in the country, including non-Republicans, would say the justice system is wicked.
And I think it's one of the reasons that Trump has some appeal to categories that have never supported the Republicans is because he's had an injustice thrown at him.
They recognize this and they're starting to have similar feelings.
I think that's all good.
Absolutely, Dr. Paul.
Well, I guess we'll move on to the second if you think we've handled Kamala in 60 minutes well enough.
And this is our second thing we've been looking at this morning is Jack Phillips, who's back in the news again.
People say, well, who's Jack Phillips?
Well, he's the owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop.
And he's back in the news again because a Colorado appeals court.
Now, he was, by the way, he was in the news originally because he won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court when he refused to make a homosexual couple's wedding cake because he says his Christian faith would prevent him from celebrating a union that he doesn't believe is proper.
And he partially won that.
Well, he's back in the news because a Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the cake that a transgendered person, Autumn Scardinia, wanted him to bake and he refused to do it because of his religious faith.
The Colorado Court of Appeals said, no, that's not an exercise of free speech.
So we're kind of back to the beginning on this.
I don't know what your views are on all of this, Dr. Paul, but I can guess what they might be.
I never could get excited as saying this is a tremendous victory, but there definitely is good in the debate and there's good that the courts aren't blindfolded completely and totally.
But I don't think this is a First Amendment issue.
I think it's very secondary to it.
I think it's a property issue.
And I think that, you know, my description of a free society is everything is voluntary.
If you're going to do things with other individuals, do what you want as long as it's voluntary and nobody is being hurt by this or economic issue.
So this is an economic issue.
Why can't two people make the decision entirely by it and limit fraud and cheating and all that as the regulator?
But they, you know, in this case, they could have ruled and said, well, how can they force somebody to do something?
That's slavery.
And that's, you know, something that was outlawed.
I'm going to tell this cake maker to make it this way, or I'm not, or I'm going to go to the Supreme Court.
He doesn't say I'm going to another baker.
And that's what he should say.
And that's the way the market works.
So I thought they, you know, diminish the importance of property by messing up to some degree the First Amendment.
But at least some good came out of it.
And token wins were there.
But it's not as clean as I'd like to see it.
I think all relationships between individuals, as long as they're, you know, using lying, cheating and killing and all these things, they can do what they want as long as both sides agree.
And people just, you want to do that in economics?
What would the regulators have to do?
We need regulators to make sure they don't cheat, you know, the customer.
And that's a bunch of nonsense.
Those are just authoritarians that want more power, or they want to punish companies they don't like, or they want to help companies they do like.
So that is the reason property is what protects the First Amendment, whether if you're in your church, nobody thinks that they can walk in the church or synagogue and say, okay, I want my First Amendment rights.
Give me 20 minutes to review.
You know, nobody talks about that.
So why isn't the cake shop property, privately owned?
And people have a sharp line.
Oh, that's a different thing.
This is public.
Well, no, it doesn't have to be public.
It's public if you attend it.
But if you don't like it, you don't go.
The companies go broke.
That's pure democracy, the way it works.
If they don't like the taste of the cakes and these things, what do they do?
They go to the government and complain, oh, he didn't bake it the way I want it.
But just go fly a kite and bake your own cake.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, Dr. Paul.
We've talked about this before, about how unsatisfying it was that he tried to do it as according to his religious views.
Now, that's obviously he has the right to do so, but I think it would have been a stronger case if he had argued his property rights instead of that.
And the issue is there are tons of bakeries out there that would bake a cake for this person who changed his gender or what have you.
But of course, now they target this fellow, not because he's the best cake maker in town, but because they want to make a point.
And unfortunately, when you don't stand on the right principles, now he may have made a choice to take this position because he knew that it would appeal to his conservative backers.
And that might have been the case.
But the fact of the matter is, now we spent a little bit of time in Colorado a couple of weeks ago.
Very beautiful state.
There's no question about that.
But there are a lot of authoritarians and totalitarians that are hiding around in those mountains somewhere.
And he's fallen victim of it.
So it'll be interesting to see what happens to him if he takes this to the Supreme Court as well.
But it's, again, you're right.
It's a property rights issue, not a religious rights issue.
And we've pointed out how a lot of this activity backfires, you know, backfired from Trump.
He benefited.
Well, we'll impeach him.
We'll prove he's a bum.
Oh, nobody cared.
His numbers went up.
He raised more money.
So we'll do it again.
We'll impeach him again.
And it doesn't do it.
I think that's what's happening here.
This is backfiring.
calls attention to what people want to force on other people.
It is exactly the opposite of what a free society is all about.
It's use of force and use of the government to oppose their will.
Now, what they might want is a cake of a certain shape and color, but I'll tell you what, go do it.
But don't force somebody else to do it.
It's so silly.
So it's backfiring once again.
And I think a little bit of emphasis on true property rights and the First Amendment, as it should be interpreted, is much better than going and going along with a lot of these people that demand the court to come in.
The left now says, oh, if we just had a different Supreme Court, they'll rule correctly.
They'll let us to be the authoritarians.
We can be the thugs to tell everybody what they can do and can't do, except for them.
Nobody judges what they do because they are the regulators and they are above the law and they think they are, but they really not.
The markets and prevailing attitudes and opinions are the ones that are the things that changes things.
And I still believe that's where we are.
You have to get in the area of ideas and the principles of freedom and liberty and First Amendment because these details are important to bring the subject to the surface just so that we can talk about it.
But I tell you what, ultimately people have to have a little bit of understanding of what they're defending.
And I like to emphasize the fact that in a free society, property and the ownership of property, see in a way, you could use the First Amendment or this principle I'm talking about for the Second Amendment, too.
You have a right to own a piece of a weapon to defend yourself, not to kill people.
So a lot can be solved with property rights.
And that's why I emphasize it so much.
Yeah, now the woke left may have felt like they had a tactical or even a strategic victory in this appeals decision.
But the fact of the matter is, I mean, theoretically, if things turn the other way and the woke right is in charge, it may come back to bite the woke left if you can have a governmental entity telling you what you can do with your property.
It could go both ways.
So I think we're probably about spent here, Dr. Paul, if you agree.
And so I'll make a short closing statement, which is to draw our, well, to thank our viewers, of course, for watching the program and ask you to please do a thumbs up or a like wherever you're watching this.
But also, just an aside, encourage people to go onto TwitterX and look up Ian Cosgrove.
He is a journalist with the Gray Zone, and he actually went to the State Department briefing yesterday, and he actually did something that journalists never do, which is challenging the government spokesperson who is putting out a pack of lies.
And he said, wait a minute, everyone is tired of this BS you're handing us.
Give me an answer.
Challenging Government Lies 00:02:31
It's a beautiful minute and a half.
You can easily find it on TwitterX.
It's absolutely viral.
And I wish there were more journalists like Ian.
He's a friend of mine and he's a great journalist.
So handing it over back to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I too want to thank our viewers for tuning in today because hopefully we can get people interested and share our views to get more people thinking that the market does offer a lot of answers to our problems.
They have to have some basic rules.
One, you can't use force to impose your opinion on somebody else.
And you have to do it through nonviolent means.
And you got to do it through, you have to do it through, influence people to get them to agree with you.
And it turns out that I am totally convinced that if you look at society and look at history, the freer a society has been and the furthest you can get away from enslaving one group against the other, the better the society is.
The richer it is, the freer it is, the happier it is.
And people will always argue.
Nothing but chaos.
If you had a government like Ron, Paul, and Daniel once, oh, but chaos, it'd be chaos in the streets.
People would be just marching into our country, just willy-nilly and tearing up and stealing and all kinds of problems.
But the truth is, if you want an opinion of the people, let the market decide it, because the majority of people are still very much attuned to nonviolence, but they are coerced into it because they have become dependent on the violence of government, on the redistribution of favoritism and the largesse.
And people say, I can't stop taking this money.
I'd go broke.
But ultimately, everybody goes broke.
And so when we think about rebuilding, we have to think about a nonviolent free society where people have the incentive to take care of themselves and help other people.
We're witnessing right now a lot of private people helping in the hurricane damage is being done in Florida and North Carolina.
And that to me is would be even more.
But if you want a richer and a freer and a happier society, we should go along with the principles of liberty.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection