Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:56:57

Sunday Night Live! Has the Digital Revolution Begun? Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Canadians are watching very closely.
	Obviously, everyone in China should be allowed to express themselves, should be allowed to share their perspectives and indeed protest.
	We're going to continue to ensure that China knows we'll stand up for human rights.
	Don't listen to this guy right here.
	We also need to make sure that China and places around the world are respecting journalists and their ability to do their job.
	Respect journalists.
	I'm sorry, everybody.
	First of all, I'm sorry I was late because I thought I had the right video up, but what I actually had was my supercut.
	That wasn't the video that I wanted to show.
	I wanted to show the montage of Justin Trudeau being the most gaslighting hypocrite on the face of the earth.
	So that was a video that was a highlight from one of the streams of last week, which I put on Viva Clips, which are the shorter clips from the longer streams.
	But the reason why I wanted to show the montage was because I made it into Fox News again.
	I made it into Fox News all for the right reasons.
	Let me just see if I can't find the actual clip.
	Fox News was doing a piece on what a gaslighting hypocrite Justin Trudeau is.
	And the article, are we looking at the same thing here?
	Yeah, this is it.
	The article, this is the article.
	Trudeau apparently has taken heat, you know, for supporting the protests in China.
	While literally violently suppressing protests in Canada.
	And the week after he testified in the Emergencies Act Commission in Canada that protesting to effect change to public policy is something that is worrisome.
	So they ran this article and I get a Google notification because, you know, I put out my name for Google notifications for the news.
	You got...
	Dr. L. David, Ellie David, condemning Justin Trudeau's hypocrisy.
	And then you've got Viva Frye, an attorney and conservative commentator, also blasted the Canadian Prime Minister as a tyrant.
	Hypocrite, tyrant, gaslighting abuser, thy name is Justin Trudeau.
	Trudeau supports protests in China, just not in Canada.
	Hashtag, meanwhile, in Communist Canada, he tweeted.
	And that was...
	Oh, that was the clip.
	Canadians are watching.
	We don't need to do that again.
	We live in an absolute ridiculous clown world.
	They come and they lie to your face.
	And, I mean, it's the old communist expression.
	They're lying.
	We know they're lying.
	They know we know they're lying.
	And yet they continue to lie.
	And tonight we're going to...
	Jewish lawyer, David Frye.
	And I don't know if that was meant as a serious dig or as a jab at Gab.
	I think this was a jab at Gab because I don't...
	What's up with the OEVs here?
	So, all right, that was our intro.
	They lie to our face and they expect us to believe their lies.
	We're going to get into a lot of that right now because the Twitter files, they've caused a rift in the fake news space-time continuum.
	The reaction to it...
	But we're going to go over it because not everybody lives on Twitter and not everybody walks through it.
	We're going to go through it.
	The reaction to it is the stuff out of...
	If it were a movie, you would say, it's too stupid.
	They can't possibly...
	It's too cliched.
	Instead of addressing the scandal, the blue checkmark ivory tower journalists are sitting there insulting the messenger and we're going to see it.
	They're ignoring the last two years of news.
	They're ignoring...
	Articles from the time which confirm everything, everything that they have been denying.
	And now they've got to turn around and move the goalposts, shift the arguments.
	And we're going to get into the shifting arguments.
	Shifting argument now is it's not a First Amendment violation when Twitter does it because it's a private company.
	And even if they do things at the request of the government, the government wasn't compelling them to do it.
	So it's not state action.
	We'll get there.
	But no Barnes, oy vey is right.
	Dr. Vray.
	Dr. Ray.
	Barnes is in transit tonight.
	And I was going to cover some of the stories, but we're going to cover them tomorrow.
	And I didn't know.
	Is it more discombobulating to the ecosystem to just not have a Sunday night stream?
	So I figured I'm going to do a stream.
	We're going to go over the Twitter files.
	We're going to go over the legal arguments.
	We're going to go over the moving goalposts.
	We're going to go over the shameless hypocrisy.
	And more.
	And a couple of articles that are just...
	I don't know what the world is proving anymore.
	Now, let me see something here before we go any further.
	Usually when I start with an ugly video of Justin Trudeau, I immediately get demonetized.
	We're still good.
	There is no sponsor for tonight's video, tonight's stream, except my own product, our own product, people.
	Let me see where the Viva Fry website is.
	Here.
	Everybody, I have never gone anywhere with this shirt.
	And not had someone say, I agree with that shirt.
	I always get a little nervous that they're going to go to the channel afterwards and say, dude's been ruined by politics.
	I don't think I have been ruined by politics yet.
	But politics has ruined my otherwise rosy pink goggles, whatever the hell the expression is, view of the world.
	But if you want to get your own merch or other, I do a bad job.
	Letting the world know we have merch.
	It's on a website called vivafry.com.
	Self-explanatory.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Undoubtedly, is the most popular shirt we've ever made.
	And I do not go anywhere with this shirt without someone saying, I like your shirt.
	They may not like it quite so much if they, you know, once they watch some of my streams because they might think I'm too political, but too bad.
	So, standard disclaimers.
	Yeah, I also realized it said...
	I'm an idiot.
	I don't know why it said 1830 on YouTube when it's supposed to be 6 o 'clock and should have been 6 o 'clock and I changed it to 6 o 'clock and maybe people are going to get a late notification.
	hmm uh Oh, you see, a no...
	Oh, I was reading a no TC, but now I understand what that means.
	Yeah, well, too bad.
	What's done cannot be undone, but what's done can certainly be lamented over and railed against, for the rest of my existence, people, for the rest of my existence, Viva Barnes' YouTube School of Law.
	Okay, so while everyone trickles in, and maybe...
	I retweeted it to let everybody know it was 6 o 'clock and not 6.30, but whatever.
	Barnes is on tomorrow night.
	I was hoping to have a surprise guest tonight.
	Not going to happen.
	So it's just going to be us.
	All of us.
	Talking about the Twitter files.
	And other stuff.
	We're going to get to other stuff.
	Good news.
	We're not talking about Kanye West tonight.
	I think Kanye, we've talked about it long enough.
	He's, as far as I know, been silent for a few days.
	My only prediction, the only way out of this for Kanye.
	And not to suggest it has to be a dishonest, because I think it's going to be the honest, sincere thing.
	Time off.
	Explanation of some, you know, some mental break, whatever that was, stress or other.
	And apologies, because that's it.
	But Twitter, people.
	In about 15 minutes, we're going to go over to Rumble exclusively.
	The link is in the pinned chat.
	I just flipped over to Rumble and there's a Rumble rant.
	Superchats, YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They take 20% of the equivalent called Rumble rants.
	Better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
	And what I was about to say was no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice.
	There will, however, be thorough.
	Thorough critique.
	There's a $1 rumble rant.
	It says, touch the rot.
	Touch the riot.
	Do not suspend the Sunday show.
	It's the only one I can watch without fail.
	Glad you decided to fly solo.
	All the same.
	I was thinking about having a guest and trying it and it didn't work.
	Max Daigler would be a great guest.
	This is a $1 rant from Chet Chisholm.
	He is the founder of the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System.
	Screen grab, and I'm going to see if I can get him on.
	XSSFdidit says, when will Justin admit his mother had an affair with Fidel and he's his father?
	God, that would be amazing.
	I don't know how you determine things like that.
	They have Fidel Castro's DNA somewhere, so maybe they get a can that Justin Trudeau was drinking, do some DNA tests, and history is written.
	I see your avatar, but I don't see the super chat.
	It's right here.
	Keep fighting, conservative commentary.
	Who do they think they're lying to?
	I'm far right, apparently.
	Someone else called me far right.
	We're going to get into it.
	Okay, let's start from the beginning.
	And we're going to start with one article on the Jibby Jab.
	I see an article come out.
	I have to go read it.
	Because I just...
	Okay.
	Are we seeing the same thing here?
	Let me see this here.
	Yeah, we are.
	Okay.
	So this is an article I saw in The Mail Plus.
	Don't know what it is, but I mean, it's The Daily Mail Plus.
	But I had to go archive it because I couldn't get past a block.
	Matt Hancock.
	So this is the article, people.
	Colleagues mocked my faith in the vaccine.
	So I see the header.
	I see the title.
	And I'm not sure if this is going to be a critique or support.
	Because my first reaction is one is not supposed to have faith in science.
	One is supposed to believe in science because evidence has been produced, adduced, demonstrated.
	Having faith in science, I cannot think of an analogy, but faith and science are mutually exclusive.
	Science is supposed to root out and set aside faith.
	There is no room for faith in science.
	It's either science-based, Proven, tested, demonstrably true, and repeatable, or it's faith.
	And there's nothing wrong with faith, but I don't want to have faith in science.
	So I see this article and I start reading it.
	Matt Hancock claims he was ridiculed in Westminster for believing in the vaccine and recounts weeping on live TV the day the first doses were minced.
	Don't know why he was weeping.
	I had to continue reading.
	The former health secretary says in his diaries that in the months before the first vaccine was approved, he faced opposition from skeptics, including inside NO10.
	But on December 1st, the UK became the first country in the Western world to authorize the Pfizer and BioNTech jab.
	This, I'm not pulling up the Albert Bourla video again.
	This, despite the fact that it was very counterintuitive.
	We have no experience with mRNA vaccine and delivering vaccine.
	At least two years we have experience with this.
	It has never delivered one dose of vaccine in humans.
	Oh, but people were skeptical?
	I'd say they were realistic.
	I'd say the skeptics were realistic.
	But let's just see.
	They did it.
	It's a miracle.
	It's a miracle.
	Within less than a year, they made a vaccine for a coronavirus when for the last decade plus, they've never been able to make a vaccine.
	For a coronavirus due to the highly evolutionary nature, mutative nature of coronaviruses as a rule.
	Somehow they did it.
	I've come across an expression that I'm trying to internalize and digest.
	And I know it's a conspiracy theory, but it's fun nonetheless to entertain thoughts.
	Someone said, once you understand that the Rona was created for the vaccine and not the vaccine for the Rona, then it all makes sense.
	And it's look, it's an interesting scientific way of scientific science fiction way of looking at things.
	Or at least if one were going to write a dystopian novel about a government engineering a virus so they could then justify implementing the dystopia that we've gone through, it would make for a compelling science fiction novel.
	I'm still trying to grab a grasp.
	You know, grapple with that one.
	The concept is nice for a science fiction movie.
	The only question is, is it applicable?
	And if it is, how much of a black pill suppository is it?
	I just want to get, you know, we're just reading through this because most people just read the headline.
	They mocked his faith in the vaccine, huh?
	Hancock describes the scenes of elation as he announced the news in the cabinet room, recalling that Boris Johnson danced a jig.
	There's a visual.
	And his embarrassment as he blubbed on television when the first Britain was inoculated on V-Day.
	Isn't there...
	Somebody said...
	What's her name?
	Jeez, Louise.
	Dover.
	What's her first name?
	Brittany Dover?
	Let me see if the chat knows.
	Someone starts off their streams.
	Where's Brittany Dover?
	I believe that's it.
	Let me see if someone's going to get her name.
	Tiffany Dover.
	It was Tiffany Dover.
	$10 rumble rants says, A-W-O-H-O-L-O-F-E-R, rumble rants are better.
	Agreed.
	Where's Tiffany Dover?
	Turn my phone on mute.
	Let's just get back to that article.
	Oh, see, this is why I can't bounce around.
	Okay.
	Gina Collins.
	Okay, fine.
	He also reveals how he feared the rollout would have to be canceled because three early recipients had serious reactions.
	And his relief when it turned out...
	They could continue after all.
	Let's just mention that, hey?
	When does he start blubbering?
	It doesn't matter.
	Bourne's danced the jig.
	We know this is the only way out.
	So many people feared it would never happen.
	But here it is, the first in the world in under a year.
	Oh my God, it's almost too good to be true.
	It almost sounds like it's too good to be true.
	Suddenly I completely lost it, blubbing away, battling to regain my composure as tears streamed down my face as they're administering the first doses.
	For, I'm not saying its sake, pull yourself together, I told myself desperately.
	Then the camera was back on me, my microphone was live, and my watery red eyes were there for all to see.
	Gina said at least I'd shown how I felt.
	Oh, the virtue.
	The signaling.
	The virtue signaling.
	Let's just read here.
	At the time, he was accused of faking tears or forcing viewers of breakfast television to watch the awkward, cringey moment.
	Oh, how do they end the article?
	With a little detail.
	He also revealed he felt physically sick after receiving an 11.43 p.m. call from Professor Chris Whitty, telling him three of the 400 vaccinated on the first day had a massive reaction.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	That's like 1%.
	That's like one in 100 of the first people get...
	Oh, but don't worry.
	Don't worry.
	Mr. Hancock's diary entry reads, we may well have to halt the entire vaccination rollout.
	Why?
	Why?
	Because three out of 400 people on the first day of vaccination had massive reactions.
	I'm sorry, that would be enough to end trials, typically.
	I don't know, but that's after the miracle breakthrough, after they've done their trials, the first day of the rollout.
	Three out of 400, by their own admission, had a massive reaction.
	But first thing the following morning, a member of Mr. Hancock's private office rings.
	All three had a clinical history of anaphylaxis, he says.
	Oh, I can't remember ever being so relieved in my life.
	Oh, I was so relieved.
	Three of the four had a history of anaphylaxis, took the jab anyhow, and had a massive reaction.
	Gee, I wonder how many other people on earth...
	Had to have a history of something and were compelled, coerced, or forced to undergo the jab.
	I wonder how many.
	How many people had an anaphylaxis?
	Oh, by the way, interesting to note, it says they had a history of anaphylaxis.
	It doesn't say that they had an anaphylactic shock or an anaphylaxis reaction to the jab.
	It doesn't say that.
	It says they had a history of anaphylaxis.
	That does not necessarily correlate to them having had anaphylactic shock from the jab.
	Three of the 400 who had pre-existing conditions had massive reaction to the jab on the first day of the rollout, and then it was coerced on 4 billion people?
	Nothing to see there, folks.
	I'm sure nothing could possibly have happened to the billions of people who were coerced into it and were not given exemptions, medical exemptions, because of history.
	I'm sure.
	Oh, but don't get angry, Viva.
	You have to thank them for the opportunity to have been part of the biggest experimentation in real time.
	Quoting Obama.
	Don't anyone get mad at me.
	I'm just quoting Obama.
	Thank them for the luxury.
	At least we get to be part of the history books.
	Okay.
	You're saying sing it.
	Hold on.
	I wanted to bring this up.
	Sing it, brother.
	I want to sing it.
	I'm going to raise my blood pressure.
	My blood pressure is not high, by the way.
	My vitals are all good.
	My blood is good.
	My urine is good.
	I'm still doing good.
	I still, you know, other than psychological sleep pattern.
	That's the biggest thing.
	Okay, hold on.
	Superchats.
	Pasha Moyer says, Viva, I must disagree.
	Blind faith is antithetical to the scientific method, but faith, warranted belief, can be held at the same time as scientific belief.
	Also, science isn't a thing.
	Then we're agreeing, but it's just semantics.
	One can have faith in the process, but not faith in a...
	You can have faith.
	You can have faith.
	I understand your point.
	I disagree.
	I say I don't need to have faith.
	I need to know that the process is being followed.
	And more importantly, maybe I need to have faith that the results are going to be challenged, scrutinized, and everyone's going to be able to express their opinion on it.
	Dasalafakman says, far right.
	Oh, apparently we don't know.
	Up from down.
	Does this mean I can fall up?
	Is that flying?
	Your question marks are upside down, which that is confusing to me.
	That's cool.
	Flying is a side effect of not getting jibby-jabbed.
	Thank you very much, Dustin Love.
	What do we got here?
	A fuzzy creature says, I watched the monk debate with Taib Murray versus Malcolm Gladwell and default liberal.
	Malcolm Gladwell came off horrible.
	I'm going to have to see about that, what that was.
	Viva Frye, did you, did your, did...
	Viva, did you heart about the infant in New Zealand?
	Oh, did I hear about the infant in New Zealand?
	I don't think I did.
	It depends which one you're talking about, Jared.
	Please tell me which one you're talking about.
	Is it the infant who had a period?
	Or is it a worse story?
	Because if it's a worse story, I don't know.
	I want to hear about it right now.
	Okay, I'm going to look in the chat to see what the infant was.
	To make it simple, everybody, let's go over to Rumble right now.
	Because it's going to be a long, not stream of consciousness, but there's not necessarily going to be any time that's going to be better to break.
	Let's go over to Rumble.
	Let me see what the infant situation is in New Zealand, but I'll have to go look.
	And by the way, I certainly don't agree with the guy you quoted.
	His logic was as twisted as his philosophy.
	Pasha!
	Even if we disagreed, and I don't think we do, it's possible to disagree with someone without disagreeing with someone.
	I'm always nervous because I gave Elon, I don't know which tweets he sees and which he doesn't, but I gave Elon a bit of a hard time on the yay suspension, not because I agree with anything yay said, but because I don't agree with the suspension, or at least the rules that seem to be being applied willy-nilly.
	It's fine to scrutinize people, and I expect to be scrutinized as well.
	So it's not because we disagree on any given issue that we are not part of a community that is actually looking to further our understanding.
	Oh, the baby was taken from the folks who did not want Vax blood for the pre...
	Okay, I did hear about that.
	So let's...
	You know what?
	Let's go over to Rumble right now.
	I'll give everybody the link one more time.
	I'm going to pull up that article.
	I didn't hear the latest developments, but I heard the parents were refusing a transfusion.
	Link is there.
	See you all on Rumble in three...
	Just want to make sure I didn't leave any Rumble rants here, super chats here.
	Three, head over to Rumble.
	Two, 1,700 people have to be there in three minutes.
	One minute, 1,761, add it to the Rumble.
	One, see you on Rumble.
	Remove from YouTube now.
	I think we're alone now.
	That doesn't seem to be.
	Okay, good.
	Like before you leave, but too late for that.
	So let me see if I can't pull up an article.
	On the Australian.
	Yeah, let's talk about that.
	I mean, it's a decent segue.
	New Zealand baby vaccinated blood transfusion.
	parents this is five days ago so that's not going to be the good one or the up-to-date one Anti-vax parents create media conundrum.
	Let's see how that goes.
	Okay.
	Is this the one?
	December 4th?
	Let me just see if it's...
	Okay, here we go.
	This is it.
	I love the framing already, so let's go get this article.
	Anti-vax parents create media conundrum.
	I have...
	I don't yet have enough knowledge to understand if there's an actual justifiable fear, not risk, but a justifiable fear, in the idea of being transfused with vaccinated blood.
	People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist for not immediately shrugging it off as outlandish, far-fetched.
	I'm not stupid, and I'm not dismissive like that.
	It's an interesting theory.
	If, hypothetically, the jibby jab can cause clots, That's because it does something in the blood that produces clots.
	The spike protein gets in the blood.
	Now, it's not inconceivable that if there's something in the blood, spike proteins that can cause clots or whatever reaction from the body, if you get transfused with that blood and you don't have any, I understand logically how it's conceivable.
	I do not yet have enough knowledge or understanding to come to any form of an opinion, but I will not be dismissive of the concept.
	But so what's going on here is...
	Parents don't want vaccinated blood for a transfusion for their kids, and we'll see if this has the update.
	And they're anti-vax, by the way, obviously.
	It's not anti-this jab.
	They've got to be anti-vax.
	I forget who the celebrity was, but they've got to be irrational conspiracy theorists.
	It's the only thing that can possibly explain it.
	Let me see this here.
	So anti-vax parents create media conundrum.
	One press conference question at a prime ministerial summit kicked off a wave of social media scorn this week and even criticism.
	Is this the article?
	Okay, this is it.
	At a press conference involving Jacinda Ardern, tyrant, and Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, hypocrite tyrant, goes around nightclubbing after being informed that she was in contact with someone who had corona.
	Unloaded a question which generated an immediate tsunami of criticism.
	A lot of people will be wondering, are YouTube meeting because you're similar in age?
	And what is this?
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Well, let's just read this.
	I guess if the latest news is that they've taken the parents.
	This is from Forbes.
	Parents refuse babies'life-saving heart surgery.
	So, Thank you.
	This is what happens when you do things on the phone.
	Oh, now it's going to load it up?
	Okay, we're not waiting for this.
	Here, the guardian.
	Parents refuse use of vaccinated blood in life-saving surgery on baby.
	New Zealand's health services go to court over guardianship of four-month-old whose parents have not let heart operation go ahead.
	New Zealand's health...
	Service has made a court application over the guardianship of a four-month-old baby whose parents are refusing to allow his life-sitting heart surgery to go ahead unless non-vaccinated blood is used.
	And from what I understand, they actually had access to non-vaccinated blood.
	We'll see if that's right.
	The parents of the baby discuss their son's health situation and their medical preferences in an interview.
	In the interview, the parents say their baby has severe pulmonary valve stenosis and he needs surgery almost immediately, but they are extremely concerned with the blood the doctors are going to use.
	We don't want blood that is tainted by vaccination, the father said.
	That's the end of the deal.
	We are fine with anything else the doctors want to do.
	Okay, the vaccines were used for fences.
	According to blood service, any COVID vaccine in the blood is broken down soon after the injection.
	And you know what the problem is?
	Nobody believes the authorities anymore.
	So they can tell you something, like they've been telling you something was safe and effective despite having not done the test to see if it's safe.
	They can tell you it won't interrupt your period when a year later they tell you it interrupts your period or impacts your period.
	They can tell you it's safe for breastfeeding mothers and pregnant women.
	And then a year later, you realize that...
	In those same documents, it says we don't have enough data to tell you anything on that.
	Nobody trusts doctors anymore, and this is what happens.
	In a statement, Dr. Mike Shepard, yada, yada, yada, said it can be worrying.
	Okay.
	But let's just scroll down, because I thought...
	Tei Watsuora's lawyer, Paul White, told the court that medical professionals have said a child with such a condition would have been treated several weeks ago in normal circumstances, while the parent's lawyer, Sue Gray...
	Another prominent anti-vaccination campaigner said the parents wanted better care than what the state was offering.
	Because they label my clients as conspiracy theorists, their position is that anything my clients say can be ignored.
	All blood donated gets filtered during processing.
	Trace amounts that may still be present pose no risk if you believe them.
	I thought there was an issue.
	Whatever.
	So if the chat is saying that they took the kid away, I'll see what I can find out.
	But...
	One of the issues that I understood was that they had had actual access to unvaccinated blood.
	MNL Hayes, $5 Rumbaran, says, Della Pietra, founder of the non-profit Safe Blood Donation Service, starts matching unvaxed patients with donors.
	Graphic oxide and non-declared inorganic components in the vaccine seen in blood.
	No comment, no legal advice, no medical advice.
	V6neon, Musk's language in the neural link, the language, hive mind, cross-linking, speaks of the person.
	Add to that, he's pushing microchips implanted, beginning of the Borg.
	Cyberman, not on topic, but thank you.
	$20 rumble rant from Wahatanen.
	Viva, what do you hear from Jack Spinney?
	I haven't heard from him in a while.
	I hope he's okay, but haven't heard.
	Jack Spinney was the war veteran, bearded guy, Nova Scotia, came on the channel once.
	Fleet Lord Avatar says, block evil scum Carly Ellison, please flag and report this channel to YouTube.
	Oh, because I guess Carly Ellison is back in.
	I think Carly Ellison is a troll, like an actual anti-Trudeau troll, but taking the troll to the next level.
	Someone said no video, but there seems to be video here.
	Okay, so there is video there.
	I'm just looking to see what the latest was.
	The government is fighting with willing donors too.
	Okay.
	Jacinda Artem is female Trudeau.
	That is from WTFITWCT.
	What is the world coming to?
	What the F is the world coming to?
	I think I might have known that one already.
	So I heard about that story.
	The world's gone nuts, but I'm curious to actually speak with a doctor about whether or not those fears are justified versus unjustified, rational versus irrational, possible versus totally inconceivable, but we'll see.
	Okay, that wasn't on the menu, but I'll follow up on it and we'll talk about it tomorrow night with Robert anyhow.
	On the menu tonight, people.
	If you've been living under a rock, I know most people don't live on Twitter as much as I do.
	I check my stats as to how many hours a day I spend on Twitter.
	People would say it's a sickness, but it's where we converse, it's where we share information, it's where we get information, it's where I keep my diary of things to talk about, and my diary of the, what's the opposite of evolution?
	The regression of the state of the universe.
	For those who don't live on Twitter, Friday evening, Elon Musk hyped up something called the Twitter files.
	And it was, I presume everybody here knows it, but it was the process through which Matt Taibbi, who once upon a time was a darling of the left journalist, a legit journalist.
	He's not a hack.
	He's not a, I won't name names because I'm not trying to compare him to known hacks, known propagandists.
	A qualified, reputable, thorough, thoughtful journalist.
	Author of Griftopedia, The Divide, The Business Secrets of Drug Dealing and Hate, Inc.
	1.3 million followers on Twitter.
	Taibbi.substack.com So Elon says we're going to release all of the Twitter files.
	About the internal decision to suppress the Hunter Biden story.
	The Hunter Biden laptop story of October 2020.
	Just a minor little story about a laptop.
	Most laptops have viruses on them.
	This took it to the next level.
	It was purported to be Hunter Biden's laptop.
	It had videos of Hunter Biden.
	Smoking crack.
	I believe fornicating with hookers, if I'm not mistaken.
	If I'm mistaken on that and they were actually girlfriends or significant others, I will stand corrected with no pushback.
	It had emails, text messages, photographs, voicemails from Joe Biden to him.
	It had a discussion to the effect that in business dealings, 10% to the big guy was going back to the big guy.
	It was a laptop from hell in incriminating, highly damning information.
	If someone had that laptop and it had not been made public, that's what we would call a treasure trove of blackmail material.
	So this laptop is apparently left at some laptop repair shop.
	Hunter Biden signs for it, leaves it there, abandons it.
	The laptop, the repair shop owner, I know his name is McGinnis or something.
	I remember seeing a picture of him actually wearing a Scottish-type hat and saw his name was McGinnis, I believe.
	Then I understood the Scottish-type hat in the interview.
	This innocent guy trying to run a business finds this laptop.
	After it's deemed abandoned, property with no owner that is deemed abandoned, he accesses it to see what to do with it.
	Apparently sees stuff on it.
	That's so damn incriminating that he's got to contact not only the FBI, but his own attorney or another attorney just in case.
	Because the stuff on it is that bad.
	Now, many have hypothesized as to how bad it could have been or what the nature of the badness was such that he felt compelled to make a copy.
	Or at least to transmit a separate copy to an entity other than the FBI.
	But he gives it to the FBI, gives a copy to Rudy Giuliani, and the FBI sits on it.
	But not only does the FBI sit on it, let me just...
	I hadn't anticipated pulling this up here.
	Let me just...
	Hunter Biden laptop disinformation intelligence 50. Let's just get this up.
	Not only...
	The guy gives it to the FBI because that's how bad what's on the laptop is, which causes some speculation, which I will not get into here.
	Not out of fear of YouTube.
	I'm going to put this stream on YouTube after.
	Then the New York Post writes an article saying, this laptop is here, this is what's on it.
	Holy shitballs, people.
	To quote, spaceballs.
	And then the media spin happens.
	Then Twitter censors the story.
	You couldn't even share the link via DM.
	New York Post and the journalists, I believe, get locked out of their Twitter feed, allegedly for breaking the rules on communicating hacked materials on the basis that it was hacked when it wasn't hacked because it was abandoned property and, you know, not unlawfully obtained.
	We'll get into all that in a second.
	At the time, many of you might remember this.
	Let me just see what...
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	Remember here?
	That's 1019, which makes it...
	October 19th, 2020.
	Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinfo.
	That's short for disinformation, people.
	Dozens of former intel officials say.
	More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story of the former Vice President's son.
	More than 50 senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden's son had all the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation.
	Oh, I just connected a dot in my head right now.
	I may have to flesh this one out in real time.
	It has...
	By the way, notice the statement as formulated, can never be a lie.
	It can never be.
	They're not saying it's Russian disinformation.
	They're just saying it has the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
	It might be true, but it still has things which are, in their mind, classic earmarks of Russian information operation.
	Every single one of those 50 officials should never have the luxury, the privilege of holding any position of authority in government ever again.
	They knew, and I don't often impute knowledge.
	It has been confirmed.
	The laptop is authentic.
	Every email in there is authentic.
	It's been confirmed.
	It's been admitted and acknowledged and even apologized for being unduly censored.
	They knew at the time.
	They knew at the time.
	And even if they didn't, they're idiots and they had no business making these statements if they didn't know that they had no reason to say what they were saying at the time.
	But they knew.
	But by the way, this is just...
	Well, as we can go on, 50 intelligence officials say at the time, it has the earmarks of Russia disinformation.
	That sounds like Victoria...
	Victoria Nuland.
	Didn't she say something about...
	Didn't she say something about classic Russian disinformation?
	I think she did.
	I only have a minute left.
	Let me ask you.
	Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?
	Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to Gain control of.
	So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.
	I'm sure you're aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they've uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release.
	Remember what the other intelligence said.
	Is there a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine?
	Is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
	None whatsoever.
	There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy, what they're planning to do themselves.
	Can we appreciate this?
	It is classic Russian technique to blame on the others what they plan to do themselves.
	She's doing exactly what she's suggesting.
	She's telling you what she's doing.
	It's Russian propaganda to blame on the others what you're doing yourself.
	So we're going to blame on Russia that it's their tactic to do that.
	But it's actually the wording now.
	It's the wording here.
	How do I press play?
	There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian.
	She says classic Russian technique.
	They said it's classic earmarks of Russian information operation.
	It's interesting how they're using the same bloody language.
	To accuse the others of doing exactly what they're doing.
	It has the earmarks of Russian information operation.
	What would that type of operation be?
	Try to cast doubt on something that you know is true by suggesting that it might be the enemy's intelligence operation.
	So, at the time, holy cows, it's such a flashback.
	At the time, they knew it was true.
	They knew it was authentic.
	They came out with an operation of censorship, suppression, and disinformation.
	Hmm.
	Odd.
	I think they'd be accusing their adversaries of doing that.
	Pause.
	For some rumble rants.
	Hamartix says this reduction in cortical thickness, equivalent to three extra years of age, is also found in abused children.
	Hamartix says, Hello, Viva.
	Journal of Biological Psych just published a paper showing a reduction in cortical thickness, increase in amygdala and hippocampus, and internalizing behaviors in post-pandemic kids.
	And then the second part was this reduction in cortical thickness is equivalent to three extra years of age.
	In cortical thickness, equivalent to extra three years of age is also found in abused children.
	Well, that's because all children of the world have been abused for the last two years.
	Thank you for those rumble rants.
	Touch the Riot says, I've seen the Hunter Biden video and it features Biden's wank being yanked by a young girl's feet bearing dark nail polish filmed on two cell cams.
	His dad is our prez.
	It's nauseating.
	It's blackmail material.
	And by the way, let's just operate on the basis that there's even worse blackmail material out there that wasn't on that laptop that other people have.
	To literally blackmail.
	To literally do to the Biden family what everyone was just hoping and wishing was true of Trump.
	The pissing on the sheets for hookers in Moscow might have been describing someone else.
	Congressional investigators can't get access to 148 of 150 suspicious activity reports filed with the Department of Treasury by banks with dealings of Hunter and Jim Biden.
	This is a policy reversal.
	That is from MNL Hayes.
	Okay, so that's the intro.
	So with that said, Elon, Friday afternoon, Friday evening, says Matt Taibbi, a reputable, established journalist, got the scoop.
	I mean, this is like a case of, you know, be careful what you wish for.
	I'm not even sure I would take the scoop if offered to me, but I don't have that problem.
	So Matt Taibbi goes, it's 37 threads, 37 plus because some of the threads have responses to them.
	And we're going to skim through them and stop on a few of them.
	Then we're going to get into the substance of some of them, the legalities of what the consequences are of some of them.
	And then we're going to go through just a few.
	Scum of the earth, blue checkmark journalists, attacking the messenger and not the message.
	Scum.
	Of the earth.
	And that's because I'm polite.
	And that's how he starts off the Twitter files.
	What you're about to read is the first installment based upon our thousands of internal documents.
	They're also going to do one on COVID censorship coming up.
	Twitter files tell an incredible story.
	The first 15 were a little not wishy-washy.
	It was a prelude.
	It was getting everyone eager.
	Okay, in early conception, we're at number five.
	Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people the power to create and share ideas, yada, yada, without barriers.
	Time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers.
	Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam, financial fraudsters.
	Slowly over time, the staff and executives began to find more and more uses for the tools.
	Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well.
	First a little, then more, then constantly.
	By 2020, requests from connected actors.
	To delete tweets were routine.
	One executive would write to another, more review from the Biden team.
	More to review from the Biden team.
	They reply, the reply would come back handled.
	Let's just see what happens here.
	More to review from the Biden team.
	Hmm.
	What date is that?
	October 24, 2020.
	What's happening in October 2020?
	Let's just see who these are.
	Oh, that's actually kind of cool.
	I presume other people have done this, but what were these tweets referring to?
	Maybe I should have known this already.
	I don't know.
	Hold on a second.
	We're going to do this.
	Screen grab that.
	I'm going to come back to that.
	I presume other people have just pulled up those tweets.
	What was going on in October 24, 2020?
	We just saw some of it early on here.
	All right.
	So the Biden team is contacting Twitter through whatever back channels.
	They're not making them do anything.
	And asterisk that in your heads and we'll come back to that.
	They're not making them do anything.
	They're just asking.
	Just, you know, the potential future president of the United States is asking a company with an 80% plus pro-Democrat, pro-Biden team whose chief legal donated as much as could be donated to individual candidates.
	Just asking.
	Nobody's making you do anything.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	Celebrities, we don't care about that.
	Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party.
	I grabbed the first one under SI.
	Defer to safety and integrity.
	Okay, we'll get to the good stuff.
	Both parties had access to these tools.
	For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.
	However, the system wasn't balanced.
	It was based on contacts because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation.
	There were two more channels, more ways to complain open to the left.
	Well, Democrats than the right.
	Thanks.
	Now they're showing some political contributions.
	I went and looked up Vijay Gad's contributions.
	She donated as much as possible, from what I understand, to individual candidates.
	And then she made What I would argue is a massive, undisclosed contribution in kind, which arguably, but not so arguably, actually gave the election to Joe Biden.
	That massive contribution in kind, the decision to suppress the Hunter Biden story.
	She gave all the money she could, and then she gave a little more.
	Okay.
	The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you're about to read.
	However, it's also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	The Hunter Biden story.
	So we got the October 14th New York Post Biden secret emails on expose based on the contents of the Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop.
	We've seen it.
	Twitter took the extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be unsafe.
	I remember I could neither send nor receive a link to that article in my private Twitter DMs.
	I remember it.
	Just a little gift from the J-God to the Biden campaign.
	I've given you all the $5,700 max per candidate.
	How about a billion-dollar gift?
	How much would someone pay for that type of not advertising?
	I guess it's suppression of negative advertising.
	How much would that be worth?
	All of it.
	That decision, which...
	Arguably, but not arguably, because something like 79% of people afterwards said they probably would have voted differently had they known about the information in the laptop before Election Day.
	How much did that decision, how much would someone have paid for that decision?
	How much would Vijay Gad have been able to sell that decision for?
	Had she been able to legally sell it?
	But she couldn't legally sell it, just gave it away.
	Then we get into the people who were locked out of their accounts, yada, yada.
	Okay, then we have some internal conflict.
	This led to a public executive, Caroline Strom, to send out a polite what-the-fudge query.
	Several employees noted that there was tension between the communications policy teams, who had little less control over moderation, and the safety and trust teams.
	Okay.
	Strom's note returned, the answer to the laptop story had been removed for violating the company's hacked materials policy.
	Bullshit!
	Known bullshit at the time.
	It was a fabricated excuse from a politically weaponized partisan head of legal to give the most wonderful, invaluable campaign contribution and no one would know.
	It's like there was an episode of The Outer Limits where the spaceship...
	I hope someone's going to know what I'm talking about here.
	Let me just pull this out for a second.
	Have my flashback to childhood.
	There was an episode of The Outer Limits.
	Where they're on a spaceship that gets taken over by aliens, and the guy has to make the ultimate sacrifice to blow up the spaceship, save the Earth, but no one's ever going to know that he did it.
	I am sure in the mind of Ajay Gad, she's saving the Earth, and no one's ever going to know that she did it, except for the people on the inside.
	I'm saving democracy.
	And don't worry, people, we're going to get back to that Time article magazine.
	I'm saving democracy.
	By controlling the flow of information.
	Hacked materials?
	Bullshit.
	It wasn't hacked.
	Disinformation?
	Bullshit.
	Everybody knew that it was accurate.
	Just a load of people, all connected, all on the same team, lying to each other internally to justify their foregone conclusion so that from the outside it has an allure of plausibility, of justification.
	And it worked on a great many people.
	I know people, smart, Ivy League educated, who bought into the Russia disinformation, who bought into the hacked stuff, who bought into the, oh, who knows, it's all...
	I heard 50 intelligence people say potentially it's Russia disinformation.
	That's what they were running in the media.
	But Jay Gad is probably sitting there thinking, I'm going to save the world, and no one's ever going to know, and I'm going to get one heck of a...
	Pat on the back when all this is done.
	Let me see.
	I want to get to the one key one.
	We're at number 22. Let me see if everybody's enjoying this and following along.
	Okay, I think we are.
	That would be worth $12 billion in image management services she gave Biden from Felis Rufus 35. It's priceless.
	Hillary Clinton, what did she spend on her campaign to lose in 2016?
	It's priceless.
	It's invaluable.
	It's not even a golden goose.
	Although several sources were at number 22 recalled hearing about the general warning from federal law enforcement that summer about four and a half.
	Oh, they remember hearing about a general warning.
	Just a general warning.
	A general warning.
	By the way, people are faulting Matt Taibbi or saying Matt Taibbi's leaks don't show the actual concerted active interaction between FBI, DOJ, and big tech.
	Because it doesn't necessarily, nor does it have to, because that direct back channel, if not confirmed in the Twitter files, has been confirmed elsewhere and will get there.
	So now you've got your dishonest, lying media who ran with the Russian disinformation in the beginning, now saying, nothing in here proves that there was any direct back channel.
	It says that there was a general warning.
	General warning as per internal correspondence.
	Because it's not like the FBI sits down with everybody at Twitter or everybody at Facebook.
	The FBI only sits down with Zuckerberg to say, hey, nice social media company you got here.
	Be a shame if something happens to it.
	We've been hearing a lot of chatter about Russian disinformation, so you might want to act accordingly when that happens.
	But we didn't make anybody do anything.
	We just, you know, the FBI sits down with Zuckerberg.
	The FBI...
	Back-channel meetings with Twitter, Microsoft, other big tech execs, and we'll get there.
	But the lying, fake news, blue checkmark, dishonest journalists who are trying to write this off as a non-story, well, nothing in here shows that.
	It's been shown elsewhere, so put it together.
	Although several sources were called hearing about a general warning from federal law enforcement, that's somewhere about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence that I've seen of any government involvement in the laptop story.
	In fact, that might have been the problem.
	Now, some people have been making hay of this particular tweet.
	And let me read it to you, because now I just read it and something else clicked in my head.
	Although several sources recalled hearing about a general warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, so bear the word foreign in mind in interpreting the second part of this, there's no evidence that I've seen of any...
	Foreign government involvement in the laptop story.
	Everyone's saying, well, there's no government involvement in the laptop story, as if to say there was no government involvement in the requests or the pressure or the suggestion, the recommendations to suppress it.
	That's a lie.
	That is disingenuous spin of this tweet.
	That's disingenuous spin of all of it.
	We now know, definitively, FBI sat down with Zuckerberg and said, watch out, we hear about that Hunter Biden, or we hear about some Russian disinformation stuff.
	And Zuckerberg read in between the lines and suppressed the Hunter Biden story.
	We know that justice, whichever ones we're going to go for, federal justice, federal authorities, were meeting with social media.
	But some people are going to say, look, Matt Taibbi even says government wasn't involved in the laptop story.
	They mean in the manufacture, in the crafting, in the creation of the laptop story, because they were saying they were getting warnings from law enforcement that there's going to be foreign interference in the election, and people were saying the laptop was a result of Russian disinformation.
	What Taibbi's saying here is that there's no evidence that he's saying that there was any foreign government involvement in...
	Producing, procuring, disseminating the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	That's what it's saying.
	Not that the government wasn't involved, because they were.
	And we have evidence, if not directly here, elsewhere, that the government was directly involved in pressuring social media to suppress the story.
	Just break that down on item 22. Anybody telling you...
	That this is Matt Taibbi saying there was no government involvement in the Hunter Biden laptop story to suggest there was no government involvement to pressure social media to suppress the story.
	They're either lying or they don't understand it.
	Because that's not what it says and that is why.
	The decision was made at the highest levels of the company but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey with former head of legal policy and trust Vijay Gad playing a key role.
	Okay.
	They just freelanced it.
	Yada yada.
	Confusion.
	They don't know what the hell they're doing.
	But everybody knows.
	Everybody knows.
	And I get to swear.
	By this point, number six, 26. By this point, quote, everyone knew this was fucked, said one former employee.
	But the response was essentially to err on the side of exactly what they knew they had to do.
	But the government didn't tell them to do it.
	They weren't state actors.
	It wasn't coercion.
	And it wasn't a government actor.
	The government just said, nice business you got there.
	We hear there's some misinformation coming, Vijay.
	Oh God, I'm not winking, silly.
	I got something in my eye.
	Former VP Global Comms, Brendan Borman asks, can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?
	Brandon Borman, new.
	To Ian's point, can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy, i.e.
	as part of our approach to addressing potentially hacked materials?
	We are limiting visibility of related stories on Twitter while our investigation is ongoing.
	Oh, by the way, you want to talk about potentially hacked versus actually hacked?
	They didn't suspend the New York Times Trump tax story, which was based on stolen material.
	Oh, let's see where we're going to go here.
	Okay.
	In one humorous exchange on day one, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna reaches out to Gad to gently suggest she hop on the phone to talk about the backlash re-speeched.
	Khanna was the only Democratic official I could find in the files who expressed concern.
	I'm not sure what concern Taibbi sees here, but it doesn't matter.
	Oh, and by the way, never in writing, always in cash.
	Can we hop on the phone?
	Got something to talk to you about.
	I don't want it to show up in a Twitter doc dump on the internet one day.
	Generating huge backlash on Hill.
	Re-speech.
	Happy to chat if you're up for it.
	Let me just make sure I remember what the speech was about.
	Let me just make sure I remember what the speech was about.
	Forget it.
	We'll do it afterwards.
	God replies quickly, immediately diving into the weeds of the Twitter policy.
	Unaware Khanna is more worried about the Bill of Rights.
	Hi, Congressman Khanna.
	This is from Vijaya.
	Thank you for reaching out and we appreciate the heads up.
	We put out a clarifying thread of tweets earlier this evening to explain our policy around the posting of private information and linking directly to hacked materials.
	The press secretary's account was not permanently suspended.
	We requested that she delete the tweet containing material that is in violation of our rules and her account is restricted until she complies.
	Oh, that's right.
	Who is she?
	Who is she?
	Stop it.
	She was the president.
	They locked the press secretary out of her account.
	I'd be happy to jump on the phone if helpful.
	Don't want to say any more online.
	I've written a self-serving bullshit message to you that self-serves in that, oh yes, it's just hacked policy.
	Happy to talk to you on the phone.
	My team in D.C. are copied here.
	Available to discuss.
	Okay, then they're talking about this.
	Within a day, head of policy Lauren Culbertson receives a ghastly letter report from Carl Szabo of the research term NetChoice, which had already polled 12 members of Congress, nine Republicans and three Democrats, from the House Judiciary Committee.
	Listen to this.
	What was this?
	Okay, maybe we don't need to get that one.
	Let's keep going here.
	Oh, 33. Where's 34, 35, and 36?
	Hold on.
	Oh no.
	Here, click here.
	34, NetChoice lets Twitter know about a bloodbath awaits in upcoming Hill hearings when members say it's a tipping point complaining tech has grown so big that they can't even regulate themselves, so government may need to intervene.
	Sabo reports to Twitter that some Hill figures are characterizing the laptop story as text access Hollywood moments.
	Not sure what that means.
	Twitter files continued.
	The First Amendment isn't absolute.
	By the way, just remember, for all the people saying it's not a First Amendment issue anyhow, they're not even saying that internally.
	Let me just make sure I remember what this is.
	Sabo's letter contains chilling passages relaying Democratic lawmakers' attitudes.
	They want more moderation.
	And as for the Bill of Rights, it's not absolute.
	The Democrats, meanwhile, complained that the companies are inept.
	They let conservatives muddy the water and make the Biden campaign look corrupt, even though Biden is innocent.
	They linked this to Hillary Clinton's email scandal.
	She did nothing wrong.
	But because the press wouldn't let the story go, because the press wouldn't shut up, they learned their lesson this time.
	It became a scandal far out of proportion.
	Their mind, social media is doing the same thing.
	It doesn't moderate enough harmful content.
	So when it does...
	Like it did yesterday, it becomes a story.
	If the companies moderate more, conservatives wouldn't even think to use social media for disinformation, misinformation, or otherwise.
	Except the Hunter Biden laptop story was accurate, real information.
	The only disinformation and misinformation you hear is how the Democrats weaponized the censorship process at Twitter to get them to take down a story that was, what was it, what was it?
	Making the Biden campaign look corrupt.
	The Democrats were in agreement.
	Social media needs to moderate more.
	Because they're corrupting democracy and making all, quote, truth, end quote, especially the real truth, relative.
	When pushed on how the government might insist on that, consistent with the First Amendment, they demurred the First Amendment isn't absolute.
	Wow, that's amazing.
	So that is the Taibbi threat for anybody who missed it.
	That's the Taibbi thread.
	You've gotten the gist of it, and you know what it is?
	It is over the top, in your face, they're lying to you.
	It's manufacturing consent, like Noam Chomsky's book once wrote about, on steroids.
	The First Amendment's not absolute.
	The Second Amendment's not absolute.
	That little thing you call the Constitution, not absolute.
	You know what's absolute?
	The power to suppress, to manipulate, to impact and interfere with elections.
	Hey, by the way, everything they were accusing Russia of potentially doing, Twitter did.
	Twitter didn't make up fake news to interfere with an election.
	They suppressed real news to interfere with an election.
	They suppressed real news at the behest of politically motivated, politically interested politicians and a weaponized intelligence agency of the government.
	Let me read the rumble rants before I lose them.
	And I screen grabbed a bunch, but I guess I might not have enough to read through tomorrow.
	$5 rumble rant from Costello One.
	Don't yada yada us folks who are still permanently banned.
	Sorry, I hope I didn't yada yada too much of it.
	Fetus Rufus says that would earn $12 billion in management.
	I read that one before.
	$1 rumble rant from JoJo2Q2Q.
	Shedding is real.
	The vax are walking...
	Okay, I'm not going to read it.
	Thank you.
	And not just because I'm not giving sound bites to people who are going to say viva.
	It's promoting misinformation.
	I've heard the theories.
	I would be interested in talking to a doctor about it.
	I know where I don't even have enough knowledge right now to even have an opinion.
	Okay, then I got that one as well.
	Okay, so that's the Twitter files.
	Anybody telling you it's not a bombshell is a liar.
	Or they don't understand the degree to which it's a bombshell.
	It's a flipping bombshell.
	Because at the time, well, first of all, it confirms that at the time, the people telling you that it was Russia disinformation, members of intelligence suggesting it has all the hallmarks of a Russia information operation, were lying to you.
	One, remember?
	Two weeks before an election, intelligence was lying to you.
	Government entities, government actors were engaging with and pressuring.
	Arguably social media monopolies, but if they're not monopolies, they are damn well public square utility type entities, pressuring them to suppress the story, publicly suggesting that it's Russia disinformation, but suggesting...
	I mean, the rationale didn't even make any sense.
	They say it's Russia disinformation, but then ban it because on the basis that it was accessing hacked materials, which would mean necessarily that it was authentic and legitimate.
	If it's Russia disinformation...
	It can't be the fruits of the hacked material because the material's not real because it's disinformation.
	So they're lying to you two weeks before an election to impact the election, and it works.
	Let me see if I had that story.
	Do I need to pull up the story about it actually impacting?
	Whether or not you believe the polls, you believe the studies, there was...
	There was a study that showed like 79% of the people say they would have voted differently had they known of this at the time.
	And I had very smart, very educated friends living in New York, didn't even know about the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	And I was the Canadian telling them, how do you not know about this?
	So it's a bombshell.
	What do the liars who lied to you about the Russia disinformation laptop at the time do?
	Oh, they go after them.
	Don't shoot the messenger, people.
	Sorry.
	Mercenaries shoot the messenger.
	That's what they do.
	Proverbially speaking.
	Metaphorically speaking.
	Let me see this here.
	Let's take this one.
	Let's just go with a couple right off the bat.
	This is Ben Collins.
	And don't worry, I got a doozy of an old tweet from Ben Collins.
	Senior reporter.
	Reporter.
	Dystopia Beat at NBC News.
	First of all, you know what pisses me off more than anything?
	When loathsome people invoke Simpsons references, I am inclined to like people and think good of people who liked The Simpsons when The Simpsons were funny, when The Simpsons was funny.
	Now I feel betrayed, Ben, because you're a very, very bad man, to quote Jerry Seinfeld.
	Very bad man.
	Elon Musk paid $44 billion to discover what we already knew.
	Content moderation is messy and involves a whole team of people with a range of viewpoints trying to appease different political factions.
	Elon Musk paid $44 billion to discover what we already knew.
	Content moderation is messy and involves whole teams of people with a range of viewpoints trying to appease different political...
	Oh my god, you didn't read a damn one of Taibbi's tweets, did you, you idiot?
	Or, or you did, you know how to spin it, and you're hoping your, how many followers?
	Your 379,000 followers are too stupid or lazy to have read or understood what they read of those tweets, because this is lie.
	But it goes from a lie, and this last sentence, hmm.
	The arrogance and the pomposity and the haughtiness of these pricks.
	He then gave the leaks, because we all knew it, even though some of my colleagues were buying into the Russia disinformation at the time.
	We'll get there.
	He then gave the leaks to a substack man to present it as a blockbuster.
	You arrogant prick.
	A substack man.
	This subhuman journalist.
	I'm at NBC.
	Oh, I'm at NBC.
	Where are you, Substack, man?
	Oh, you're only at Substack?
	Oh.
	Oh, and by the way, some of you are going to think I'm very sensitive to this because people call me the lawyer who couldn't succeed at law and now makes YouTube and Rumble videos.
	I don't care, A, about the insult because people don't understand.
	When someone on Substack has garnered a reputation such as he has on his own talent, on his...
	No infrastructure.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	No institutionalized support.
	No institutionalized promotion, advertising.
	When someone has made a reputation like that in the Substack world, you damn well know it's because they're good.
	This guy thinks it's an insult.
	It's a testament to quality.
	People telling me that, oh, I couldn't even make it.
	First of all, I don't care.
	I made it as a lawyer.
	I didn't like it.
	I think the fact that we have built this community.
	That substack man has built his substack community by presenting his information to the scrutinizing eyes of hundreds of thousands or millions of people and has built up a reputation.
	This dude, what he thinks is an insult, is the most highest of compliments.
	But this arrogant prick thinks he's demeaning, degrading, and what's the word I'm looking for?
	Delegitimizing the work that Taibbi did by calling him substack man.
	But there's more from Ben Collins coming up.
	And he's not the only one.
	In fairness, Ben Collins, he's not the only one.
	Let me see, which one do I go to next?
	Ah, yes.
	Let's go to Wajahat Ali.
	I don't know who he is.
	Didn't know who he is until yesterday.
	Protonmail, Instagram.
	DC, by way of...
	From Montistan.
	321,000...
	Followers, go back to where you came from.
	And other helpful recommendations on how to become American.
	Wrote a book.
	This one is just over the top.
	Because these liars, like my grandmother always said, and it's not her, it's Mark Twain.
	I think my grandmother was old enough to have dated Mark Twain.
	So maybe it was an expression from the 19 dickity twos.
	To be a good liar, you have to have a good memory.
	Wait until you see the punchline on this.
	By the way, and notice the tactic.
	From these arrogant pricks.
	They try to shame.
	They try to mock.
	They try to humiliate.
	The messenger.
	Maybe they're all just flipping jealous that Ta 'ibi somehow landed this scoop.
	And it's crushing it.
	Wajahat Ali says, Ma Ta 'ibi?
	What a sad, disgraceful downfall.
	Yeah, he down fell.
	He down fell up.
	But I'll just read it.
	I want to put some music on, but I can't.
	What a sad, disgraceful downfall.
	I swear, kids, he did good work back in the day.
	And I'm the authority who gets to say who does good work.
	Trust me.
	He did good.
	It should be a cautionary tale for everyone.
	Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on earth.
	Well, he'll eat well with the rest of his life.
	Well, he'll eat well for the rest of his life, I guess.
	But is it worth it?
	Wait until you see.
	Just remember it.
	Just remember this.
	Do I back up?
	Is it going to go down here?
	It's going to go to...
	Okay, fine.
	Just wait for this.
	What a sad, sad, pathetic downfall.
	Damn it.
	I'm taking too long to find it.
	Taking too long to find it.
	What a sad, pathetic downfall.
	Is it this one?
	No, this is not the right one.
	Damn it, people.
	Don't read that.
	Don't read it.
	I feel like Megamind.
	Hold on.
	Watch out, Ellie.
	Just remember that.
	Oh, here we go.
	What a sad, pathetic downfall.
	Oh, you know, we can read it again.
	Elon Musk paid $44 billion to discover what we all already knew.
	Content moderation is messy and involves the whole teams of people.
	It was about, oh, that's what we all knew.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	Oh, this is Ben Collins.
	This is not Ujahat Ali.
	Okay, hold on, people.
	Oh, for goodness sake, I've ruined the punchline.
	Doesn't matter.
	Oh, come on!
	I blew it.
	Well, I've destroyed the punchline, but let me just go get the right one anyhow.
	Gaslighters and liars.
	The whole lot of them.
	When I edit this, at least I'll be able to edit out the me being an idiot and not...
	That was Ben Collins.
	Ah, here we go.
	Well, for goodness sake, what was my problem?
	Here, here, Chrome tab.
	Here we go.
	What a sad, disgraceful downfall.
	He did good work back in the day.
	Is it worth selling his soul?
	This is an actual tweet from Wajahat Ali.
	From October 14, 2020.
	Good.
	Russian disinformation meant to harm our democracy shouldn't be given mainstream platforms.
	What's he talking about?
	Oh, would you look at that?
	He's talking about that little Hunter Biden story.
	The guy who, it's not just that he tries to shame Taibbi today, suggests he's aligning with white nationalists, and I don't know what makes Elon Musk a white nationalist.
	I guess everyone's a white nationalist if they're white and come from a nation.
	Is that how it works?
	Tries to shame him.
	Say that he used to do good work back then.
	This idiot, liar, in October 2020, either knowingly or not knowingly, he's either a liar or he was a moron back then.
	Good.
	Russian disinformation meant to harm our democracy shouldn't be given a platform.
	What I love doesn't happen very often.
	Is this you, you gaslighting liar?
	And that's got almost 937 retweets on his original...
	On his original post.
	This is the level of...
	It's treachery.
	It's treachery.
	They don't even remember their own lies.
	So then I tweet out the other day.
	I said, look, everybody, when you hear someone trying to offer some idiotic, ridiculous spin on this story, just take five minutes, go to their Twitter feed and see what they were posting around the October 2020 period.
	Then I noticed, I don't know how it happened.
	So I then noticed someone's talking about a journalist named Molly Jong Fast, whom I've never heard of, and it's not because she's smaller or whatever.
	I just never heard of her.
	I then go to Molly Jong Fast's Twitter account, and I see that she's blocked me, even though I've, to my knowledge, never interacted with her.
	I then go back and look, and then notice...
	Sorry, that's the...
	I then noticed that Molly Jong-Fast is deleting tweets from the October 2020 era.
	And I don't know why.
	Here's Oprah Winfrey.
	It's a meme.
	It says, you get a laptop.
	Everyone gets a Hunter Biden laptop because at the time they were reporting, oh, there's a second laptop.
	Not understanding it was the same laptop.
	One was with Giuliani.
	The other was with the FBI, but it's the same laptop.
	And so it was like, oh, look, another laptop.
	That's how stupid this story is.
	Ha ha ha ha.
	Oh, just ignore it.
	I noticed that she deleted her tweet.
	I don't know when she deleted the tweet.
	I would love to know if there's a way to determine when she deleted the tweet.
	She deleted it.
	So I noticed I'm being blocked, so I can't go back and easily verify.
	Then I noticed that she's deleting, and I don't know why or what that tweet said.
	Then I found the tweet because it happened to have been archived, and it's Molly Jong Fast seemingly laughing at the absurdity of all of this.
	Another Hunter Biden laptop was taken into custody during a DEA raid earlier this year.
	Another Hunter Biden laptop was taken into custody during a DEA raid earlier this year at the office of a former celebrity psychiatrist in Massachusetts.
	It's so stupid, everybody.
	Ignore it and go vote with your ways and go vote for Joe Biden.
	And then that's the meme.
	That's the tweet.
	And then I say, oh, that's interesting.
	Deleting tweets, blocking people so that they can't go back and check.
	This is what Molly Jong...
	What was her name again?
	Sorry, Molly Jong Fast.
	Molly Jong Fast was writing at the time in the Daily Beast.
	This was in an article entitled The Trump, you know, they're crying as they lose.
	There is a low whine of panic emanating from Trump.
	This is October 2020.
	And his terrible surrogates, his children.
	If you're quiet, you can almost hear it.
	This is journalism.
	Friday, we heard about another Hunter Biden laptop after Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon's first October surprise turned out to be a dud.
	In fact, Bannon and Rudy's October surprise managed to completely embarrass the almost unembarrassable The New York Post and opinion side of The Wall Street Journal.
	No small feat to make The Wall Street Journal opinion page blush.
	Oh, it embarrassed The New York Post.
	No, it didn't.
	So then I noticed, as I say, like, you know, go check their profiles because they were all writing shit at the time.
	They were all pushing the lie at the time.
	And now they're pushing the lie of the time, which is the Twitter files didn't disclose anything that we didn't already know.
	Bullshit.
	I think there was one more.
	There was one more that we have to have to look at.
	Let me see.
	With this one, what is this?
	Not down.
	Oh, no, that's another tweet which we'll get to because it's actual...
	I thought it might have been a fake tweet, but it's actually real.
	There was another one from...
	Jon Favreau?
	Look at this one.
	Jon Favreau.
	Not the Jon Favreau actor-director.
	Jon Favreau from Pod Save America, Crooked Media, Offline with Jon.
	He blocked me also after my tweet response to him.
	Listen to this disgusting.
	Absolutely disgusting.
	He's talking about...
	He's suggesting that Elon...
	Did he say...
	Oh, he didn't use the word exploit.
	Elon is spending the evening trying to embarrass someone who's struggled with addiction so that he can juice engagement on the platform he bought that's hemorrhaging money.
	That's how he frames it.
	Elon is spending the evening trying to embarrass someone who struggled with addiction.
	Can you imagine exploiting someone's addiction to try to say that it's ignore it?
	Just reduce it to it.
	Hey, John, speaking of exploiting or trying to embarrass anybody.
	Oh, I thought he was referring at one point.
	I think I thought he was referring to Taibbi as having addiction.
	No, he's talking about.
	Elon is trying to embarrass Hunter Biden.
	Nobody would have ever embarrassed anybody about addiction, by the way.
	Full stop.
	This actually was never about the addiction.
	It might have been about who paid for certain things for Hunter.
	It might have been about that.
	This was about business dealings.
	This was about Joe Biden's lies, about his knowledge of Hunter Biden's business dealings.
	This was not about someone who struggled with addiction doing terrible things, literally rotting their teeth out of their mouth.
	Addiction is terrible.
	But you now, by the way, Jon Favreau, are trying to exploit actual addiction to try to shelter people from corruption.
	You're trying to exploit Hunter Biden's addiction to use it as a cloak and veil to hide systemic corruption and potential blackmail of the President of the United States of America and his family.
	You're trying to exploit Hunter Biden's addiction so that you can brush under the rug outright corruption that was passed off as Russian disinformation, potentially very serious crimes, which are themselves blackmail material.
	Oh, but yeah, no, no, but...
	It's atrocious.
	They feign.
	They feign sensitivity, tolerance, caring, and thoughtfulness while they're trying to hide potential criminality.
	And not even potential.
	10% for the big guy.
	From a man who said, I never knew anything about my son's dealings.
	Well, and from this laptop, it's clear that he knew a little bit more about his son's dealings.
	Maybe he no longer remembers it.
	Oh.
	Let me see something here.
	Yeah, I have to see if...
	Sick.
	And then he blocked me.
	All right.
	And what other journalists had their wonderful takes on...
	Oh, now I find my tweet.
	Oh, this is Ben Collins.
	Okay, so what did Ben Collins have to say?
	Ben Collins is the one who wrote about...
	Oh, yeah, there you go.
	Here's another one.
	Ben Collins.
	Elon paid $44 billion to discover what we already knew, yada, yada, yada.
	Then leaks to a substack, man.
	Let's see what Ben Collins was writing once upon a time.
	October 29, 2020.
	Months before the New York Post story.
	A document passed around far-right websites detailed a vast Hunter Biden conspiracy.
	The document's creator, Martin Aspen, claimed to be a Swiss intel professional.
	But Aspen's face was created by AI.
	He doesn't exist.
	Well, Ben Collins, who's a well-versed liar, you'll notice here, doesn't actually make any lies.
	Ben Collins is not lying here because he's not saying the Hunter Biden story was made up by AI.
	He's just saying, hey.
	There's another story going around the far-right websites, the Hunter Biden story, which we know is true, but we're going to pretend it's not.
	There was another one a week ago that was fake.
	So draw your own connections.
	Connect your own dots.
	Alluding, suggesting that the Hunter Biden was as much manufactured as whatever story that was.
	I'm not even familiar with that story.
	Another one from Ben Collins, October 28, 2020.
	Quote, the laptop, end quote.
	Is the ground from which conspiratorial bad stuff was supposed to be mine.
	For the Wall Street Journal types, it was supposed to be general government malfeasance.
	It was.
	For the Q types, so let's just throw in Q. Anybody who believed the Hunter Biden laptop story at the time, Q types.
	It was supposed to be a vague nod toward child abuse.
	Well, it's confirmed now, Ben Collins.
	What did you have to say about it the other day?
	Oh yeah, he gave it to us.
	It told us nothing more than what we already knew.
	Except back then, Ben Collins, you were alluding to the fact, suggesting, leading your viewers to believe that it was a manufactured story like this thing, and that it was Q-type nods towards child abuse.
	And there's some stuff on that laptop, which we now know is authentic, that is quite problematic.
	I can't determine.
	Certain things via the interwebs.
	Let's say I wasn't opening pictures to that laptop on my computer.
	Ben Collins, another liar for the books.
	It told us what we already knew, except back then I was telling you it wasn't true.
	But I just hope nobody's going to go back and check my Twitter.
	Okay, this is Wajitaybi.
	Okay, that's mine.
	That's my thing.
	Okay.
	And so that's it.
	Those are the takes.
	They're terrible.
	Try to shame the reporter.
	But then you get the intellectuals who are going to say, no big deal.
	There's no government coercion here.
	There's no government action.
	One of those lawyers, David A. French.
	David A. French came out and said, no big deal.
	This is not a First Amendment issue.
	And it's not that that argument from David French is totally untenable.
	And by the way, let me just clarify this.
	I'm a Quebec attorney.
	I have no expertise in American law.
	I know the principles.
	I don't know the in-depth case law as to how state coercion, state manipulation has been deemed to be state action under the law.
	I would even say that David French knows...
	I'll admit that David French knows more than me.
	He's trained in the field.
	It doesn't mean that he can apply his knowledge in a nonpartisan fashion.
	And I can ask some questions that I think need to be answered.
	Where's the story?
	Oh, here was the article.
	I think this is the article from...
	Yeah, this was the article from...
	Molly Jong-fast at the time.
	That sound you hear is Trump world panicking.
	And that's where I got the article from.
	But David A. French, whom I have dubbed the Banana Republic lawyer on the interwebs, because there's not an argument that he will not find to justify anything that's bad for Trump.
	Let me see this.
	Where's David French?
	French's argument is that there's no First Amendment argument here.
	Twitter's a private company making its own decisions, and they're not a state actor.
	They're not a government entity like, I don't know, the FBI.
	They're not being coerced by the government, or it's not coercive action being taken by the government, arguable.
	And therefore, it's not a First Amendment issue because the First Amendment is...
	Congress shall enact no laws limiting free speech or whatever.
	Limiting speech.
	So it's not a First Amendment issue.
	And so it's a massive misunderstanding.
	It's just a private company acting on its own.
	There's no scandal here.
	Twitter's entitled to do what it thinks is best for its company.
	Bullshit.
	Okay?
	And here's why.
	First of all, we'll agree that Twitter is not a state actor.
	I don't know.
	And that's arguable.
	I don't know the extent in law.
	I know it has not yet been successfully argued in the context of censorship, in the context of Section 230 immunity, to argue that Facebook is a state actor or was acting at the behest of the government.
	To pretend that there's not an argument there is a very, very, very disingenuous oversimplification of the situation.
	To pretend that there's not an argument there is a very, very disingenuousness.
	Twitter is a private company.
	We know.
	First of all, it's clear from the leaks that they have been acting in concert with the government.
	Acting in concert still does not mean becoming a state actor for the purposes of First Amendment rights.
	Okay.
	When does a little nudge from the FBI become implied coercion?
	When does...
	I mean, this is an article which...
	By the way, all of these links are in my Twitter feed.
	I didn't put them in the...
	I didn't put them in the pinned comment or anything, so go to my Twitter feed to see them if you want to find them.
	It's not cut and dry that Twitter is not acting at the behest or under the coercive pressure of the government.
	This is an article that some people seem to have ignored or don't realize it exists.
	Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang.
	Leaked documents outline Department of Homeland Security's plans to police disinformation.
	I'm not going to go through the whole thing because it's lengthy, but I've read it.
	And it seems many people haven't.
	But when you're going to make the argument that Twitter is merely a private company making their own decisions, there is an argument to suggest that they are under state coercion or acting in concert with government entities to the point where this does become a First Amendment issue.
	I'll suggest that even if it's not a First Amendment issue, it's a massive, massive scandal on its face to show private actors colluding with government officials to interfere with elections.
	Massive.
	Like Watergate is a puddle.
	But let's just do this.
	The Department of Homeland Security is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous.
	An investigation by the intercepts has found years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents illustrate expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.
	Coercion is a form of influence.
	I won't say influence is a form of coercion.
	They use the word influence.
	At what point does that influence become de facto coercive measures?
	Or at the very least, very mobster-esque, you got a nice company here.
	It would be a shame if someone lobbies to break it up.
	Maybe you should go suppress that Hunter Biden story.
	Maybe you should be on the lookout for disinformation.
	I just went through this here.
	Let's read this.
	In a March meeting, Laura Demlau, an FBI official, warned that the threat of subversive information on social media could undermine support for the U.S. government.
	Demlau, according to notes of the discussion attended by senior executives from Twitter and JPMorgan Chase, stressed that we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.
	We do not coordinate with other entities when making content moderation decisions.
	Do you know what that is?
	That's a little bit more of the self-serving...
	Protecting both sides.
	We don't coordinate.
	We meet with you, and then we do your dirty work for you under pretextual justifications.
	We independently evaluate content in line with the Twitter rules, even if the justification for which we're suppressing it is bullcrap and actually has nothing to do with our rules.
	A spokesperson for Twitter wrote in a statement to The Intercept.
	Just keep going down here.
	Emails between Department of Homeland Security officials, Twitter, and the Center for Internet Security outline the process for such takedown requests during the period leading up to November 2020.
	Do we understand what this means?
	Emails between DHS officials, Twitter, and the Center for Internet Security outlined the process for such takedown requests during the period leading up to November 2020.
	Meeting notes show that the tech platforms would be called upon to, quote, process reports and provide timely responses to include the removal of reported misinformation from the platform where possible, end quote.
	In practice, this often meant state election officials sent examples of potential forms of disinformation to CISA, which would then forward them on to social media companies for a response.
	They're not state actors, and so it's not a First Amendment issue.
	I understand the argument.
	It's certainly the easier argument to make in law.
	But to pretend that there's not at least the potential for the First Amendment argument when you have state actors actively working with government officials and at their request, nobody's making them take it down.
	It's just highly recommended.
	Let me see this.
	Was this the other one?
	Yeah, they're talking about working together.
	And then she was terminated.
	Okay.
	They are confirmed to be working together.
	Just confirmed.
	And yet you're going to have the French attorneys out there who will find every way to run cover for the administration if it's something that might help Trump or that will hurt Trump.
	Every method under the sun.
	It's a non-story.
	It's a non-issue.
	Not so cut and dry.
	And setting aside, so some people are going to say from Taibbi's thread it's not clear that FBI intelligence government was meeting with social media.
	I think it's pretty much clearly implied, suggested if not specifically stated.
	But it's confirmed definitively elsewhere.
	Oh, and also just things which make a lot more...
	How do you guys handle...
	Things which make a lot more sense watching in retrospect.
	How do you guys handle things when they're a big news item that's controversial?
	Like, there was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Yeah, we have that too.
	Yeah, so you guys censored that as well?
	So we took a different path than Twitter.
	I mean, basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us.
	Some folks on our team, I was like, hey, just so you know...
	Nice business you got here.
	Be ashamed if something happened to it.
	Oh, yeah.
	And by the way, we took a different path than Twitter, but they were all in the same boat.
	And we know it now, because it's been confirmed elsewhere, through The Intercept, through Taibbi's tweets, through Zuckerberg's mouth.
	We took a different approach, but look, the FBI came to us and said...
	You should be on high alert.
	We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election.
	We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that.
	Do you know why the FBI knew that?
	Because they had the laptop!
	They knew it was coming one way or the other.
	What better way to protect for it?
	Set up.
	Just set up the pieces now so that people expect a Russian disinfo dump or a Russian disinfo operation so that blue checkmark lying journalists who are either too dumb to know that they're being fooled or too dishonest to care will run with that story.
	They knew it was coming.
	Now they're prepping Facebook, Twitter.
	Hey, watch out.
	And when it comes, censor it.
	But they're not state actors.
	This is a private company just, you know, operating on its own.
	With weekly meetings with government officials as to how to censor misinformation and disinformation.
	I'm not so convinced on the First Amendment argument, not applying here, but I'll talk about it with Barnes tomorrow and see what he thinks.
	So just be vigilant.
	So our protocol is different from Twitter's.
	What Twitter did is they said, you can't share this at all.
	We didn't do that.
	What we do is we have...
	If something's reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also have this third-party fact-checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false.
	And for the...
	We don't want to.
	That's why we mandate third-party fact-checkers with whom we contract.
	They do it.
	Plausible deniability.
	Everyone's got plausible deniability.
	That's how corruption works, people.
	It's not a briefcase.
	It's not the FBI coming with the proverbial peanut butter sandwich saying Zuckerberg.
	You damn well better do it.
	Nobody's going to talk that overtly about corruption.
	Everybody knows that their phones are recording them anyhow.
	That's not how the corruption works.
	It comes politely.
	It comes subtly.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	We have this laptop.
	We know that the stuff on it's totally true and authentic.
	Hey, Zuckerberg.
	And they're not even lying.
	There might be a lot of misinformation coming.
	You might want to censor that.
	Well, we don't want to determine what's real and true and not.
	So let's hire a third party fact checker.
	And so when they get sued, they can then say, well, it's just our opinion.
	Anyhow, we're not an actual fact checker.
	It's just our opinion.
	True story, by the way.
	I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false.
	The distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it.
	So you could still share it.
	You could still consume it.
	When you say the distribution has decreased, how does that work?
	Basically, the ranking in News Feed was a little bit less.
	So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.
	By what percentage?
	I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful.
	But basically, a lot of people were still able to share it.
	We got a lot of complaints that that was the case.
	Complaints that they were still able to share it.
	Hyperpolitical issues.
	So depending on what side of the political spectrum, you either think we didn't censor it enough or censored it way too much.
	But we weren't sort of as black and white about it as Twitter.
	We just kind of thought, hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view as a legitimate institution in this country, it's very professional law enforcement, they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously.
	Sorry, does that statement not...
	Have an odor of coercion.
	If they come to me, if the FBI comes to me, I'm going to take that statement seriously.
	But it's not a First Amendment issue.
	These are private actors just acting on their own.
	There's absolutely no coercive pressure being applied by the government.
	No coercive pressure.
	I'm closing this.
	This is getting me confused now.
	I think there's an argument to be had there.
	But setting all of that aside, setting all of that aside, it's a scandal of epic proportions because it was election interference that impacted the election.
	It was election interference that actually impacted the election and people don't seem to care.
	I have to...
	I get angry every now and again.
	It's my pinned tweet now.
	Do you not understand what happened yet, you morons?
	And I don't know who the morons are here anymore.
	It's certainly not everyone watching.
	I've been talking about this article since the first day that I found it.
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	This is from the article.
	Time.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information.
	How did they do it?
	They got law enforcement to meet with big tech monopolies and...
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, peanut butter sandwich.
	You better do what we're telling you to do.
	But it's your decision at the end of the day.
	So it's not government coercion.
	There was another wonderful spin that someone was giving it.
	Oh, look at this one.
	Look at this one.
	Here's another journalist.
	Tom Dixon um uh Senior writer, Rolling Stone.
	You know it's going to be good, people.
	It's okay if you fall apart sometimes.
	Tacos fell apart and we still love them.
	And a dog.
	If Musk is willing to weaponize internal Twitter privileged and confidential docs for political purposes, imagine what he might do with y 'all DMs.
	First of all, you dumb bum.
	Privilege and confidential, they're Musk's documents.
	These are corporate documents.
	Whatever privilege could have ever applied to them can be waived by the owner of the documents.
	That being Twitter.
	Point number one.
	Point number two.
	Weaponizing them for political purposes.
	How about revealing them for truth purposes?
	It's very interesting how someone finds the truth political.
	Maybe it is.
	Third point.
	Imagine what he might do with y 'all DMs.
	Do you know what the last thing that would have been a concern on my mind would have been?
	Anybody hacking my DMs.
	At least for like blackmail material.
	That would have been the last thing on my mind.
	What I might have in my DMs that I wouldn't want people having?
	Telephone numbers.
	I don't know.
	I can't really think of anything more than that.
	And it wouldn't even be my telephone numbers.
	It would be telephone numbers of other people that might not want their...
	That would be what I'd be worried about.
	Someone...
	Gaining access to.
	That this guy from the Rolling Stone is worried.
	His immediate reaction?
	They're going to get my DMs and they're going to see some stuff that they shouldn't see.
	Dude, what's in your DMs?
	I want to know.
	And Musk is weaponizing.
	I just read a chat.
	Musk is weaponizing.
	He's weaponizing it by releasing it.
	Not weaponizing it by having weaponized the censorship process at Twitter.
	No, no.
	It's...
	They accuse you of doing what they are doing.
	They're accusing their enemies of doing what their enemies are doing so as to create confusion.
	Confusion.
	Confusion.
	And no, everybody, that is not from Rules for Radicals of Saul Alinsky.
	Apparently, it was attributed to Joseph Goebbels as a propaganda technique.
	People, I dare say...
	Oh, here we go.
	This is David French's take on it.
	Deleting pornographic pictures.
	What if those pornographic pictures were evidence of a crime?
	Not appropriate anymore.
	Twitter's suppression of the New York Post's story about Hunter's laptop was far less defensible.
	Very big of you to admit that.
	But no amount of misguided rhetoric can transform a Twitter story into a government scandal.
	I'm sorry, are we not watching the same movie here?
	It can't turn it into a government scandal when you have intelligence, government officials meeting with big tech on a weekly basis, having back channels to social media companies to tell them what to flag and remove.
	And because some people don't read the article, I did their homework for them.
	It's a private company exercising free speech is spin.
	This is from David's article.
	Carlson are both profoundly wrong.
	The documents released so far show no such thing.
	Wrong.
	We've seen it here in real time.
	In October 2020, when the laptop story broke, Joe Biden was not president.
	True.
	He was trying to become president.
	He became president as a result of censorship of the story.
	The Democrat National Committee is not an arm of the government.
	True.
	I mean, I guess it's not an arm of the government, but it's definitely a political entity.
	I have to verify.
	To say that they're not a government entity, I'm not sure I understand that well enough to be discussed tomorrow.
	But to say that someone's going to say, oh, it's just the DNC telling Twitter to suppress the story, nothing to see here, not political, nobody's that dumb or dishonest.
	It's a private political party that covers the elections, the primaries of one of the two political parties.
	Twitter is not an arm of the government.
	Is it not an arm of the government?
	When the government is sitting with it, meeting with it weekly, telling it what to do, flagging posts for it to take down?
	Arguable.
	This means the First Amendment protects Twitter, the Biden campaign team and the Democrat National Committee.
	The Twitter files released so far do not describe a violation of the First Amendment.
	Instead, they detail the exercise of First Amendment rights by independent private actors.
	Bull crap.
	Bullcrap!
	Independent?
	When they're being coerced or pressured by the FBI?
	When the FBI comes to me, says Zuckerberg, I take it seriously.
	There's no evidence of coercion in the Hunter Biden story, and unless and until there is, the story of Hunter Biden's laptop is the story of private individuals making decisions they were entitled to make.
	It is not a story of a government run amok.
	Oh my goodness, David.
	There's nothing that can be done other than letting these two ideas battle it out in the court of public opinion.
	I think, even based on the evidence we have, that opinion is First of all, misstating the facts and glossing over the potential arguments in law.
	Just private people.
	Their First Amendment rights are protected.
	They were just exercising their First Amendment rights by having the government come and sit down with them and tell them sternly, there's a lot of disinformation coming and you better watch out.
	People, I think we've actually covered all of this thoroughly.
	There will never be...
	Oh, and just to end it on this, by the way.
	I had only seen screen grabs of this.
	Avi Yamini, Australian journalist working.
	I think he's still with Rebel Media.
	Amazing, amazing individual.
	Hey, Elon Musk, can you find out whether other elections were handled by the former Twitter regime?
	Thank you, the rest of the world.
	To which Elon Musk purportedly, based on the screen grab, said, I've seen a lot of concerning tweets about the recent Brazil election.
	If those tweets are accurate, it's possible that Twitter personnel gave preference to left-wing candidates.
	I was like, oh, I'm not reacting.
	That can't be real.
	That's just...
	Someone making...
	Oh, no.
	It's real, by the way.
	Right here.
	The legit tweet.
	So we'll see where that goes.
	Some people are suggesting that's a, you know, what's the word I'm looking for?
	A marketing tool for Elon Musk.
	Vague, doesn't really say much, but lets people's imaginations run wild.
	Given the margins in the Brazilian election, who knows what might have impacted?
	One thing is for certain, and people don't appreciate this.
	I'm hoping this is the beginning of some form of peaceful global revolution of consciousness.
	We the people are understanding that our consent is being manufactured, and when it can't be manufactured, manipulated, and when it can't be manipulated...
	Disregarded?
	I can't think of a better word.
	Big tech are making us make the decisions they want through hook and through crook.
	And it's coming to light now in the most amazing way possible.
	A lot of people like to say, Elon Musk wasted $44 billion on Twitter.
	He could have spent that money.
	Can you imagine, like, we are all born with nothing and we die with nothing.
	We die with...
	Let me rephrase that.
	We're born with nothing and we get to take nothing with us except for that which we leave behind.
	So think about that.
	It was one of my deep thoughts and one of my favorite self-created expressions.
	In the end, all that we take with us is what we leave behind.
	Family, love, wisdom, contribution.
	Or a wasteland of devastation through our misdeeds and lies.
	Elon Musk can't take that $44 billion with him when he leaves this planet, when he leaves this Earth.
	What he can't take with him is the legacy he leaves behind once he leaves this planet.
	He spent $44 billion, and we now know definitively, big tech interfered with elections.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	All right.
	There was one rumble rant there.
	I get that.
	Viva, you do a great job.
	Thank you for all your work.
	I'm picturing Conor McGregor.
	Thank you very much.
	I know exactly what you mean.
	So that is it.
	That's all.
	Tomorrow night is the night with Barnes.
	For anybody who missed the beginning, Barnes is in transit.
	Couldn't do it tonight.
	We're going to talk about all of this and more tomorrow.
	The Twitter files was not a dud.
	It was not a nothing burger.
	And you will notice that the inverted correlation to how not a nothing burger it was is the rabid, vicious, remorseless attacks on Matt Taibbi as a reporter that you're seeing right now.
	Directly correlated to the nastiness of those attacks is the not a nothing burger that this actually was.
	It's not a clear-cut argument in law, even as it goes as relates to the First Amendment.
	And Barnes will flesh that out even more.
	It's an uphill battle, by all means, because that's how corruption works.
	Plausible deniability.
	They don't make it easy to make the argument for state coercion, state actor, you know, the argument.
	They don't make it easy for that.
	That's how it works.
	But it's not a nothing burger.
	It's the beginning of a mass awakening, even for those who have been sitting there just saying, just leave me alone.
	Just leave me alone.
	I want to play as the...
	Outro, the scene from Network, but I don't want this entire stream getting claimed.
	Go watch the famous speech from Network.
	Most people just want to be left alone.
	In fact, I would say most people want to be left alone.
	The ones who said, just leave me alone, it's good enough, even they are going to have to say, holy crap, this is subversion.
	This is the actual subversion of democracy.
	Big tech behind closed doors, interfering with elections.
	Knowingly, at the behest of the government, because they pull the purse strings of entities that are effectively public utilities at this point in time.
	And they almost, they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that pesky Elon Musk.
	He bought...
	He didn't buy a company.
	I forget who said it.
	Was it Michael Malice?
	He didn't buy a company.
	he bought a crime scene.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to find a short video to play us out with.
	And Oh, you know what?
	I know which one I'm going to do.
	Stacks six balls.
	Let's end with this one.
	Life is a damn circle.
	This goes right back to the beginning of the Rona.
	By the way, everyone, after you're done with this, if you're so inclined, just because it's fun to think of, go drop in on Salty Cracker with a good good and let them know from where you came.
	But flashback to the beginning of the Rona, when I was still...
	When I still had not yet been thoroughly red-pilled and I was trying to break a new...
	This is six balls that I stacked, but not six golf balls.
	You'll see.
	Enjoy it.
	Tomorrow night, 6 o 'clock with Barnes.
	It's going to be a banger of a stream, so be there.
	I may not get a stream during the day tomorrow because I'm going to have to do my homework for the stream at night, but 6 o 'clock tomorrow night.
	Carl Benjamin, Sagan of Akkad, is coming on on Tuesday.
	Tuesday, 4 o 'clock Eastern, 9 o 'clock British time.
	Carl Benjamin, Sargon of Akkad.
	So stick around.
	It's confirmed.
	It's happening unless something happens in between.
	It's going to be amazing.
	We got more guests coming this week.
	Some potentially very surprising ones.
	So stay tuned for more good stuff.
	But I'll play you out with me going crazy.
	Viva Frye, week two of the...
	This is week two of the two years to flatten the curve.
	Enjoy.
	Peace.
	Look at those glasses.
	It looks like I'm actually wearing a Halloween mask.
	Go.
	Have a good night.
	I'm going to go to the next one.
	W-H-I-Z.
	Zab!
	It's the first thing I've said in the cherry.
	That's what it should be.
	What does it mean?
	Pizza, a pizza.
	See, we have to shut the luck.
	I learned something from Scrabble.
	Guys, guys.
	Did you do it yesterday?
	I did not have video recording yesterday.
	How come?
	Guys, guys.
	I've been recording for 22 minutes on round two!
	I didn't have good enough recording yesterday because I didn't show the bottom yesterday so no one would have believed me.
	Yes, Marion.
	Guys.
	I've been working on guitar a long time.
	That's what I've been doing.
	Right, Slyla, Mila, Mila, Mila.
	Oh, a five-six.
	I just stacked six balls, people.
	I just stacked six balls, people.
	I just stacked six balls.
	There are six balls stacked here.
	Live.
	Six balls.
	We're just going for it.
	We're just going for it.
	I did six balls last night for the first time.
	Ethan!
	Really?
	Yep.
	Oh, well, it doesn't count.
	It happened.
	It happened.
	All right, people.
	On with the day.
	We're done.
	We're done for the day.
	Nine o 'clock.

▲