Speaker 1: There was a big story that broke this week and
Speaker 1: it dealt with an important issue, actual silencing and censoring
Speaker 1: of conservative voices on Twitter right before major elections. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do a deep dive on it. I'm Ben Ferguson,
Speaker 1: and this is verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator. The Internet
Speaker 1: got broken the other night because of Elon Musk and
Speaker 1: all that he exposed, and it was a big story, obviously.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, there's a guy in Washington,
Speaker 1: DC that looks like you and it's freaking me out.
Speaker 1: I think it's freaking a lot of people out. And
Speaker 1: it's someone you would never expect to be wanting to
Speaker 1: look like you. His name is Mitt Romney, who has
Speaker 1: grown a beard for people watching there. It is I
Speaker 1: don't know if he lost his razor. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's trying to resurrect his career to make people
Speaker 1: like him. And he saw how much people loved your beard.
Speaker 1: You got advice on this one. Well, listen, I think
Speaker 1: Mitt's beard looks great. He came back from Thanksgiving and
Speaker 1: he had white stubble covering his face. U it's interesting
Speaker 1: that his beard is all white. His hair is not
Speaker 1: all white, but the beard beard is and uh, and
Speaker 1: I thought it looked good at so met and I
Speaker 1: were laughing on the on the Senate floor. I welcomed
Speaker 1: him the cooks in the Bearded club and and said
Speaker 1: was glad to have him. As you know. I asked him,
Speaker 1: what's the deal, what's going on? And he said, oh,
Speaker 1: he just you know, didn't shave over Thanksgiving. And said
Speaker 1: he was, you know, figured what the heck keep it? Uh,
Speaker 1: he said, he said, Anne thought it looked kind of cute.
Speaker 1: He liked that. That made him happy. Yeah, he said
Speaker 1: he's never grown a beard in his life. It's entire life,
Speaker 1: like college, grad school, never in his life had a beard.
Speaker 1: And I did share with him a story. I said, well,
Speaker 1: you're gonna find they're different views depending on the generation,
Speaker 1: and in particular, young people twenty something thirty something will
Speaker 1: love the beard. But there's another generation, which is typically
Speaker 1: women in their seventies and eighties who can't stand it.
Speaker 1: My grandmother said she didn't like my dad. When my
Speaker 1: mom they were daying, she said, I don't like his mustache.
Speaker 1: He was a police officer. He's hiding something. That's literally
Speaker 1: what She wasn't joking she goes, I don't like him,
Speaker 1: I don't trust him. So my father had a beard
Speaker 1: in the seventies and he's shaved it because a woman
Speaker 1: at church said she didn't trust men with beards, that
Speaker 1: they were dishonest. And look, I think that really comes
Speaker 1: out of the sixties and seventies and hippies, and there's
Speaker 1: a generation where they see someone bearded and they think
Speaker 1: you're a hippie. And a story I told Mitt. I said, look,
Speaker 1: I was standing actually right where Mitt and I were standing,
Speaker 1: which is down at the well of the Senate, and
Speaker 1: I was talking with Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein came
Speaker 1: up and Diane looked at Mitch and said said, Mitch,
Speaker 1: when are we going to get ted to shave that
Speaker 1: hideous thing on his face? And I turned to her.
Speaker 1: I said, Diane, next thing, you know, I'm growing a ponytail,
Speaker 1: I'm getting birkenstocks, and I'm coming after your bass. Would
Speaker 1: she say? Mitch McConnell cracked up, laughing, and Diane looked
Speaker 1: at me, completely confused and befuddled. It just she did
Speaker 1: not understand what I was saying. So I told Mit that,
Speaker 1: and apparently that might have scared him too, because the
Speaker 1: next he shaved it. The very next day he shaved it. Well,
Speaker 1: he didn't want to take that kind of heat from Democrats.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest. He wants to be friends with him.
Speaker 1: He loves the Democratic bass. He I loves the liberals
Speaker 1: liking him. Of course he's going to shave them well ed,
Speaker 1: he said to him, He said, this thing itches? Does
Speaker 1: it really itch? I said, yeah, for a day or two,
Speaker 1: and then it passes. And so I actually went to
Speaker 1: MIT that next day and said, Mit, I want to
Speaker 1: officially lodge a protest on behalf of all of your
Speaker 1: grandchildren growing back that you're denying them a Santa Claus
Speaker 1: beard right before Christmas, and I think it's wrong. The
Speaker 1: grandkids are dismayed. I gotta ask your two daughters. When
Speaker 1: my dad apparently he shaved his mustache the only time,
Speaker 1: we apparently freaked out and cried, I don't remember we
Speaker 1: were little kids. Did your daughters like the beard instantly
Speaker 1: or do they say no, dad? Yeah, my girls are
Speaker 1: actually not crazy about the beard even now, even now
Speaker 1: it's I've had it now a couple of years. I
Speaker 1: like it, but my girls, my girls could do without.
Speaker 1: Well if you get if you if you get confused
Speaker 1: with Mitt Romney, it's really gonna screw with people. He
Speaker 1: shaved it now, so I think you're safe. You're not
Speaker 1: gonna have to worry about people walking on Hey, Senator,
Speaker 1: can I get a picture with Mitt? Can I get
Speaker 1: a picture with you? From Utah? I don't think that's
Speaker 1: going to happen now. It's fair to say mits bass
Speaker 1: and my bass are very different. Yes, very different. I
Speaker 1: want to get into this serious topic obviously, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna do a deep dive. So everybody today make sure
Speaker 1: you hit that share button. Share the podcasts, and we're
Speaker 1: doing this one is a video as well, so you
Speaker 1: can share that wherever you're watching this video on Facebook, YouTube,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Because we're doing an entire show dedicated to
Speaker 1: what just came out of how much government And there's
Speaker 1: two parts of the story. There's government influence in the
Speaker 1: private sector, and there's a private sector also silencing people
Speaker 1: that they're told to silence by government officials. And I
Speaker 1: think it's shocking to see how much their collusion there was.
Speaker 1: And Democrats love the word collusion. They've been obsessed to
Speaker 1: that word for a long time. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about real collusion, Elon Musk is showing us there was
Speaker 1: real direct collusion between the Democratic Party and big tech
Speaker 1: silencing conservatives. You look at this story and this is
Speaker 1: going to be multiple parts, they're now saying, so they
Speaker 1: release some of this information, and I want your overall
Speaker 1: reaction to it, just how dirty it was behind the
Speaker 1: scenes at Twitter to make sure people that we're having
Speaker 1: an influence were silence with big stories. Now, Senator, before
Speaker 1: I get your response, I want to tell everybody about
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. They are an incredible Christian conservative cell phone company.
Speaker 1: They can save you money on your bill and also
Speaker 1: your businesses or your small businesses, while they fight at
Speaker 1: the same time for your first Second Amendment rights. They
Speaker 1: are also involved in protecting life and even helping people
Speaker 1: with adoptions. So if you have a cell phone, you
Speaker 1: get to keep your same cell phone number, you get
Speaker 1: to save money on your bill. It's the same towers
Speaker 1: you're using right now, nationwide coverage, but they take a
Speaker 1: portion of your bill every single month and they give
Speaker 1: it back to conservative causes. So every time you use
Speaker 1: your phone, you're making a difference. Check them out. Patriotmobile
Speaker 1: dot com, slash Verdict. Use a promo code Verdict. You're
Speaker 1: gonna save money, free activation and other incredible savings. Also,
Speaker 1: you can call them nine to seven to Patriot. That's
Speaker 1: nine seven to Patriot. Use a promo code Verdict, find
Speaker 1: out more about the great work they do, and you
Speaker 1: save money on your cell phone bill. Now, center, let's
Speaker 1: get to this. It is shocking what we saw your
Speaker 1: overall reactions. All this information was coming out. Well, it's stunning,
Speaker 1: and a lot more is coming. So you and I
Speaker 1: are sitting here at a Sunday afternoon. The first trunch
Speaker 1: of emails and tweets has come out. Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: has promised a second trunch coming out later today, so
Speaker 1: we will see what the second trunch holds. But the
Speaker 1: first one is stunning, and it's a whole Twitter thread.
Speaker 1: I'd encourage people to read the entire thing. But what
Speaker 1: we're going to do on this pot is we're going
Speaker 1: to go through the highlights of what's most important. So
Speaker 1: let's start. Let's start with the first one. And this one,
Speaker 1: this is actually I think the eighth tweet, but it
Speaker 1: goes right to the heart of it, and it is
Speaker 1: an internal email within Twitter that reads more to review
Speaker 1: from the Biden team colon and there are a series
Speaker 1: of five links to different tweets other people have said,
Speaker 1: and then it says thanks all, and the response two
Speaker 1: words handled these. And to be clear, this was basically
Speaker 1: they went through Twitter the day before or in the
Speaker 1: last couple of days. They said, Hey, these are the
Speaker 1: tweets are most damning to us the Democratic Party. We
Speaker 1: send them to Twitter, and we want you to get
Speaker 1: rid of all these silence all these people, shut all
Speaker 1: these people down. And it was just direct links to
Speaker 1: tweets and then that said handled. There was no pushback,
Speaker 1: there was no questioning, there was no we'll take a review.
Speaker 1: It was how high you want us to jump at Twitter,
Speaker 1: We'll take care of your problems. Yeah, this is Twitter
Speaker 1: acting as an arm for the Biden campaign, acting as Look,
Speaker 1: that's almost how you task an employee. Hey, here five
Speaker 1: more to take care of. Handled these done. Just that's
Speaker 1: who we work for. We're carrying it out and it
Speaker 1: goes worth. Let's look at the next one. Okay, So
Speaker 1: this is Elon Muss kind of commenting, giving a meta
Speaker 1: comment on the entire thread, and he points out he says,
Speaker 1: Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not
Speaker 1: a First Amendment violation, but acting under orders from the
Speaker 1: government to suppress free speech with no judicial review is. Now,
Speaker 1: let me explain something that's important. Why is Twitter acting
Speaker 1: on its own not a violation of the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: The reason is the First Amendment only applies to government. Actually,
Speaker 1: as it was written, it only applied to the federal government.
Speaker 1: First Amendment begins with Congress shall make no law. It
Speaker 1: applied to Congress. Now, since then, the courts have expanded
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, so it applies to the entirety the
Speaker 1: federal government, it applies to state governments, it applies to
Speaker 1: local governments. But a private company, Twitter or anybody else
Speaker 1: implementing some policy, the First Amendment doesn't govern it. But
Speaker 1: as Elon points out, there's a major exception to that,
Speaker 1: which is, if a private company acts at the behest
Speaker 1: of the government, if it is censoring because the government
Speaker 1: is turning it into an instrumentality of censorship, then the
Speaker 1: First Amendment does apply. And what these tweets show is
Speaker 1: that's what was happening. And I got to say this podcast,
Speaker 1: we have been explaining this theory of First Amendment liability
Speaker 1: for three years Yeah. We got into it on a
Speaker 1: deep dive when the emails became public between doctor Fauci
Speaker 1: and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, and I explained on the
Speaker 1: Verdict podcast how those emails make Facebook and they're similar
Speaker 1: communications with Twitter face very real liability because they're not
Speaker 1: just acting as private corporate actors, they're acting as an
Speaker 1: instrumentality of the government, an agent basically of the government.
Speaker 1: If you are one of these individuals, and we've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of this come out, and I want to
Speaker 1: do a deep dive into this is their legal recourse
Speaker 1: now for the people that clearly were put on these lists,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of conservatives that are now on
Speaker 1: this list that we don't that we know of. There's
Speaker 1: obviously going to be more that we're going to find
Speaker 1: out about where their tweets were silence or counts or
Speaker 1: silence and even shut down. If you are one of
Speaker 1: those individuals, is there a real chance that you could
Speaker 1: actually sue because of this and possibly win. Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the next tweet because it actually goes
Speaker 1: directly to the question you just asked. So celebrities and
Speaker 1: unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the best
Speaker 1: of a political party. And if you go to the
Speaker 1: attachment here, I grabbed the first one under SI defer
Speaker 1: to safety on the high profile second one. So the
Speaker 1: first one, someone who I don't think is well known,
Speaker 1: but apparently that poor fellow tweeted something that Biden and
Speaker 1: the DNC didn't like, and Twitter promptly squashed him. The
Speaker 1: second one there is his famous guy is a tweet
Speaker 1: from James Wood, the actor, And so the tweet says,
Speaker 1: or the email says, an additional report from the DNC,
Speaker 1: and they forward a tweet James Woods sent and Twitter
Speaker 1: responded by immediately banning James Woods. And he has said,
Speaker 1: I am going to sue on this. I'm not backing down.
Speaker 1: Does he have crowns because we hear a lot of
Speaker 1: people say a lot times, are going to sue these emails?
Speaker 1: Give him what he actually needs for a case. Is
Speaker 1: what I've been told from several others who said, hey,
Speaker 1: this is bad news for the DNC. Yeah, and it's
Speaker 1: bad news for Twitter in general. So going Twitter will
Speaker 1: get sued, Biden will get sued, the DNC will get sued.
Speaker 1: James Woods has said on Fox that his career was
Speaker 1: destroyed by what the DNC was doing. That Twitter acting
Speaker 1: to ban him ended up hurting his acting career. And
Speaker 1: so one of the things you have to prove in
Speaker 1: a defamation suit is you have to prove damages. I
Speaker 1: think there's a very real chance someone like James Woods
Speaker 1: will be able to All right, let's go to the
Speaker 1: next tweet. So this is shifting into Hunter Biden. So
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop story comes out. It's October of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. It's right before the election. The New York
Speaker 1: Post publishes it, and then this is reading from this tweet.
Speaker 1: Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden laptop story, removing links and posting warnings that it
Speaker 1: may be unsafe. Reading this story may be unsafe. They
Speaker 1: even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto
Speaker 1: reserved for extreme cases, eg. Child pornography. So they decided,
Speaker 1: we're going to use every tool we can to nuke
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop story, and essence and essence taking
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden story and making sure that you couldn't
Speaker 1: share it as if it was child pornography. They used
Speaker 1: the same exact technology yep and importance within Twitter to
Speaker 1: say this story is so damning to Joe Biden, to
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, to this presential election, and obviously Twitter
Speaker 1: was acting as an agent of the Democratic National Committee
Speaker 1: in the Joe Biden campaign, that we will treat it
Speaker 1: like it as child pornography to make sure this story
Speaker 1: can never get out to the masses. What I think
Speaker 1: is funny is the use of the word unsafe, because
Speaker 1: you know, you think of unsafe, liked reading this may
Speaker 1: damage you. You know, you think in the online world,
Speaker 1: this has a virus in it, like there's something unsafe
Speaker 1: about this website's unsafe. You don't want to go there. No, No,
Speaker 1: What they meant about unsafe is it's not safe for
Speaker 1: the political fortunes of Joe Biden and the Democrats, that
Speaker 1: if you read this article, it's gonna hurt the candidate
Speaker 1: we support. All right, let's go to the next one.
Speaker 1: So how far did they go? White House spokeswoman Kaylee
Speaker 1: Mcaninny was locked out of her account for tweeting about
Speaker 1: the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staff
Speaker 1: or Mike Cohn, who seethed quote at least pretend to
Speaker 1: care for the next twenty days. The next twenty days
Speaker 1: was until the election. And if you look at this
Speaker 1: email that the campaign staff are sent to Twitter, Kayley
Speaker 1: mccaneey has been knocked out of her account for simply
Speaker 1: talking about the New York Post story. All she did
Speaker 1: is cite the story and first hand reporting that has
Speaker 1: been reported by other outlets when the story came out.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden didn't say this is not my son's laptop.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden didn't say this is false. He didn't say
Speaker 1: it was fraudulent. He just said, oh crap, this is bad.
Speaker 1: Please no one read it because I don't like the outcome.
Speaker 1: It makes me look really bad. The email continues, I
Speaker 1: need an answer immediately on when how she will be unlocked.
Speaker 1: I also don't appreciate how nobody on this team called
Speaker 1: me regarding the news that you'll be censoring news articles
Speaker 1: like I said, at least to pretend to care for
Speaker 1: the next twenty days. Look, this is the White House
Speaker 1: Press secretary that Twitter bands less than three weeks before
Speaker 1: a presidential election. Why because Joe Biden the Democrats wanted
Speaker 1: this story suppressed and the arrogance of we will silence anyone.
Speaker 1: So now, according to Big Tech, the White House Press
Speaker 1: secretary cannot talk about articles in major newspapers. The New
Speaker 1: York Post has the fourth largest circulation of any newspaper
Speaker 1: in the country that, as we now know, are true
Speaker 1: and accurate news stories, but are politically damaging to the
Speaker 1: side Twitter wants to prevail. If you're Kaylee MCKININNY and
Speaker 1: you see now what was happening behind the scenes, what
Speaker 1: are her options legally? Can she do anything because she
Speaker 1: was at the White House? Because that's what I think
Speaker 1: many Democrats are betting on as well. This was the
Speaker 1: fog of war that so they kept going back to, right,
Speaker 1: we didn't. We were so concerned about Russianson's information. That's
Speaker 1: our get out of jail free card, and we were
Speaker 1: just trying to protect the integrity of an election. They're
Speaker 1: going to go back to that. That's their game plan here,
Speaker 1: And Bennet, It's why what Elon Musk is doing is
Speaker 1: so important, because they could maintain that a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, they could say, oh, it was fog of war.
Speaker 1: We were doing it because we thought it might be hacked.
Speaker 1: We were doing it. What Elon is doing is releasing
Speaker 1: the goods and so let's get through a few more
Speaker 1: of these, because it will show that the lefty Twitter
Speaker 1: defense is just complete bs. So let's get to the
Speaker 1: next one. You can see the confusion in the following
Speaker 1: lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gaddy and former Trust
Speaker 1: and Safety chief Yoel Roth. Comm's official trent and Kennedy writes, quote,
Speaker 1: I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this
Speaker 1: is unsafe. And let's read the exchange in close. So
Speaker 1: this is October fourteenth, twenty twenty, so just a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks before the election. New York Post Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: laptop article privileged and confidential. Oh, I don't want to
Speaker 1: get sued. Let me you put privilege and confidential on
Speaker 1: something when you're afraid of getting sued, and you're saying
Speaker 1: this email will really hurt us and cause us to
Speaker 1: lose if we get sued. Our teams continue to investigate
Speaker 1: the origins of the material included in the reporting. Trenton
Speaker 1: Kennedy is the COMMS official. I'm struggling to understand the
Speaker 1: policy basis for marking this is unsafe, No kidding, and
Speaker 1: I think the best explainability argument. Okay, we got to
Speaker 1: figure out a way to explain it. Yeah, we banned
Speaker 1: it because it hurts Biden. That's not a good answer.
Speaker 1: So I think the best explainability argument for this externally,
Speaker 1: not internally. Externally, internally, we know exactly what we're doing,
Speaker 1: but externally we got to figure out something to say.
Speaker 1: Would be that we're waiting to understand if this story
Speaker 1: is the result of hacked materials. We'll face hard questions
Speaker 1: if we don't have some kind of solid reasoning for
Speaker 1: marking the link unsafe. And Katie Roseboro comes and says,
Speaker 1: will we mark similar stories as unsafe? And she points
Speaker 1: out that the Senate Homeland Security Committee was investigating the
Speaker 1: hard drive in the laptop. No answer to that, Let's
Speaker 1: go to the next one. By this point, everyone knew
Speaker 1: this was FT YEA, and they didn't abbreviate FT, said
Speaker 1: one four employee. But the response was essentially to air
Speaker 1: on the side of continuing to air. Now, let's look
Speaker 1: at the exchange back and forth, and it'd be quick.
Speaker 1: This means let's just run out the clock. Yeah, close
Speaker 1: to election day. If we can just run out the
Speaker 1: clock here until the election, by default, if we win,
Speaker 1: we're good. We succeeded in our goal, which was to
Speaker 1: make sure that Joe Biden won the election and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump lost the election and other Republicans losing the process
Speaker 1: that are down ticket. We just gotta be smart. For
Speaker 1: twenty days, nineteen days, eighteen days, we're on account down clock, guys.
Speaker 1: We can pull this off for our team. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: And they know what they're doing is political. It's utterly transparent. Look,
Speaker 1: they're going back and forth. Yoel Roth, who was one
Speaker 1: of the senior officials at Twitter. The policy basis is
Speaker 1: hacked materials, though as discussed, this is an emerging situation
Speaker 1: where the facts remain unclear. In other words, we don't
Speaker 1: know that this is hacked. We're just making this up.
Speaker 1: By the way, it wasn't, but they didn't know it was.
Speaker 1: Now here's the most revealing sentence of all of this.
Speaker 1: Given the severe severe as in all caps risks here
Speaker 1: and lessons of twenty sixteen, we're airing on the side
Speaker 1: of including a warning and preventing this content from being amplified. Now,
Speaker 1: what were the lessons of twenty sixteen. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: remember and go back to twenty sixteen. Well, there was
Speaker 1: this guy named Donald J. Trump, who won. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: the severe risks here is Donald Trump winning again. Holy crap.
Speaker 1: If people read what Hunter Biden and Joe Biden we're doing,
Speaker 1: if they read the corruption, they're not going to vote
Speaker 1: for that guy, which means the guy we hate will
Speaker 1: get reelected. They're admitting, here's what's the risk. The risk
Speaker 1: is Trump wins. So we're just story nothing connected Hillary
Speaker 1: Quenton back in the day. They're literally saying, the risk
Speaker 1: is Donald Trump wins another four your term. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go to the next tweek. All right,
Speaker 1: so the former vice president of Global Communications guy named
Speaker 1: Brandon Borman asks, can we truthfully claim that this is
Speaker 1: part of the policy and let's pull up the full context.
Speaker 1: Brandon Borman new to Ian's point, Can we truthfully claim
Speaker 1: that this is part of the policy, ie, as part
Speaker 1: of our approach and addressing potentially hacked materials, we are
Speaker 1: limiting visibility of related stories on Twitter while our investigation
Speaker 1: is ongoing. Now, this is a brief moment of Okay,
Speaker 1: we're lying. Everyone knows we're lying. But do we have
Speaker 1: any fig leaf to pretend that we're following a policy
Speaker 1: and we're not simply doing the behest of Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: this almost like a conspiracy to commit fraud. You where
Speaker 1: if you the way that they're with every word you said,
Speaker 1: except for the word almost, it is conspiracy to commit
Speaker 1: fraud because there's a conspiracy to defraud the American people,
Speaker 1: to defraud the American voters, to defraud democracy. This is,
Speaker 1: to use the term that Donald Trump likes, this is
Speaker 1: rigging an election. This is this is conspirac Say that again,
Speaker 1: because it's a very important point that you just said.
Speaker 1: This is evidence of rigging an election. Now it's not
Speaker 1: rigging an election in the sense of Venezuela hacking into
Speaker 1: voting machines, but it is rigging an election in the
Speaker 1: sense of big tech billionaires at the behest of one
Speaker 1: of the two parties, silencing and censoring and blocking truthful
Speaker 1: reporting about facts that would change how people vote. So
Speaker 1: then there's an by the way, you know, you know
Speaker 1: who does this, Putin does this. You know who else
Speaker 1: does this? Shina does this. This is how dictators behave
Speaker 1: if we have facts you don't want to see. Right now,
Speaker 1: Communist China is stopping the protesters from communicating exactly the
Speaker 1: same way Twitter was doing at the behest of the
Speaker 1: Biden White House. Hey, friends, you're listening to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson. We'll be right back to
Speaker 1: the podcast after I take a minute and tell you
Speaker 1: about American Hartford Gold group. Friends, if you're like me,
Speaker 1: you're growing more and more concerned about the future. Inflation
Speaker 1: is at its highest level in forty years, interest rates
Speaker 1: or skyrocketing. Market experts like Jamie Diamond, CEO of JP
Speaker 1: Morgan not only predict a recession, but are using terms
Speaker 1: like economic hurricane and unprecedented. If you want to protect
Speaker 1: your future, do what I did. Call the only precious
Speaker 1: mental dealers I trust, American Hartford Gold. They can show
Speaker 1: you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by
Speaker 1: diversifying your portfolio with physical gold and silver. All it
Speaker 1: used to get started as a short phone call and
Speaker 1: they'll have physical golden silver delivered right to your door
Speaker 1: or inside your IRA or four or one K. They
Speaker 1: are the highest rated firm in the country with an
Speaker 1: A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands
Speaker 1: of satisfy clients. And as an exclusive offer for Verdict fans,
Speaker 1: if you call them right now, they'll give you up
Speaker 1: to a fifteen hundred dollars, a free silver and a
Speaker 1: free safe on qualifying orders. So don't wait, call them now.
Speaker 1: Dial eight five five seven six eight eighteen eighty three.
Speaker 1: That's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or text cactus to six five five three two. Again
Speaker 1: that's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or text cactus c act us to six five five
Speaker 1: three two. And now back to the podcast. I know
Speaker 1: there's so many people that are going to listen to this.
Speaker 1: They're gonna say, I'm angry, I'm frustrated. So why isn't
Speaker 1: someone going to go to jail for this if you're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about consequences in a minute. Okay, let's keep
Speaker 1: going through the thread. Okay, Now, this is a very
Speaker 1: interesting one, to which former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker
Speaker 1: again ceeds to advise staying the non course because quote
Speaker 1: caution is warranted. Let's pull up exactly what Baker said.
Speaker 1: Jim Baker knew privilege and confidential. Notice the lawyer sticks
Speaker 1: privilege and confidential. That's oh crap. This is a document
Speaker 1: that would be really bad if anyone sees, by the way,
Speaker 1: the thing that has totally screwed them all is Elon
Speaker 1: Musk bought the company. And so you can always weigh
Speaker 1: privilege the fact that Elon must decided to release it.
Speaker 1: It's Twitter that has the privilege. Yeah, so in litigate,
Speaker 1: not the individual right because Twitter is the client. So
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege the client owns and possesses it. The
Speaker 1: client can wave attorney client privilege. So when Jim Baker
Speaker 1: typed this, he figured will Jack Dorsey owns Twitter? So
Speaker 1: Twitter will never name this privilege. And the relevance of
Speaker 1: this is if you had a lawsuit and the other
Speaker 1: side filed for discovery and tried to get this email
Speaker 1: anything that's labeled privilege and confidential off the record, at
Speaker 1: that point, a lot of it you'd have an argument.
Speaker 1: You would have an argument in front of the chord
Speaker 1: about whether it was in fact privilege, whether it was
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege, whether it was advice being given to
Speaker 1: the client. And they're ways to waive that privilege, but
Speaker 1: the simplest one is for the client to say I
Speaker 1: waive it, which is what Elon Musk has done by
Speaker 1: releasing it. So let's see what Jim Baker says I
Speaker 1: support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess
Speaker 1: whether the materials were hacked. In other words, he's admitting
Speaker 1: we don't know if they were hacked or not at
Speaker 1: this stage. However, it is reasonable for us to assume
Speaker 1: that they may have been, and that caution is warranted.
Speaker 1: By the way, the Biden campaign wasn't saying they were hacked.
Speaker 1: Never once they say the laptop wasn't true. Never once
Speaker 1: the camp they say that it was inaccurate. Never once
Speaker 1: they come out and condemn it or say anything negative
Speaker 1: about it. They were silenced because they understood that they
Speaker 1: couldn't say that. The email continues. There are some facts
Speaker 1: that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while
Speaker 1: there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned
Speaker 1: and or the owner consented to allow the repair shop
Speaker 1: to access it for at least some purposes. We simply
Speaker 1: need more information. Now, who is Jim Baker? He was
Speaker 1: the general counsel of Twitter. You know what he did
Speaker 1: before that, or was his job before that? He was
Speaker 1: the General council of the FBI, who, by the way,
Speaker 1: what everyone just take a moment to digest that that's
Speaker 1: a really big deal the FBI General Counsel who, which
Speaker 1: is not a little job, explain how big of a
Speaker 1: job that is the its a huge job in the FBI,
Speaker 1: and Jim Baker was intimately involved in much of the
Speaker 1: abuse of power we saw at the FBI. He then
Speaker 1: runs over and is at Twitter doing the same thing continuing.
Speaker 1: One of the things that comes out in this thread
Speaker 1: is how much of a continuous web it is from
Speaker 1: the deep state at the FBI to big tech and Twitter,
Speaker 1: which is willingly part of the FBI's effort to silence
Speaker 1: dissent from those they disagree with. It really is stunning
Speaker 1: that it's literally the same people. Can I hit pause
Speaker 1: on Twitter for a second, and again, I know that
Speaker 1: you don't know, but I think we can speculate at
Speaker 1: this point if this was going on at Twitter, is
Speaker 1: there any ounce of your thought process that thinks that somehow,
Speaker 1: other big tech companies like Facebook, we're not doing the
Speaker 1: exact same thing, the exact same emails, get having the
Speaker 1: exact same communications that we're now seeing. Revealed by Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: they all were, and the mothership is Google, Google, and
Speaker 1: they own YouTube. Google is the biggest and the most powerful.
Speaker 1: Twitter was the most brazen, like like Dorsey was just
Speaker 1: screw it all. We're leftists and we're proud, but we
Speaker 1: know Facebook was doing this. They did the same thing
Speaker 1: on the Hunter Biden story. And Google is where you
Speaker 1: have the biggest impact. And so I guarantee you Google
Speaker 1: and Facebook are both looking at this going oh crap,
Speaker 1: oh crap, you're airing dirty laundry. Don't talk about this
Speaker 1: in public. First rule of fight club as you don't
Speaker 1: talk about fight club. This for all a big tech
Speaker 1: and the abuse of power. This is pulling back the curtain.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the next one. Although several sources recalled
Speaker 1: hearing about a quote general warning from federal law enforcement
Speaker 1: that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence that
Speaker 1: I've seen of any government involvement in the laptop story.
Speaker 1: In fact, that might have been the problem. Let's gone
Speaker 1: to the next one. Quote they just freelanced it end
Speaker 1: quote is how one former employee characterized the decision. Quote
Speaker 1: hacking was the excuse. But within a few hours pretty
Speaker 1: much everyone realized that wasn't going to hold, but no
Speaker 1: one had the guts to reverse it. Now stop and
Speaker 1: think about that, like they made up this hacking thing.
Speaker 1: That was the alibi. No, but he was conclaiming it,
Speaker 1: including the candidate, including Hunter Biden. Right, if Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: it came forward said this is not my laptop. Okay,
Speaker 1: that might be something. If Hunter Biden had come forward
Speaker 1: and said my laptop was hacked, you might at least
Speaker 1: have something. None of that happened. Twitter just made it up.
Speaker 1: Oh crap, bad stuff for Joe Biden. I know it's hacked,
Speaker 1: but within hours let me read again the quote from
Speaker 1: one former employee. Within hours, pretty much everyone realized that
Speaker 1: wasn't going to hold, but no one had the guts
Speaker 1: to reverse it. So they knew they were lying, but
Speaker 1: they thought they'd never get caught. Next to tweet all right.
Speaker 1: An amazing subplot of the Twitter slash Hunter Biden laptop
Speaker 1: affair was how much was done without the knowledge of
Speaker 1: CEO Jack Dorsey and how long it took for the
Speaker 1: situation to get unt Yeah again, they didn't abbreviate FT,
Speaker 1: but were this is a child friendly show, so we're
Speaker 1: doing so, as one X employee put it, even after
Speaker 1: Dorsey jumped in, So listen, I don't exonerate Dorsey in this.
Speaker 1: He created a culture where he put in place decision
Speaker 1: makers who were hard partisans, who hated Donald Trump, who
Speaker 1: wanted Biden to win. And we're willing to do anything.
Speaker 1: We're willing to lie, We're willing to act at the
Speaker 1: behest of the Biden campaign. Remember the exchange at the beginning,
Speaker 1: Handled it? Handled it? Yeah, they view themselves as we
Speaker 1: have an obligation. What's the obligation learn from the quote
Speaker 1: lessons of twenty sixteen and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of reporting saying Jack Dorsey is
Speaker 1: mentioned there knew nothing. Was that on purpose by these employees,
Speaker 1: or do you think maybe he said leave me out
Speaker 1: of it so I have the ability deniability? Or do
Speaker 1: you think they just knew their marching orders so well,
Speaker 1: we can do this and this is normal active business
Speaker 1: for us. We're just gonna keep doing it. We don't
Speaker 1: need to call him because this is what we've been
Speaker 1: doing for all these other stories. Possibly you know some
Speaker 1: combination who knows, who knows where he was, who knows
Speaker 1: what he was doing, who knows what his state of
Speaker 1: mind was at the time this was happening. I don't
Speaker 1: know any of that because you've actually questioned Dorsey. I
Speaker 1: have questioned, and it got pretty intense when you were
Speaker 1: questioning it. We have gotten into it on this topic.
Speaker 1: And in a subsequent verdict, will we'll pull up and
Speaker 1: go back to Dorsey's testimony before Congress in light of
Speaker 1: this exchange that that will be one of the podcasts
Speaker 1: coming up. Let's finish going through this thread. All right, Now,
Speaker 1: here's an interesting thing. I'm just gonna read this. In
Speaker 1: one humorous exchange on Day one, Democratic Congressman Rocanna reaches
Speaker 1: out to Gaddy to gently suggest she hop on the
Speaker 1: phone to talk about the quote backlash respeech. Kanna was
Speaker 1: the only Democratic official I could find in the files
Speaker 1: who expressed concern. And let's look at his email, Rocanna wrote,
Speaker 1: generating a huge backlaw on Hill re speech. Happy to
Speaker 1: chat if you're up for it, best Row. So number one,
Speaker 1: this Democrat congressman is on a first name basis with
Speaker 1: these high muckety MUCKs at Twitter, sends him this email.
Speaker 1: He to his credit, Look, I don't know Rocana my understanding. Yes,
Speaker 1: he understood. This is a bad road to go down.
Speaker 1: He's a left wing Democrat, but apparently he's one of
Speaker 1: the very few liberals, who actually is a real liberal
Speaker 1: in that they believe in free speech. But let's do
Speaker 1: Let's do the next one. Twitter files continued quote the
Speaker 1: First Amendment isn't absolute. Zabo's letter contains chilling passages relaying
Speaker 1: Democratic lawmaker's attitudes. They want more moderation, and as for
Speaker 1: the Bill of Rights, it's quote not absolute. Let's read
Speaker 1: the whole thing here. The Democrats meanwhile, complained that the
Speaker 1: companies are inept. They let conservatives muddy the water and
Speaker 1: make the Biden campaign look corrupt, even though Biden is innocent.
Speaker 1: They link this to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. She did
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, but the press wouldn't let the story go.
Speaker 1: It became a scandal far out of proportion. In their mind.
Speaker 1: Social media is doing the same thing. It doesn't moderate
Speaker 1: enough harmful content so that when it does like it
Speaker 1: did yesterday, it becomes a story. If the companies moderated more,
Speaker 1: if they censored more, conservatives wouldn't even think to use
Speaker 1: social media for disinformation, misinformation or otherwise. And it continues.
Speaker 1: The Democrats were in agreement social media needs to moderate
Speaker 1: more because they're corrupting democracy and making all quote truth
Speaker 1: relative when pushed on how the government might insist on
Speaker 1: that consistent with the First Amendment. They demurred, quote, the
Speaker 1: First Amendment isn't absolute. Now, this guy is a consultant
Speaker 1: or a lobbyist. I'm not sure what he does exactly,
Speaker 1: but it's some guy on Capitol Hill who's talking to
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of Democrat lawmakers right in the middle
Speaker 1: of this, and he's reporting back that, Hey, when I
Speaker 1: talk to the Democrats other than Rocana, none of them
Speaker 1: are unhappy at you censoring this story. But they are
Speaker 1: unhappy you're not censoring more. The request from Democrats is
Speaker 1: censor more. In fact, censor so much that conservatives won't
Speaker 1: even be able to tell your censoring because you just
Speaker 1: silence everything. And that's what they did. Everything was fact check.
Speaker 1: We saw. Look, I was at CNN at the time
Speaker 1: when this was happening, as a conservative commentator fighting the
Speaker 1: tough fight there. We had to deal with media matters,
Speaker 1: and we had to deal with all of the things
Speaker 1: we were sharing being silence, and it was it happened instantaneous.
Speaker 1: And now you have to wonder if you're not paranoid,
Speaker 1: you're just dealing with probably the reality that they said, Hey,
Speaker 1: these conservatives that are on TV. We want to shut
Speaker 1: them down, these concervatives. We need to just start nailing
Speaker 1: them and silencing and making sure their distributions. And clearly
Speaker 1: from those early texts, it was anything that went viral.
Speaker 1: It you didn't have to be famous, and you didn't
Speaker 1: have to have a mark. And notice the Democrat congressman
Speaker 1: or complaining about quote truth. Right, the Hunter laptop was true,
Speaker 1: and they knew it was true. And well they knew
Speaker 1: at least that the Biden campaign wasn't denying it. They
Speaker 1: didn't care. Their definition of truth is anything that politically
Speaker 1: benefits Democrats. The definition of false is anything that politically
Speaker 1: hurts Democrats. All right, let's move to the next one.
Speaker 1: All right, So this is a very interesting This is
Speaker 1: not part of the Twitter thread. But to understand, you asked,
Speaker 1: what are the consequences going to be? Yeah, So this
Speaker 1: is a tweet from Shaan Cooksey. Shaun Cooksey is a
Speaker 1: commissioner on the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission. I know
Speaker 1: Sean well. Shan used to be a lawyer on my
Speaker 1: staff in the Senate Office before he got appointed and
Speaker 1: confirmed to the FEC. Here's what Shaan Cooksey tweets out.
Speaker 1: Here's what Twitter told the FEC in its response to
Speaker 1: a complaint about this event quote. Twitter did not receive
Speaker 1: a request from the Biden campaign to review, much less restrict,
Speaker 1: the New York Post articles and go to the next one.
Speaker 1: Nor did decision makers at Twitter, or to the best
Speaker 1: of the company's knowledge, anyone authorized to act on Twitter's behalf,
Speaker 1: even communicate with the Biden campaign regarding Twitter's decision to
Speaker 1: enforce its content moderation policies with respect to the New
Speaker 1: York Post articles. You want to talk about very real consequences.
Speaker 1: It appears that Twitter lied to the Federal Election Commission,
Speaker 1: and I will point out so I've got here here
Speaker 1: in my hand. Their actual response. It's a lengthy response
Speaker 1: where they make those statements, but they attach at the
Speaker 1: back of their response two sworn affidavits, one from Yoel Roth,
Speaker 1: who's one of the senior officials deeply implicated in this
Speaker 1: where he says here a couple of things in his
Speaker 1: sworn affidavit. As a matter of practice, neither I nor
Speaker 1: the other members of the site integrity team communicate directly
Speaker 1: with persons outside Twitter that report content for violating Twitter's policies.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. We know that, although he does say then,
Speaker 1: since twenty eighteen, I've had regular meetings with the Office
Speaker 1: of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security. And then
Speaker 1: he goes on. He says Twitter's trust and safety leadership
Speaker 1: determined that the New York Post articles violated the distribution
Speaker 1: of hacked materials policy and the Private Information policy, and
Speaker 1: instructed the site integrity team to execute enforcement of those policies.
Speaker 1: We know from these internal discussions. No, they didn't determine
Speaker 1: it violated the hacked policies. They pulled that out of
Speaker 1: their rear end and then realize, oh, crap, there's no
Speaker 1: evidence for us, no basis for us. But well, let's
Speaker 1: just stick to it, run out the clock and election day,
Speaker 1: and Roth's sworn Affidavid, the final two paragraphs I want
Speaker 1: to read for you. I did not receive any communications from,
Speaker 1: or have any communications with representatives for Biden for President,
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Committee, or any of their agents regarding
Speaker 1: the New York Post article before Twitter implemented the enforcement
Speaker 1: actions on October fourteenth, twenty twenty. The final paragraph of
Speaker 1: the affidavit. To the best of my knowledge, no Twitter
Speaker 1: employees received any communications from or had any communications with
Speaker 1: representatives of Biden for President, the Democratic National Committee, or
Speaker 1: enter their agents regarding the New York Post article before
Speaker 1: Twitter implemented the enforcement actions on October fourteenth, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: There's a second sworn affidavit from Lauren Culberson, who was
Speaker 1: the head of US Public Policy, and she likewise, she
Speaker 1: says that she's the point person for officeholders, election officials, candidates, campaigns,
Speaker 1: and party committees. And she says that the public policy
Speaker 1: team receives requests from persons for tweets to be reviewed
Speaker 1: for ciance with Twitter's policy, and we forward those requests
Speaker 1: to review content to enforcement agents, including members of the
Speaker 1: Trust and Safety teams. So she's the portal to send
Speaker 1: the request on and then she has the final two things.
Speaker 1: I didn't receive any communications with Biden, to the best
Speaker 1: of my knowledge, no one else received communications with Biden.
Speaker 1: And there's scorn affidavits, so that changes things. These two
Speaker 1: individuals who signed their name to sworn affidavits, if they
Speaker 1: don't have lawyers, they need to call a lawyer. They
Speaker 1: need to call a lawyer right now, because they are
Speaker 1: facing potential civil liability, potential criminal liability. And I'll point
Speaker 1: out on top of that, Twitter faces liability, but you
Speaker 1: know who else faces liability the Biden campaign and the DNC. Really,
Speaker 1: so they could be sued and it could be legitimate. Well, look,
Speaker 1: the basis of the complaint that Twitter lied to the
Speaker 1: FEC about was that Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story
Speaker 1: was an in kind campaign contribution to Biden for president.
Speaker 1: And so their whole defense is no, no, no, we
Speaker 1: just did this based on our hack materials policy. It
Speaker 1: wasn't it wasn't about Biden at all. We now know
Speaker 1: that's a total lie. And I'll tell you what's interesting.
Speaker 1: The next tronch of materials is dropping any minute now,
Speaker 1: which means we know what Wednesday's show is going to
Speaker 1: be about. Yep, We're gonna keep doing a deep dive
Speaker 1: into this. I will say this to everyone that is
Speaker 1: listening and watching us Wednesday morning, we will continue part
Speaker 1: two of this. We will go through it for you
Speaker 1: so you understand what's happening. We do want you to
Speaker 1: get in the fight in the game. Make sure you
Speaker 1: hit that forward button, the share button, share the video
Speaker 1: the audio file with all your family and friends. Senator
Speaker 1: crew is gonna keep going deep into this on Wednesday morning.
Speaker 1: We do this podcast Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling all this week it's gonna be on this,
Speaker 1: So if you if you miss an episode, make sure
Speaker 1: you go back and listen to it as this keeps
Speaker 1: coming out and I have a feeling sent and I
Speaker 1: think you'll agree with me. What they're doing at Twitter
Speaker 1: right now is they're saying this is who we were,
Speaker 1: and we're not going to be this moving forward, and
Speaker 1: we're not going to pull back from this. We're going
Speaker 1: to keep unloading this information in a way. And it
Speaker 1: was clear Elon must said this is basically just the beginning. Now,
Speaker 1: I would assume he's seen everything, which means there's a
Speaker 1: lot more to this and it gets worse than what
Speaker 1: we've even seen. So stay with us all week. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be very interesting to see what this means. I'm
Speaker 1: going to make a prediction. I think this is going
Speaker 1: to bring a lot of pain to Facebook at some point, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I think what it's also seeing now is this
Speaker 1: worrying you're hearing is document shredders at Facebook and Google
Speaker 1: and YouTube that they're shredding things like crazy because they're
Speaker 1: worried what's coming next. Well, and if there's anything you
Speaker 1: can connect these two dots with is what they were
Speaker 1: doing with the laptop. And the way they dealt with
Speaker 1: these things is exactly the same way that they were
Speaker 1: dealing with doctor Fauci and anything he wanted to be
Speaker 1: silenced with COVID nineteen. And if you look at how
Speaker 1: different those stories are, one was quote fake hack material,
Speaker 1: the other one was just a government saying we want
Speaker 1: the narrator to be what it is. I think these
Speaker 1: stories are going to be intertwined in a way like
Speaker 1: we never could have imagined. Stay with us all week long.
Speaker 1: We'll see you back Wednesday morning. Hit that share button
Speaker 1: right a five star review center. This has been fun.
Speaker 1: Wednesday morning, We'll see all you guys back here.