EZRA LEVANT ｜ Freedom and censorship in America： A feature interview with Ben Weingarten
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
160.16862
Summary
Ben Weingarten joins Ezra LeVant to discuss freedom and censorship in America, including the 4th of July victory by a federal judge who struck down government censorship of the internet in a landmark case, and why we should be grateful.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, my Rebels. A very special conversation with one of America's smartest commentators,
00:00:04.520
Ben Weingarten. We're going to talk about an amazing 4th of July court case in America
00:00:10.360
striking down government censorship of the internet. Well, we Canadians can only dream of that.
00:00:17.000
But before we get to that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to the video version of this
00:00:20.680
podcast. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe. It's eight bucks a month, which might
00:00:25.600
not be a lot of dough to you, but it really adds up for us. And that's how we stay independent
00:00:30.060
of the government. We do not take, we do not ask for, we would not accept money
00:00:35.020
from Trudeau. And it shows. That's rebelnewsplus.com. All right, here's today's podcast.
00:00:55.600
Tonight, freedom and censorship in America, a feature interview with Ben Weingarten.
00:01:03.060
It's July 18th, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
00:01:12.380
You know, I can't get over the fact that in Canada, our Supreme Court has yet to hear
00:01:26.780
a single case involving infringements on civil liberties during the lockdowns, during the
00:01:32.760
pandemic. The pandemic started three and a half years ago, almost three and a half years
00:01:38.120
ago. And our Supreme Court just, you know, really couldn't be bothered. More important
00:01:43.160
things to do. And really, what would the point be, given that very early on, the Chief Justice
00:01:49.320
of the Supreme Court announced his own vaccine mandate for the court itself, for the building
00:01:54.720
itself? If you weren't jabbed, you couldn't work there. I mean, there's no guessing how he
00:02:00.120
would rule on that issue. He ordered his own staff to be jabbed or be fired. Really, what's
00:02:07.800
the point of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I say this because I look south, and for all
00:02:13.860
their problems and for all their scandals and all their corruption, which, of course, is
00:02:19.300
endemic in most modern democracies, at least they have some checks and balances. At least
00:02:25.820
their Supreme Court does step in every once in a while and stop out-of-control government
00:02:31.460
policies. At least their version of our parliament, their Congress, has some ability to
00:02:37.200
investigate the powers that be, unlike our system here. And so, while today we're going
00:02:43.060
to delve into the American crisis, Canadians should have no sense of righteousness about
00:02:49.940
it, because everything we're going to talk about today is worse in Canada. Not just worse
00:02:57.100
in terms of the depth of the problem, but worse in terms of the reporting on the problem
00:03:02.380
and the response to the problem. And you'll see that as we go through. Today, we will deal
00:03:07.920
with four American issues, and who better to walk us through these than Ben Weingarten,
00:03:13.980
a friend of ours. He's the senior contributor to The Federalist and a columnist at Newsweek.
00:03:20.800
He joins us now via Skype. Ben, great to see you again. And I know you're in the thick of
00:03:25.940
what feels like a corruption parade, but at least you know about it. At least it's exposed. Am I right?
00:03:34.840
Well, great to be with you. And we had a massive July 4th Independence Day treat here in a federal
00:03:43.340
judge down in Louisiana defending free speech, the First Amendment on which all of our other liberties
00:03:50.380
and justice in this country rely, delivering a massive win in a landmark case, freezing our
00:03:58.920
federal government-led speech police here. And so to your point, we do have a system of checks and
00:04:05.640
balances. We do have three branches of government. Sometimes the courts are able to bail out some of
00:04:13.280
the worst inclinations of the other branches of the government, other times not. Sometimes the
00:04:19.800
legislative branch steps up, does its oversight duties, and sometimes even legislates and remedies
00:04:24.880
real problems. Other times not. But the trajectory, the trend is at an accelerating negative pace. And
00:04:34.880
we are, I guess, in many ways, falling in the footsteps of the rest of the West. Thankfully,
00:04:40.740
our progressives are slightly behind. The system itself is an exceptional system, and I love this country.
00:04:48.180
And so for anything that I say about corruption of its institutions and such, to me, it's not a reflection
00:04:54.440
on the country. It's a reflection of institutions and people not living up to the rich heritage and the
00:05:02.940
incredible history that doing injustice to the founders of this place, who, in my view, created the greatest
00:05:10.200
country in the history of mankind. And that's one of the reasons why I feel so compelled to expose when
00:05:17.060
institutions and individuals do not live up to it, because there is no other place for people who
00:05:23.000
love liberty and justice to go, ultimately. And if the U.S. loses its birthright, then so too will the rest
00:05:30.260
of the West. So it's a long-winded way of saying, great to be with you. We have problems here, but we also
00:05:37.140
have a model that provides more than all the solutions.
00:05:40.600
Yeah, you're right. And of course, I'm a Canadian born and bred, and I love Canada. I mean, that's why
00:05:46.720
I'm a critic. During the depth of the lockdowns, some of my friends, including some of our staff,
00:05:53.960
relocated to America. They just said, I'm not built for this. I don't want to live under a curfew. We had
00:06:00.440
an entire province that was under a curfew, Ben, like they were children. And this was a curfew for people
00:06:06.280
sick or healthy, vaccinated or not. I mean, imagine a province of 8 million people under a curfew, and
00:06:13.960
no challenge to that, and certainly no rebuke by the courts. Just astonishing.
00:06:21.000
So yeah, and the censorship issue you talk about, what a glorious day, what a symbolic day to have
00:06:27.920
that volley for victory. And I know the case you're talking about. You recently wrote about it in the
00:06:32.620
Epoch Times, one of our favorite newspapers, your coverage of it was headlined, U.S. government says
00:06:37.840
inability to censor you causes it irreparable harm. And you're talking about, I think we're talking
00:06:44.100
about the same case, which was basically a lawsuit brought in part by our friend Janine Yunus, who we
00:06:52.580
used to interview a lot, challenging the government for pressuring social media companies into silencing
00:07:01.340
critical voices. Are we talking about the same case, Ben? We are. Well, why don't you tell us a little
00:07:06.700
bit about that? Because we've heard of that case. We haven't had Janine Yunus on. I'm not sure if she's
00:07:11.260
available anymore, because she's no longer with the new Civil Liberties Alliance, which was like a
00:07:15.720
civil liberties law firm. She has actually gone to work in the Congress on a government committee
00:07:22.380
against the weaponization of the state, which is just incredible. I'm so glad she's there. But I think
00:07:29.360
that means we can't chat with her about things in the same way as we did before. But why don't you
00:07:33.800
tell us a little bit about the case? Janine told us about the case as it was filed. She told us that
00:07:41.340
it had a certain focus, especially on the pandemic. But maybe you can tell us about the ruling, because
00:07:46.200
we haven't had a full briefing on that yet. Tell me what the court said, how it said it, and how quickly
00:07:53.700
it enforced it. There were some wonderful parts about it, and I don't think it's got enough news up here in
00:07:58.700
Canada. Yeah, so first of all, the context for this case, which I would describe as maybe the landmark
00:08:07.180
digital free speech case to date, a historic one, potentially, and one that may ultimately end up at
00:08:14.980
the Supreme Court here. This case, Missouri v. Biden, was brought by multiple state attorneys general.
00:08:22.180
They were joined by some of the key signatories to and brains behind the Great Barrington Declaration,
00:08:30.020
and then some groups, one conservative media outlet, and then another anti-sort of draconian COVID
00:08:38.720
regulation organization. And basically, what they alleged was that the government in tandem with,
00:08:46.700
and when I say the government, I really mean almost the entirety of the federal government,
00:08:51.420
in tandem with certain putatively academic slash research organizations that bill themselves as
00:08:58.400
anti-disinformation outfits, but in reality serve as government surveillance and censorship cutouts,
00:09:04.880
coerced, cajoled, and ultimately colluded successfully with the social media platforms to surveil and
00:09:13.240
ultimately censor en masse Americans and non-Americans, tweets, Facebook posts, etc. And what they revealed
00:09:23.100
in just the discovery in this case, which led up to this initial ruling from the judge, revealed the
00:09:31.500
greatest censorship regime arguably in the history of mankind. And that is sort of how the judge
00:09:35.740
himself described it in saying that if what the plaintiffs allege is accurate. And he, by the way,
00:09:43.480
in this ruling, which I'll get to in a moment, says that they are likely to prevail on the merits of
00:09:49.700
their case, that this has been a massive First Amendment violation by government authorities. So what
00:09:55.560
exactly did that regime entail? And this is laid out in massive court filings, which have more than
00:10:03.040
enough smoking guns if we had a real media for people to win Pulitzers over, but they don't cover
00:10:08.360
it. And they say this is a nothing burger. At least they did until this ruling came down. What this shows
00:10:13.880
is a coordinated effort led by the national security and public health apparatus to, again, work with and
00:10:21.600
in some cases, help foster the creation of these third party cutouts at prestigious institutions like
00:10:28.900
Stanford University, for example, to work with the social media companies to essentially identify
00:10:34.480
specific stories, entire narratives, accounts, individual pieces of content, show them that those
00:10:44.140
ought to constitute violations of terms of service, hoover up and mask these examples of putatively
00:10:51.300
offending content that constitutes, quote unquote, mis, dis, and malinformation, and then feed it
00:10:58.820
to the social media companies and tell them, kill these accounts, undermine these narratives,
00:11:04.280
silence en masse, effectively millions of Americans, prevent people not only from speaking,
00:11:08.840
but from listening. And the evidence in this case is overwhelming and unbelievable. And again,
00:11:13.900
it's only based on preliminary limited discovery. That discovery has included depositions from many of
00:11:21.380
the government agents who led this effort to go about censoring wrongthink. And this goes to a
00:11:27.580
broader worldview that we've talked about before, which the government has effectively codified
00:11:33.500
through this public-private censorship regime of saying, wrongthink, ideas, opinions, and not just opinions,
00:11:40.220
but inconvenient facts that we don't like or that conflict with our favorite narratives,
00:11:44.580
threaten national security, or we'll get people killed because they won't be vaccinated. And consequently,
00:11:49.640
that gives us a right to push the social media companies to engage in, quote unquote,
00:11:54.240
content moderation. This started all with the idea that there was foreign influence operations using
00:12:02.720
social media to undermine democracy, quickly turned to domestic wrong thinkers, and it exploded in a few
00:12:09.700
different realms. First, with the Hunter Biden laptop story, the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story,
00:12:14.660
which in and of itself constituted maybe the gravest American national security information
00:12:20.460
operation in American history on the eve of an election, election interference effectively in grooming the
00:12:27.820
social media companies to censor that story, which is part of this case. Then it moved to election integrity and
00:12:34.780
outcomes. You're not allowed to question mass mail-in balloting. You're not allowed to question irregularities.
00:12:40.940
Historically, outcomes that you've never seen before, etc. And then expanding to virtually every aspect of COVID-19,
00:12:48.300
from its origins to mitigation techniques, draconian lockdowns, and then to a whole slew of other issues.
00:12:55.580
And you had federal authorities, again, working hand in hand with the White House, who was publicly
00:12:59.500
and privately using its bullhorns to yell at, essentially, the social media companies,
00:13:04.720
you got to do something about this misdice and malinformation that's killing people,
00:13:08.580
on top of lawmakers who threaten, obviously, with legislation and regulatory remedies,
00:13:14.940
pursuing the big tech companies, and then these third-party cutouts as well. So it was a concerted effort.
00:13:21.020
It led to probably hundreds of millions, if not more, of pieces of content being censored.
00:13:26.220
This case exposed it all. So for those who think that the Twitter files were revealing,
00:13:30.580
I urge you to check out the case docket in Missouri v. Biden, and specifically,
00:13:35.260
this ruling that this judge, Judge Doty, put forth.
00:13:38.560
Now, to that ruling, with that long-winded wind-up for it, what the judge said was, again,
00:13:44.080
the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits that this was a massive First Amendment violation
00:13:50.020
that took place. And what he did was he issued a preliminary injunction freezing government speech
00:13:58.100
policing directly and by proxy, said that all manner of defendants, again, myriad government agencies,
00:14:05.300
the White House, and basically prevented them from continuing to communicate with social media
00:14:12.100
companies about wrong-think. Overwhelmingly, of course, they targeted conservatives in the wrong-think
00:14:17.660
censorship operation, as well as even coordinating, including with their third-party private,
00:14:24.580
quote-unquote, cutouts, private cutouts who often themselves had incestuous relations with the
00:14:30.300
government agencies and, again, consulted with them in the creation of these outside,
00:14:35.360
quote-unquote, anti-disinformation organizations. So the judge said, we are freezing federal government-led
00:14:41.040
speech policing. And this led to, of course, two responses from the government. One was to appeal
00:14:47.940
the injunction, and that appeal is pending right now. The other was to seek a stay, freezing the freeze
00:14:56.360
of the speech police. And that freezing of the stay prompted this piece that I wrote,
00:15:01.180
which argues, essentially, that what the government is saying in seeking to freeze this injunction is
00:15:05.740
they want to keep violating your First Amendment. They believe that what they did was not the greatest,
00:15:11.120
not impose the greatest censorship regime in world history, arguably, but that they ought to be able
00:15:16.580
to continue doing it. And that actually, and this is a legal term of art, but I think it should be
00:15:21.400
understood plainly that it causes the government irreparable harm for the First Amendment to be
00:15:27.300
defended, because it could lead to threats to, in the government's word, democracy, and therefore
00:15:32.460
irreparable harm to the government. So the government is essentially unrepentant in its censorship.
00:15:38.720
It sought to freeze the freezing of the censorship regime. And thankfully, Judge Doty smacked the
00:15:46.300
government down and rejected, denied their motion for a stay. And so that injunction is in place right
00:15:53.760
now. We know this in part because FBI Director Christopher Wray, testifying before the House Judiciary
00:16:02.480
Committee himself, noted that his agency had issued guidance for complying with that injunction. Now,
00:16:09.360
I'd really like to see what that guidance looks like. I think every agency implicated in this lawsuit
00:16:15.140
ought to show us what the guidance looks like and how they're complying with it. But nevertheless,
00:16:19.560
this is a massive victory for free speech in America and really free speech in the world when
00:16:24.900
you're talking about these platforms, which, of course, have customers that are everywhere on the
00:16:29.800
planet. Well, you're so right. I mean, even here at Rebel News, the very things you said the government
00:16:34.700
was tackling, they tackled in us. We lost our YouTube monetization. The last straw was a Donald Trump
00:16:43.100
comment that I think, like, it was when he was president. He made a statement as president.
00:16:48.060
We reported it as the news. It was questioning the validity of the 2020 elections and the fairness.
00:16:53.800
We weren't even taking sides. We were just showing what the president said. That was the excuse to turn
00:16:58.440
off about a million dollars a year from Rebel News. We were also lost our ability to do what's called
00:17:06.080
super chats, which was 400 grand a year, because we said things we weren't supposed to about the
00:17:12.060
pandemic lockdowns. So, you know, our YouTube rep is based in America, but we're here in Canada and
00:17:21.480
we suffered the same thing. And I have no plans, but Ben, if that censorship was illegal and that
00:17:30.440
censorship basically contracted out privatized government censorship, so the government itself
00:17:37.440
didn't issue a court order. The government just leaned on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
00:17:42.240
to do the censoring for them. But here the judge is saying that's the same thing. I wonder if companies,
00:17:49.340
maybe not in Canada, but in the United States, we're surely not alone. There's countless companies
00:17:54.720
who have been truly damaged by this government action. We always assumed there was some government
00:18:01.800
pressure there, but it sounds like this ruling proved it. I wonder if American versions of our
00:18:08.700
company would be able to sue YouTube and or the government for the loss of revenues caused by
00:18:17.700
illegal government imposed censorship. What do you think of that? I think this certainly opens up a
00:18:23.820
strong legal argument for it. To your point, what this case... Like a class action, for example. I mean,
00:18:28.160
there's a class of people, mainly but not always conservatives, who simply for expressing their
00:18:34.880
legal opinion lost millions of dollars because of this government infringement. Sorry, I interrupted
00:18:39.860
you. Go ahead. No, there actually is an aspect of Missouri v. Biden where there was an attempt to
00:18:46.580
turn it into a class action suit. The judge did not rule in favor on that effort, but that doesn't mean
00:18:54.860
that it can't necessarily be brought by other parties, maybe in another court. And to your point, what this
00:19:02.460
case points to is that in U.S. law, based on case precedent, the government can't get a private actor to do
00:19:11.420
what the government itself legally cannot do. And so, you know, there are many on the government side who are
00:19:18.040
arguing, well, look, there's no coercion here. We're just pointing out, we're just talking to social media
00:19:23.280
companies about how, you know, have you looked at your terms of service around hacked and leaked
00:19:27.680
materials? And, you know, then in the run up to an election say, you know, be on the lookout for
00:19:32.300
hacked and leaked materials. By the way, did you update your terms of service about it? And then,
00:19:35.720
and then, oh, you know, watch out, there might be something around Hunter Biden. According to Yoel
00:19:40.020
Roth, this is one of Twitter's former chief censorers. He wrote an affidavit, a sworn affidavit,
00:19:46.180
saying that the government was tipping Twitter off to the coming of something like the Hunter Biden
00:19:50.360
laptop story. And then that story comes out. And then under their hack and leak policies,
00:19:54.900
they censor the story. This is the government saying, well, we're just forwarding along
00:20:00.060
en masse Twitter and Facebook accounts and specific posts to the social media companies and saying,
00:20:06.780
take a look at this. And then we'll follow up and we'll say, did you take any action on that?
00:20:10.140
And the government saying, well, that's not coercion. Okay. Leave aside the fact that you're talking
00:20:14.580
about the most powerful agencies in America, that they have regulatory authority and legislative
00:20:20.180
authority and all manner of other authority, implied or explicit. And that this is essentially
00:20:24.940
the mafia saying nice business there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
00:20:31.360
What Philip Hamburger, who you mentioned the NCLA, Philip Hamburger leads that organization,
00:20:37.540
I believe. What he's argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial that I think everyone ought to read
00:20:42.460
is that even if there isn't a smoking gun of coercion, and by the way, there are many smoking guns,
00:20:47.380
again, in this case. Abridging free speech, abridging the First Amendment itself, of course,
00:20:54.660
is a First Amendment violation. And so you have that in spades here. Abridging means to shrink,
00:21:00.920
to in any way infringe upon the free speech right. And obviously, that has happened en masse,
00:21:06.940
as this case has illustrated. So I think to your point, look, there are millions of people who have
00:21:11.820
been harmed as a consequence of the censorship regime. Their business models, as yours has been,
00:21:17.560
have been upended. People have lost their most basic right to speak freely and to listen. And again,
00:21:24.820
to your point, thank God there is a First Amendment. You look at the history of it, and many of the
00:21:29.920
founding fathers here didn't even want a Bill of Rights. They didn't believe it was necessary because
00:21:34.440
the Constitution said, here's what the government can do, and then went silent about all the things it
00:21:39.280
cannot do, precisely because it was not supposed to be able to do them. But some founders felt,
00:21:44.960
as a matter of compromise, they needed to codify these natural rights that were assumed, and that
00:21:50.540
the government should have never had any business infringing upon. And yet still, you've had this
00:21:55.540
raft of violations of it. So thankfully, it's codified in the First Amendment. Thankfully, we still
00:22:01.720
have some judges who have some intestinal fortitude and fidelity of the Constitution. But the federal
00:22:07.720
government is fighting this. It's going to an appeals court. And this may end up ultimately the
00:22:12.040
Supreme Court, as I noted. And this term, Justice Gorsuch noted sort of offhanded in one of his
00:22:20.020
opinions, the idea that the Supreme Court might have to deal with essentially issues around censorship
00:22:27.740
of speech, for example, on COVID-19. So that may have been teeing up what is to come in a future
00:22:33.340
Supreme Court term. And, you know, I hope the Supreme Court, well, I hope the Supreme Court doesn't have
00:22:38.600
to rule on this, that it never even gets that far, and that this is dealt with at lower courts. But if
00:22:43.880
it does, I hope and pray that they're the defining word on this at upholding and defending the First
00:22:49.540
Amendment for Americans and people around the world. Yeah. Well, we can only dream of that outcome
00:22:56.500
up here. Rebel News itself has been a litigant in some free speech battles. And we've had some good
00:23:02.980
luck, by the way. Twice we beat Trudeau when he tried to block Rebel News from attending our version
00:23:10.000
of your presidential debates, our national leaders' debates. Twice we beat him, and we're in court
00:23:15.160
against him on a number of other matters. You probably don't know this, Ben, but Trudeau introduced
00:23:19.700
a journalistic license in Canada called the QCJO, Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization. It's
00:23:27.300
administered by our version of the IRS. We call it the Canada Revenue Agency. You have to apply
00:23:33.560
for this journalism license, and a government panel investigates you. They turn down Rebel News saying
00:23:42.320
we weren't real news. We weren't trustworthy news. Yeah, Justin Trudeau certainly cannot trust us. I'm very
00:23:48.780
proud of that. So we are moving through the courts on that. That's what it looks like in a country
00:23:54.480
that does not have a First Amendment, Ben, literally applying for a journalism license. You know, I
00:24:00.780
recall that during the Cold War, you needed a license to have a typewriter in Romania. You needed a
00:24:07.920
license. And they took a sample of, because I don't know if you remember the old time typewriters when the
00:24:13.700
actual keystrokes. So each typewriter was a little bit different. This, the letter R was a little
00:24:18.720
bit higher. So it was like a fingerprint. So they would take typing samples from your typewriter when
00:24:24.700
you registered it with the police. And the reason was, if they discovered Samizdat, if they discovered
00:24:29.920
illegal political comments, they could trace which typewriter was used. That is a true story. I invite
00:24:36.800
you to read the history of licensed typewriters in Romania. And that's where we are in Canada. You need a
00:24:44.840
government license to do journalism. It's just completely outrageous. I am jealous, because for all of the
00:24:52.300
flaws that you describe in your system, at least you have some parts of it that are working. I could spend the
00:24:58.440
whole show talking about that case, Ben, but I do want to talk about a few other things, just to fill up on
00:25:03.880
American news, because there's so much going on down there. I want to show you a video. And my favorite
00:25:10.340
congressman by far, it's not even close, is Thomas Massey of Kentucky. He's so great. He's so smart,
00:25:16.920
first of all. I think he's got a master's degree in science. He really is a deeply educated,
00:25:26.260
intelligent man, but he's got old school values. He's also a farmer. He's a carpenter. He's a
00:25:32.860
renaissance man. He's got a great sense of humor. And he loves freedom. I don't know what you think of
00:25:39.180
him, but I think he's the number one congressman. And here's a video of him a few months back,
00:25:45.480
pointing out that the instigator of the January 6th great meandering through Congress caught on
00:25:57.980
video exhorting people to go inside to storm the place. Ray Epps was his name. He was on an FBI Most
00:26:04.580
Wanted poster, still is, and he's never been arrested. Here, take a look at my favorite guy,
00:26:11.980
Congressman Massey, raising the issue. Take a look at this.
00:26:16.640
There's a concern that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present
00:26:22.160
on January 5th and January 6th during the protests. And I've got some pictures that I want
00:26:29.200
to show you if the, uh, my staff could bring those to you. Uh, I'm going to put it out
00:26:37.840
there. I'm probably going to go to jail. Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol.
00:26:45.000
I'm afraid I, I'm afraid I can't see that at all.
00:26:50.460
Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed! Zed!
00:26:57.000
Okay, folks, we're at the war. As soon as the plan has done speaking, we go to the Capitol.
00:27:14.060
All right, you have, you have those images there, and they're captioned. Uh, they were
00:27:22.100
from January 5th and January 6th. As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying
00:27:28.660
he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every, but they need
00:27:32.940
to go into the Capitol the next day, is then the next day directing people to the Capitol.
00:27:38.840
And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything. You said this
00:27:43.360
is one of the most sweeping investigations in history. Uh, have you seen that video, or
00:27:51.400
So, as I, um, uh, said at the outset, uh, one of the norms of the Justice Department is to not
00:27:57.640
comment on impending investigations, and particularly not to comment about particular scenes or particular
00:28:06.440
Okay, without... I was hoping today to give you an opportunity to put to rest the concerns that people
00:28:12.440
have that there were federal agents or assets of the federal government present on January 5th and January 6th.
00:28:18.400
Can you tell us, without talking about particular incidents or particular videos, how many agents
00:28:24.440
or assets of the federal government were present on January 6th, whether they agitated to go into
00:28:31.440
So, I'm not going to violate this norm of, uh, of, of, uh, the rule of law. I'm not going to
00:28:38.440
Looks pretty suspicious. Um, everybody else was arrested. A lot of those January 6ers are still
00:28:45.320
in prison for what Gavin McInnes calls the great meandering. I got a real kick out of that. It was not
00:28:50.120
a riot. There were some windows broken and, and, uh, someone took Nancy Pelosi's lectern. It's true.
00:28:56.160
But to call that a riot is a disservice to the, uh, mostly peaceful riots that the Black Lives Matter
00:29:01.680
movement spent so much energy doing. This was a meandering. Um, but that same Ray Epps, that's the name of him,
00:29:08.360
um, is suing Tucker Carlson and Fox News for saying what, uh, Representative Massey said.
00:29:16.160
Here's the headline in the New York Times. Arizona man cited in conspiracy theories sues Fox News for defamation.
00:29:23.960
Ray Epps, a two-time Trump voter, sure he is, says Tucker Carlson repeatedly and falsely named him as a covert
00:29:30.140
government agent who incited the January 6th attacks. What do you make of this, Ben?
00:29:35.260
Well, first of all, you know, let's briefly talk about Ray Epps. It strands credulity, or it's,
00:29:41.440
it's hard to imagine someone caught more red-handed in, from the government's perspective,
00:29:48.700
provoking an insurrection, a massive domestic terrorist attack, a domestic terrorist attack
00:29:53.580
that is on par, according to senior Democrats in America, with the depths of the Civil War or Pearl
00:30:02.560
Harbor or 9-11. This man is on camera screaming for people to do that two days in a row, including
00:30:10.040
on January 6th. He's at the start, the very start of the breach. He's coordinating with people seemingly
00:30:16.260
on the ground during that day. This is someone who I believe used to be the leader of the Oath Keepers
00:30:21.700
in Arizona, and the Oath Keepers has been treated as tantamount to a domestic terrorist organization
00:30:27.000
and had their members who participated in the Capitol riot or even, you know, purportedly were
00:30:33.140
coordinating the riot subject to prosecution. So how in God's name is this person not pursued by
00:30:42.660
a Justice Department that's pursued dozens of people truly for mulling around, essentially,
00:30:48.660
inside the Capitol, and then people who weren't at the Capitol, who has pursued, you know, nonviolent
00:30:55.520
offenders, people with no criminal records, people who didn't destroy anything, etc. And here, as you
00:31:01.200
know it, you have a person who was there right when the breach occurred, who was clearly calling for
00:31:06.640
this with his rhetoric on camera, who's affiliated with an organization that's been pursued.
00:31:11.800
Why isn't he pursued? And that has led to questions of, well, look, we know, according to court filings,
00:31:21.300
and then according to reporting, that there were substantial federal assets on the ground. And
00:31:27.020
there's a question of were there just informants on the ground, or were there actually agent provocateurs
00:31:32.100
on the ground? And then you start getting into the issue of, okay, were cops provoking people
00:31:38.640
to try to further incite that riot. And this is cast as conspiracy theory and such. You know,
00:31:46.980
this is MAGA extremists talking about false flag attacks and such. But to the extent there's any
00:31:53.200
conspiracy theory here, leaving aside the fact that we know that there were informants on the ground
00:31:59.900
in court filings, and that we know, by the way, that many of the groups implicated in this
00:32:04.840
were penetrated by government authorities. Historically, set aside all of that, why won't
00:32:13.200
government authorities give straight answers about whether and to what extent there were informants,
00:32:19.440
other assets on the ground? What were they doing that day? Were they coordinating with people who
00:32:23.520
engaged in violence or other acts of criminality that day, et cetera? And every single time these
00:32:30.140
questions come up in congressional hearings, FBI officials, Justice Department officials, they
00:32:36.080
stonewall. They stonewall time and time again. And so that will only fuel conspiracy theories. The fact
00:32:42.340
that Ray Epps himself, after all this time, has not been charged, only further fuels conspiracy theories,
00:32:47.860
particularly because it's not only that he hasn't been charged, but he is lauded by the likes of the
00:32:52.280
January 6th committee. He's lauded by the New York Times and defended by those kinds of
00:32:57.660
publications. Now, as for this filing against Fox News, there are many interesting aspects of it.
00:33:06.840
One of them I just point out off the top is that Epps is represented by a lawyer who's associated
00:33:13.080
with David Brock, who's one of the Democrat hatchet men par excellence in America, which is kind of a
00:33:19.480
curious thing because Epps in this filing is described as a two-time Trump voter, an avid Fox News
00:33:26.660
watcher, I think a former Tucker Carlson fan, et cetera. I don't know any two-time Trump voting
00:33:32.460
Tucker Carlson fans who would go about hiring those who are colleagues of ultimate Democrat hatchet men
00:33:42.080
like David Brock. But okay, set that aside for a moment. Interestingly, in this filing, he says that
00:33:49.100
the DOJ contacted him and essentially said charges were forthcoming. Now, I believe that this filing was
00:33:55.560
from May. So we don't know yet whether charges have been filed, but by all appearances, they have
00:34:02.720
not been filed. So are they forthcoming? What are those charges going to look like? As many observers
00:34:07.800
have noted, including Revolver, by the way, and Revolver has done some of the best investigative work on
00:34:13.460
who all the people were in these groups like Oath Keepers who were pursued, why some people were not
00:34:20.100
pursued, which is very curious and leads to the question of, you know, were these informants or
00:34:25.300
other protected government assets that had infiltrated these groups? Set that aside for a
00:34:29.380
moment. Revolver has a very good deep dive into the filing. And, you know, what they kind of point
00:34:35.440
out is, can you, the question, and this is me paraphrasing here, but can you find anyone similarly
00:34:41.460
situated to Ray Epps who has not been charged? And then also, when the government pursues people,
00:34:46.420
oftentimes they do it with these raids, these shock and awe SWAT team kind of raids. Ray Epps gets a call
00:34:53.460
essentially, and his total charges are likely forthcoming. Now, maybe those charges have been
00:34:58.500
handed down. Maybe they will be handed down. Are those charges going to look like the charges for
00:35:03.160
those who engage in similar acts? We don't yet know. Laughably, one of the things that Epps raises
00:35:09.260
is that he was likely to be charged because of the notoriety that Tucker Carlson gave him.
00:35:16.420
So the implication there then is that Merrick Garland snaps to attention when Tucker Carlson covers
00:35:22.580
Ray Epps, who's on camera multiple times, who testifies before the J6 committee, et cetera.
00:35:29.120
Very striking. And, you know, in the revolver piece, they go into kind of what are the legal
00:35:34.140
angles here and what is the point of raising Tucker Carlson's name in connection with this? Why go
00:35:39.720
after Fox News and why go after Fox News right now? They're all manner of interesting threads there.
00:35:44.680
But Ray Epps presents the ultimate curious case in a scenario where the government is pursuing
00:35:49.760
literally everyone and their mother and their grandmother and their grandfather
00:35:53.300
associated with January 6th. Yet this person, who couldn't be caught more red-handed in the way of
00:36:01.160
calling for storming the Capitol and then being right there literally on the front line,
00:36:06.460
somehow seems to skate free. We'll see what happens ultimately if and when he is prosecuted.
00:36:11.540
But it's certainly a case worth watching because January 6th, as I noted within days of it
00:36:16.660
occurring, and I wrote about it, the Federalists, I believed would be used, exploited to engage in
00:36:23.340
a jihad against wrong thinkers in America. And that's absolutely what has happened.
00:36:28.100
Yeah. You know, it's funny, the New York Times article, when they talk about Ray Epps,
00:36:33.100
they soften the language, they say it was a pro-Trump demonstration. Ray Epps would never be part of
00:36:41.000
a riot or a terrorist attack. When he's involved, it's just a pro-Trump demonstration. I love that.
00:36:47.620
You know, in Canada, Ben, Trudeau was trying to replay the theater of January 6th, violent,
00:36:57.300
far-right MAGA. He was trying to graft that American narrative onto the Canadian truckers.
00:37:04.440
And I really think he would have gotten away with it were it not for citizen journalists who were
00:37:09.340
embedded with the truckers and showed how peaceful they were. In fact, I should tell you, Ben,
00:37:13.720
that there were tens of thousands of truckers, hundreds of thousands of people who came out
00:37:18.260
along the way. I believe that as many as one million Canadians either participated or physically
00:37:24.160
watched as the truckers went by. Like, even in Toronto, the largest city in Canada,
00:37:29.340
overpasses were jammed with people who just wanted to see, is this real? Like, it was a phenomenon.
00:37:36.540
It reminds me, our Canadian viewers don't know what I'm talking about, Terry Fox. People just wanted
00:37:41.580
to see with their own eyes. And were it not for citizen journalism, they would have been called
00:37:48.400
violent, uprising, insurrectionists. And it's a terrible factoid, but we should never forget it,
00:37:56.840
that there was only one shooting in the entire trucker convoy. There was a shooting in the Capitol.
00:38:04.680
A security guard shot an unarmed U.S. veteran in the Capitol and has never been shot. So there was a
00:38:11.780
murder, or at least a killing, you could say, in the January 6th. There was one person shot, Ben,
00:38:19.520
in the whole trucker convoy and all, and I don't know if you know who that was.
00:38:24.280
It was our reporter, Alexa Lavoie, who was standing with a camera filming a tense but peaceful standoff
00:38:32.560
in Ottawa. And a policeman took a riot gun, aimed it at her, and shot her. The only person over weeks
00:38:43.760
and thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who was shot. Now, a fella could come up with a
00:38:50.220
conspiracy theory about that. Or you could just say that's a hell of a coincidence. But I think that
00:38:57.060
they wanted a replay of January 6th in Canada, but they didn't get away with the narrative because
00:39:02.900
the truckers were completely peaceful. In fact, the Ottawa police said that crime fell in Ottawa
00:39:09.420
because you had all these do-gooders in town. They were tidying things up. They were shoveling the
00:39:14.760
snow. I was there. It had a festival feeling. And, you know, forgive me that detour, but I wanted to
00:39:20.360
tell you that they wanted to replay that story in Canada, but they failed. And I think our coverage
00:39:27.760
was the reason why. But you're right. There are historically infiltrators and agents provocateurs
00:39:35.800
in all these groups. In Canada, Ben, forgive me for going on, there was something a generation ago
00:39:42.140
called the Heritage Front, which was a racist neo-Nazi group. And it turns out that the man who literally
00:39:48.520
led it, who recruited members, was an agent of CSIS, Canada's version of the CIA, the boss,
00:39:57.200
his name was Grant Bristow. So there's such a paucity of actual terrorists, actual racists,
00:40:03.660
actual Nazis, that the government had to create one. In Canada also, the Canadian Nazi Party,
00:40:12.280
you'll find this hard to believe, was literally financed by the Canadian Jewish Congress. They admitted
00:40:18.280
it in McLean's magazine. I find these things so distressful, because we're such peaceful, friendly,
00:40:26.960
happy societies. But these government agencies need chaos, violence, threats, and fear to justify
00:40:35.900
their own existence, and their budgets, and their crackdown on people. And I think it's in both
00:40:41.800
countries. It's just that in your country, it smoked out a little bit better. Thanks for letting me go on
00:40:45.980
a five-minute rant, Ben. What do you think of all that? It's beyond galling, and it causes you to take
00:40:53.580
a fresh look at history and the narratives that are put forth. A narrow point, but a big one,
00:41:00.680
is you talk about licensure necessary to be a journalist. Precisely because social media platforms
00:41:07.740
permit unlicensed journalists, or why governments load the social media platforms and seek to use them,
00:41:14.760
essentially, as intelligence assets and as information operation assets to propagate favored
00:41:23.680
narratives and suppress disfavored ones. The notion of entrapping people, and the most remarkable thing
00:41:34.380
is that most of the terrorist attacks that happen in America, legitimate terrorist attacks, to a man,
00:41:40.000
almost every single person is on federal authorities' radars. So how is it that they are
00:41:45.440
able to strike? And in many instances, it's incompetence. But in other cases, you do have
00:41:51.300
substantial evidence of the government is working with someone, tailing someone, et cetera, and then
00:41:56.200
they end up engaging. Or to your point, you have something like, for example, the Governor Gretchen
00:42:02.240
Whitmer case, right before, of course, the 2020 election, where it certainly appears that people
00:42:08.660
were entrapped. And you've had cases dismissed or mistrials, I believe, in connection with that.
00:42:15.760
But that was heralded as a, this is what right-wing extremism leads to in America, kidnapping attempts
00:42:21.220
against the governor and threats on her life, et cetera. And it calls into question, you know,
00:42:26.980
your views on the fidelity of all these agencies. And right now, conservatives in America, and even
00:42:33.020
beyond conservatives, agencies like the FBI have totally lost the confidence of the American people.
00:42:38.400
They've lost the confidence of people in Congress. We'll see how far Congress goes beyond its oversight
00:42:43.380
duties in terms of, for example, there's funding on the table for a new FBI headquarters. You have
00:42:48.660
House Republicans here saying not a single penny for that new headquarters. And that's sort of a starting
00:42:53.980
point in this. But where does it go in terms of reforming agencies that end up being turned against
00:43:00.120
the very values and principles they're supposed to defend and uphold? And it's beyond galling and
00:43:05.760
distressing, in part because you need the country defended. There are adversaries out there working
00:43:12.340
every single day, day and night, to undermine us, erode our freedoms, infiltrate and coerce people
00:43:20.520
into undermining the country. And, you know, my fear is I've been a long focus, for example,
00:43:26.260
on communist China. I know you are too, in terms of the existential threat it poses to the West. But
00:43:32.060
we won't even get around to combating communist China if our own government institutions are turned
00:43:38.700
against the very, in our case, republic that they're supposed to defend. And so that's why one of the
00:43:45.220
reasons why I am so laser focused on the weaponization of these institutions, because
00:43:50.300
you can't survive long term, long term with these imperative institutions, being not only woke,
00:43:57.200
but weaponized against 50% plus of a country. Yeah. You know, we're almost out of time,
00:44:04.840
and you're very generous to spend so much time with us, Ben. But I think more and more about RFK Jr.,
00:44:10.480
who's running an insurgent campaign in trying to get a Democratic primary, I don't think they're
00:44:16.780
going to let him win. I think it's, they're going to be more brutal towards him than they were towards
00:44:20.920
Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I, I listened to RFK Jr., and I don't agree
00:44:26.940
with him on everything. But he talks about these things. And he talks about censorship. He is being
00:44:31.940
censored. He talks about the deep state. He doesn't really use that language. But I mean, he believes
00:44:38.280
that his family was killed. And he has some evidence to support it. And it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who
00:44:50.300
first warned about the military industrial complex, if I'm not mistaken. Who was it? Was it him? Or was
00:44:55.880
it John F. Kennedy, who said the CIA needed to be smashed into a million pieces because it became,
00:45:01.780
took on a life of its own. The CIA, the FBI, these other agencies, the fact checkers,
00:45:08.260
the censors, they are a shadow government. And that's not conspiracy theory talk. They are the
00:45:14.060
ones who have been doing this. The censorship that you started our show with today, Ben, it was not
00:45:19.260
passed in a debate in the Congress. It was not subject to committee hearings and votes and lobbying. It was
00:45:26.220
all done in the shadows. And that's not a conspiracy theory. That is a conspiracy. Ben,
00:45:32.560
you've been great, as always. Last word to you. We've been pretty pessimistic because we're talking
00:45:39.020
about all the bad things. But there are some good things out there. The important Fourth of July court
00:45:45.020
case in Missouri. Sorry, the Missouri case that was heard in, I think, Louisiana. There are some flickers of
00:45:52.340
hope. I think Elon Musk is caused to be hopeful. I don't want to get my hopes too high, but they're rising.
00:45:58.140
There are some positive signs out there. What's your prediction? Are we going to win this one for
00:46:04.460
freedom or are we just going to become like the Matrix? Well, I think to your point, there are
00:46:10.960
positives that we can point to. We are probably more knowledgeable about the level of corruption
00:46:17.980
and deceit than ever before. I'm keeping an eye on here beyond the court cases, also legislation,
00:46:25.800
because court cases, while great and while incredibly impactful here, at the end of the day,
00:46:32.320
you need legislation to codify it. And in my view, it's crazy that we're talking about needing to
00:46:39.160
codify the First Amendment because it's right there. And as the founders felt, you shouldn't have even
00:46:44.000
needed it in the first place. Clearly, we did, however. You shouldn't need to codify it, but I'm
00:46:48.720
looking at legislation right now. There are spending bills out there and some other legislation
00:46:54.140
percolating that will push towards defunding and dismantling the federal government-led part of the
00:47:00.860
censorship regime. Now, by the same token, the longer-term problem that we have ultimately is that
00:47:06.160
this doesn't come from nowhere. This comes from a culture which increasingly among the elites
00:47:12.260
subscribes to the view that conservative speech or dissenting speech from ruling class orthodoxy
00:47:19.480
is harmful and that therefore the answer is we have to censor. And there's a limitless
00:47:23.980
array of reasons why censorship is justified under that sort of worldview. So ultimately,
00:47:30.980
at the end of the day, you can have great court cases, you can have legislation.
00:47:35.920
These factors matter, but you need a culture to sustain it. And the left side of this is very
00:47:43.360
organized. They never stop fighting. They're engaged in a million-front war. And we are just
00:47:51.200
waking up to it, probably don't fully comprehend the reach and the extent of it. So the optimistic
00:47:57.840
side is, look, we've barely even begun to marshal a counter-offensive here. The downside is they're
00:48:06.020
way ahead and they control all of these influential institutions. So you have to hope that what is good
00:48:11.680
and what is right ultimately prevails, that you may lose a series of battles and it may be hard fought
00:48:17.780
over time and you win the war. But the other aspect is there's no other choice. If we want to live
00:48:23.380
in a free, truly Western society, then you have to fight for these values and principles.
00:48:30.280
And it's our generation's turn to rise to the occasion.
00:48:34.960
Ben, what a beautiful way to end our conversation. Thank you for giving so much time and thoughtful
00:48:39.500
comments to us. We've been talking with Ben Weingarten, senior contributor at The Federalist
00:48:44.400
and columnist at Newsweek.com. Take care, my friend. Keep fighting for freedom.
00:48:50.660
All right. Well, there you have it. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World
00:48:56.840
Headquarters, to you at home, good night and you keep fighting for freedom too.