Rebel News Podcast - “Trump is stronger today than he was before the NYT printed that anonymous ‘insider’s’ op-ed”

00:00:00.000 Tonight, the New York Times runs an anonymous attack on Donald Trump

00:00:04.320 that they claim was written by a senior Trump official.

00:00:08.240 It's September 6th and you're watching The Ezra LeVant Show.

00:00:16.800 Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?

00:00:20.660 There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.

00:00:24.360 You come here once a year with a sign and you feel morally superior.

00:00:27.340 The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it

00:00:31.320 is because it's my bloody right to do so.

00:00:37.840 The New York Times, which is owned by Carlos Slim, the richest man in Mexico,

00:00:43.660 they hate Donald Trump. They're obsessed by Donald Trump.

00:00:47.360 The Washington Post newspaper is pretty bad too.

00:00:49.980 It's owned by Jeff Bezos, the richest man in America.

00:00:53.260 Now that's worth keeping in mind when you read newspapers in 2018.

00:00:56.560 Almost every newspaper in the world is losing money so they have been bought up by men 0.99

00:01:01.220 who use newspapers as their playthings, as political tools to promote their own interests.

00:01:06.800 It's the same here in Canada.

00:01:08.340 The Globe and Mail loses buckets of money but it's an important propaganda machine for its owners.

00:01:15.000 The Thompson family, who are, you won't be surprised, the richest family in Canada.

00:01:19.720 I don't think you should ever take a media company's reporting at face value

00:01:24.080 without first knowing who pays for it.

00:01:27.480 Isn't the most obvious example Trudeau's state broadcaster, the CBC?

00:01:31.700 Okay, so back to the New York Times.

00:01:33.280 Last night they published this op-ed by, well, that's the thing.

00:01:37.560 They don't say who it's by.

00:01:40.020 They just say we have to take their word for it.

00:01:42.360 It's a top Trump insider disparaging Trump himself.

00:01:47.080 Here, let me read a bit of it for you.

00:01:49.580 I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.

00:01:55.540 The resistance, eh?

00:01:57.180 There's something grotesque about that very phrase, the resistance.

00:02:00.880 That's what the French and the Polish and other European partisans in the Second World War,

00:02:05.600 who were fighting behind enemy lines against the Nazis,

00:02:08.680 that's what they called themselves.

00:02:10.240 These are patriotic Poles and Frenchmen and others who didn't submit to the Nazi occupiers.

00:02:18.020 They were loyal to their own countries.

00:02:19.940 They knew they would one day be restored.

00:02:22.460 The Nazis were illegitimate, as well as being evil.

00:02:26.020 And so these partisans, they were the resistance.

00:02:29.420 That's what they were called.

00:02:30.560 How dare anyone claim an analogy between fighting against murderous Nazis

00:02:35.840 who had invaded their countries, comparing that to fighting against a democratically elected president.

00:02:42.500 That is a sign of moral extremism to say that.

00:02:46.400 Right away, you know who you're dealing with here,

00:02:48.840 or at least who the Times claims you're dealing with here.

00:02:51.580 Someone who has apparently told Trump that he is a loyal officer,

00:02:56.720 what, a cabinet minister or a senior aide,

00:02:59.120 who has signed an employment contract,

00:03:01.240 probably signed a non-disclosure agreement,

00:03:03.640 probably has some sort of security clearance,

00:03:06.400 so sign contracts there.

00:03:08.240 Because to be senior, you have to see classified material.

00:03:11.340 If they are indeed a high-level appointee,

00:03:13.720 someone who every day claims to be loyal and honest and diligent,

00:03:17.260 but who in fact is disloyal and dishonest and a promise-breaker, a contract-breaker, an imposter.

00:03:24.100 And yet someone's so proud of that that he calls himself without resistance,

00:03:27.220 but not quite proud enough to reveal himself.

00:03:29.380 And so the New York Times is part of that resistance too, aren't they?

00:03:32.820 By colluding with him and enabling him, aren't they?

00:03:35.500 But look at this, look at this, the next part here.

00:03:37.360 I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed

00:03:41.000 to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

00:03:45.500 Thwart his worst inclinations?

00:03:50.000 Okay, let me be positive here.

00:03:53.040 I suppose part of the job of being a staff member,

00:03:57.020 especially in a political context,

00:03:58.540 is to give advice as strongly as necessary

00:04:01.380 to correct what you think are mistakes made by the key man.

00:04:05.700 Now, you give this advice in the course of your job to that key man directly.

00:04:10.340 I suppose every human being has their worst inclinations.

00:04:13.480 I certainly know what they were for Bill Clinton, for example.

00:04:17.400 We know what they are for Justin Trudeau, for example.

00:04:20.320 I suppose an assistant helping to correct a leader's flaws

00:04:24.080 is actually part of the job description of any staff.

00:04:27.740 But what exactly does this anonymous underminer say

00:04:30.960 are Trump's worst inclinations?

00:04:33.260 And mind you, he's not telling this to Trump.

00:04:35.040 He's telling this to the New York Times to undermine Trump.

00:04:37.600 So he's not really helping the inclinations, is he?

00:04:39.620 He's helping himself.

00:04:40.320 Well, we'll get into those inclinations in a minute.

00:04:42.980 But you already have a hint.

00:04:44.360 It's Trump's agenda.

00:04:47.480 But Trump's agenda is well known and has been known for years.

00:04:50.980 It was put in writing and called his election platform.

00:04:54.040 It was elaborated on by Trump himself in countless speeches and rallies.

00:04:57.820 It was tested in countless interviews with the media,

00:05:00.960 in debates against Hillary Clinton herself.

00:05:03.680 Trump's inclinations, his agenda, his policies, his platform,

00:05:06.780 it was scrutinized endlessly and criticized endlessly by a hostile media

00:05:11.360 and yet had won the election.

00:05:15.100 Whatever you think of Trump, he has done what he has said he would do,

00:05:17.720 from foreign policy on China and Mexico and Iran and Israel and North Korea

00:05:22.240 to trade policy, to tax policy, to energy policy, everything.

00:05:27.260 Is there anything in Trump's agenda that is democratically illegitimate?

00:05:33.000 Well, if it is, then courts will stop him.

00:05:36.920 And they haven't been shy about doing so.

00:05:40.060 Though Trump usually prevails on appeal,

00:05:42.140 that's one of the official roles of a court, 0.95

00:05:44.180 to review legislation to make sure it's constitutional

00:05:46.800 and to thwart legislation that isn't,

00:05:49.780 to use the New York Times op-eds language.

00:05:51.980 We have checks and balances.

00:05:54.860 It's all open for scrutiny.

00:05:56.660 It's an official part of the government.

00:05:58.200 Thwarting a president is what the Constitution is built for.

00:06:02.460 But since when does some secret infiltrator have the moral authority

00:06:04.740 to thwart Trump's agenda dishonestly,

00:06:07.240 under false pretenses, from the inside secretly?

00:06:10.260 Yeah, that's not resistance.

00:06:11.900 That's what conservative critics have been calling the deep state,

00:06:14.900 a permanent governing class that refuses to accept the will of the people,

00:06:19.140 that claims honor and history and moral authority,

00:06:21.340 but in fact is undermining democracy through narcissism

00:06:24.780 and a sense of entitlement to be perpetual rulers.

00:06:27.980 People who used to complain about the deep state,

00:06:30.760 about abuses at the CIA and the FBI,

00:06:33.240 about illegal spying on political opponents,

00:06:35.420 about illegal leaks, about abusing the power of the government,

00:06:38.340 they were called conspiracy theorists.

00:06:41.080 Well, the New York Times just published an op-ed by someone

00:06:43.580 they claim really is in the inside undermining things.

00:06:46.780 This is the diary of the deep state.

00:06:50.400 Now, before I read more of the essay itself,

00:06:52.980 let me read a bit from the New York Times editors.

00:06:56.320 They say,

00:06:56.760 The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed essay.

00:07:03.080 We have done so at the request of the author,

00:07:04.840 a senior official in the Trump administration,

00:07:07.420 whose identity is known to us

00:07:09.100 and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

00:07:13.540 Why?

00:07:14.300 Would he be fired?

00:07:16.420 Well, of course he would be fired,

00:07:17.360 because he's breaking his contract.

00:07:18.880 He's breaking his oath of office.

00:07:20.100 He's breaking his oath of loyalty

00:07:21.620 to the office and to his boss.

00:07:24.260 He may be breaking the law

00:07:25.260 in terms of confidential information.

00:07:27.120 So, yeah, it's true.

00:07:28.060 He would be fired.

00:07:28.680 But the thing about anonymous accusers,

00:07:30.800 and the reason why we don't allow them

00:07:32.360 in any real court system, for example,

00:07:34.280 is that you have the right to confront your accuser,

00:07:36.640 whatever it is.

00:07:37.140 You have the right to know

00:07:37.980 who is saying you did something wrong,

00:07:39.860 because who accuses you,

00:07:42.100 tells you so much?

00:07:43.900 Are they a spurned rival?

00:07:45.540 Are they someone with a personal grudge?

00:07:47.880 Are they someone who maybe, I don't know,

00:07:50.140 asked for a promotion or a raise,

00:07:51.600 but was denied it?

00:07:52.740 Are they someone who has a history of lying?

00:07:54.760 Are they someone who isn't really

00:07:56.160 who they say they are?

00:07:57.160 Someone who is exaggerating

00:07:58.580 or telling tall tales

00:07:59.600 in which they just happen to be the hero?

00:08:02.820 Are they someone whose story actually holds up?

00:08:05.340 Like Omarosa.

00:08:06.420 Remember her, the reality TV crank,

00:08:08.980 who met Donald Trump on the show

00:08:10.840 The Apprentice a decade or more ago?

00:08:12.880 Well, Trump actually hired her

00:08:16.540 in the White House to do black outreach.

00:08:20.340 And then who was fired by Trump's chief of staff

00:08:22.300 for misconduct.

00:08:23.920 And who then went on to publish a book

00:08:26.800 with all sorts of accusations.

00:08:29.320 That book actually made it to number one

00:08:30.740 on the New York Times best list.

00:08:31.920 You see, right there,

00:08:33.600 you know so much about Omarosa

00:08:36.380 before you even open the book.

00:08:38.940 If you ever watched The Apprentice,

00:08:40.540 you know she is immoral.

00:08:41.820 And unethical.

00:08:44.040 And a perpetual liar.

00:08:46.160 And not to be trusted.

00:08:47.160 You know that because you know Omarosa.

00:08:50.220 Or you know enough about her.

00:08:52.120 Or others know enough about her

00:08:54.020 that they can answer her.

00:08:55.740 I mean, just for example,

00:08:57.080 Pierce Morgan,

00:08:58.060 when he heard of Omarosa's

00:08:59.420 accusations against Trump,

00:09:00.860 he reported that Omarosa

00:09:02.820 really weirdly

00:09:04.320 offered to have sex with him 0.71

00:09:06.880 as part of a dramatic TV plot

00:09:09.340 on The Apprentice.

00:09:11.060 They were on The Apprentice.

00:09:12.100 Yeah, that is gross.

00:09:12.780 That is weird.

00:09:13.220 That is bizarre.

00:09:13.800 But it tells you something

00:09:14.760 about Omarosa, doesn't it?

00:09:16.980 And Omarosa's specific claims

00:09:18.820 could be challenged.

00:09:20.480 Look at this from pollster Frank Luntz.

00:09:23.040 He says,

00:09:23.460 I'm in Omarosa's book

00:09:25.860 on page 149.

00:09:27.180 She claims to have heard

00:09:28.060 from someone who heard from me

00:09:29.460 that I heard Trump

00:09:30.420 use the N-word.

00:09:32.420 That's a lot of degrees

00:09:33.320 of separation, isn't it?

00:09:35.460 Luntz says,

00:09:36.400 Not only is this flat-out false,

00:09:37.820 I've never heard such a thing,

00:09:39.320 but Omarosa didn't even make 1.00

00:09:40.540 an effort to call

00:09:41.260 or email me to verify.

00:09:42.740 Very shoddy work.

00:09:45.940 Do you see my point?

00:09:46.620 If you know the name

00:09:47.960 of your accuser,

00:09:48.920 you can fight back.

00:09:50.220 You can answer with facts.

00:09:52.000 You can understand motivations,

00:09:53.820 grudges.

00:09:54.500 You can call BS on claims.

00:09:56.640 You can say,

00:09:57.140 Oh, they're a track record

00:09:58.080 of lying.

00:09:58.740 But you can't do any of that

00:10:01.260 if it's a secret source

00:10:02.740 writing secretly

00:10:03.760 about secret things.

00:10:04.800 I mean, seriously,

00:10:05.240 how can we even trust

00:10:06.500 Carlos Slim's New York Times?

00:10:08.880 It does what he tells them to do.

00:10:10.980 But let me get back

00:10:11.720 to this anonymous attack

00:10:12.960 in the New York Times.

00:10:13.940 I'm not going to read it all.

00:10:14.760 It's actually pretty boring.

00:10:16.860 Very self-serving,

00:10:18.240 very self-congratulatory,

00:10:19.500 and really nothing that new.

00:10:21.120 And the only new thing about it

00:10:22.860 is that it claims to be written

00:10:24.420 by someone on the inside.

00:10:26.340 Let me read.

00:10:27.860 The dilemma,

00:10:29.400 which Trump does not fully grasp,

00:10:31.340 is that many of the senior officials

00:10:32.740 in his own administration

00:10:33.660 are working diligently from within

00:10:35.600 to frustrate parts of his agenda

00:10:37.200 and his worst inclinations.

00:10:38.940 I would know.

00:10:39.880 I am one of them.

00:10:42.600 Is it really true

00:10:43.660 that many senior officials

00:10:45.160 are working to frustrate

00:10:46.340 Trump's agenda?

00:10:47.900 I don't know.

00:10:49.120 We can't check, can we?

00:10:51.580 Did the New York Times check?

00:10:53.060 They don't tell us.

00:10:53.680 How could they check?

00:10:54.680 How could they confirm it?

00:10:56.300 Why would they let someone say that

00:10:59.140 if it can't be confirmed?

00:11:01.400 But if it is confirmed,

00:11:02.640 how is that a knock

00:11:03.600 on Donald Trump anyways?

00:11:04.920 Isn't it a knock

00:11:05.760 on these dishonest underminers?

00:11:08.100 I don't know.

00:11:08.500 Maybe they were holdovers

00:11:09.280 from Barack Obama's time,

00:11:11.040 possibly career bureaucrats

00:11:12.420 who are violating

00:11:13.420 their public service oath

00:11:15.080 of being non-partisan.

00:11:16.340 Who knows if any of it's true?

00:11:18.200 The Times must think it's true

00:11:19.940 or enough of it's true

00:11:21.440 or maybe they just hope it's true.

00:11:22.740 But how does that make Trump look bad?

00:11:25.300 I suppose if he hired these people,

00:11:27.160 it's on him in part.

00:11:28.200 But to me,

00:11:28.980 it just proves Trump's own thesis.

00:11:31.160 He needs to drain the swamp,

00:11:33.360 as he says,

00:11:34.280 to get rid of the perpetual

00:11:35.600 governing lobbying class

00:11:37.240 that believes it knows

00:11:38.360 better than everyone,

00:11:39.260 especially better than

00:11:39.980 the deplorable voters.

00:11:42.500 This proves everything

00:11:43.280 Trump has ever said

00:11:44.260 about Washington, doesn't it?

00:11:45.640 And about the media party,

00:11:46.800 doesn't it?

00:11:47.560 Let me quote some more,

00:11:48.480 and this is sheer arrogance here.

00:11:49.580 Look at this.

00:11:51.880 Although he was elected

00:11:52.960 as a Republican,

00:11:53.940 the president shows

00:11:54.800 little affinity for ideals

00:11:56.360 long espoused by conservatives,

00:11:58.320 free minds,

00:11:59.060 free markets,

00:11:59.660 and free people.

00:12:01.320 At best,

00:12:02.080 he has invoked these ideals

00:12:03.320 in scripted settings.

00:12:04.640 At worst,

00:12:05.040 he has attacked them outright,

00:12:06.360 unquote.

00:12:08.140 So that's your big bombshell here?

00:12:10.740 That's your big criticism.

00:12:12.320 You really got him now?

00:12:13.000 That's your silver bullet, eh?

00:12:15.320 Is that the excuse

00:12:16.300 for the disloyalty

00:12:17.160 and the undermining,

00:12:17.880 that he's not the right

00:12:19.120 kind of Republican?

00:12:20.400 He's not a Jeb Bush Republican.

00:12:22.300 He's not a Marco Rubio Republican.

00:12:24.040 He's not a John McCain Republican.

00:12:26.160 Yeah, exactly.

00:12:27.380 He beat them.

00:12:29.640 He beat them all.

00:12:30.540 He won the Republican nomination

00:12:31.640 fair and square.

00:12:32.960 And his views,

00:12:34.280 he's accused of deviating

00:12:35.420 from Republican values.

00:12:36.580 Well, if so,

00:12:37.500 is that not his right

00:12:38.520 to do so

00:12:39.180 as the president

00:12:40.260 to be his own man

00:12:41.220 and campaign

00:12:41.760 in his own style?

00:12:42.800 And is any of what he says

00:12:44.140 or does a surprise?

00:12:46.120 Has he not,

00:12:47.340 for decades,

00:12:48.140 for example,

00:12:48.620 said he would rip up

00:12:49.560 America's trade deals?

00:12:51.280 Why does some secret

00:12:52.740 inner guard

00:12:53.480 get to veto

00:12:54.600 what tens of millions

00:12:55.420 of Americans voted for?

00:12:57.140 By the way,

00:12:58.020 I think Trump

00:12:58.740 is a great conservative,

00:13:00.100 best judge is appointed

00:13:01.300 in a generation,

00:13:02.560 great work

00:13:03.140 at untangling America

00:13:04.340 from the United Nations,

00:13:05.520 from corrupt countries

00:13:06.680 like Turkey

00:13:07.320 and Pakistan

00:13:08.220 and Palestinian terrorists

00:13:09.740 like the PLO.

00:13:10.600 I love Ronald Reagan,

00:13:11.620 but in some ways

00:13:12.580 Trump is even bolder

00:13:13.480 because Trump

00:13:13.900 is a disruptor,

00:13:15.100 not a smooth operator

00:13:16.720 like Reagan was.

00:13:18.800 But again,

00:13:19.260 so far,

00:13:19.640 how is any

00:13:20.800 of this criticism

00:13:22.300 legitimate?

00:13:22.920 Isn't this just

00:13:24.080 some liberal

00:13:24.880 or more likely

00:13:25.580 someone with a personal grudge

00:13:26.840 who just burrowed

00:13:28.440 their way

00:13:28.860 into Trump's confidence?

00:13:30.260 Where's the scandal

00:13:31.720 for Trump here?

00:13:33.440 There's no proof

00:13:34.160 or even an allegation

00:13:35.760 of any misconduct

00:13:37.460 in this op-ed.

00:13:38.220 I thought maybe

00:13:39.340 that's what they would be here.

00:13:40.280 If Robert Mueller,

00:13:41.980 the special investigator

00:13:43.960 with $20 million,

00:13:44.940 the power of subpoenas,

00:13:46.100 a team of Democrat prosecutors,

00:13:48.160 if they can't find

00:13:49.460 any wrongdoing

00:13:50.340 after two years,

00:13:51.180 if the worst

00:13:51.760 they've come up with

00:13:52.380 so far

00:13:52.780 is that one of Trump's

00:13:54.340 former staff

00:13:55.280 cheated on his taxes

00:13:57.040 a decade ago,

00:13:59.000 if that's all

00:13:59.820 they got on Trump,

00:14:00.560 I don't think

00:14:01.300 some coward

00:14:02.060 in the New York Times

00:14:03.200 op-ed page

00:14:04.020 will have anything

00:14:05.440 that's a bombshell.

00:14:07.760 But this next part

00:14:08.480 is just dumb.

00:14:08.960 Look at this.

00:14:10.240 In addition to his

00:14:11.120 mass marketing

00:14:11.940 of the notion

00:14:12.820 that the press

00:14:13.500 is the enemy

00:14:14.240 of the people,

00:14:15.020 President Trump's impulses

00:14:16.340 are generally anti-trade

00:14:17.800 and anti-democratic.

00:14:20.300 Really?

00:14:21.240 Huh.

00:14:21.760 What's anti-democratic

00:14:22.980 is undermining

00:14:23.820 an elected president.

00:14:25.720 That's the official job

00:14:27.060 of the opposition party.

00:14:29.080 That's the job

00:14:29.800 of the checks and balances

00:14:30.840 in the U.S. Constitution.

00:14:32.560 That's not the job

00:14:33.720 of cowardly deceivers.

00:14:35.380 You want to block Trump?

00:14:36.420 Run as a Democrat.

00:14:37.480 Go be a judge.

00:14:38.700 And on trade,

00:14:39.680 Trump uses tariffs

00:14:40.860 to make threats

00:14:42.120 against countries

00:14:42.860 that aren't letting in

00:14:44.080 free American trade.

00:14:45.180 But tariffs

00:14:45.760 are his threat

00:14:46.620 to get to what he wants,

00:14:48.040 which are open markets.

00:14:49.680 He's not doing tariffs

00:14:50.560 because he wants

00:14:51.040 the tariffs at the end.

00:14:52.440 The tariffs are a means

00:14:53.440 to an end,

00:14:54.120 a free trade deal.

00:14:54.980 But even if that weren't true,

00:14:57.320 even if Trump liked tariffs,

00:15:00.240 that's a policy decision.

00:15:01.640 He's the president.

00:15:02.340 He's an executive.

00:15:02.980 He can make that choice.

00:15:03.840 How is that a high crime

00:15:04.740 or a misdemeanor?

00:15:06.000 Let me read some more.

00:15:07.840 There is literally

00:15:08.700 no telling

00:15:09.360 whether he might

00:15:10.100 change his mind

00:15:10.800 from one minute

00:15:11.420 to the next.

00:15:12.200 A top official

00:15:13.020 complained to me recently,

00:15:14.680 exasperated

00:15:15.360 by an Oval Office meeting

00:15:16.580 at which the president

00:15:17.600 flip-flopped

00:15:18.220 on a major policy decision

00:15:19.500 he'd made

00:15:20.160 only a week earlier,

00:15:21.280 unquote.

00:15:21.600 This snitch complains

00:15:24.840 that Trump sometimes

00:15:25.780 changes his mind.

00:15:27.460 He flip-flops.

00:15:28.860 I'm sure he does.

00:15:30.480 I'm sure many politicians do.

00:15:32.700 I know Barack Obama did.

00:15:34.880 I think in the Oval Office,

00:15:36.400 that's where you want

00:15:38.000 these conversations

00:15:38.940 to be held.

00:15:40.160 Candid debates

00:15:41.240 going back and forth

00:15:42.560 where Trump

00:15:43.000 is actually open-minded

00:15:44.200 to criticism

00:15:45.380 and might even accept it.

00:15:47.020 That's where a mind

00:15:47.760 should be changed.

00:15:48.720 And then a policy

00:15:49.360 announced and followed.

00:15:50.480 What I see here

00:15:51.360 is that Trump

00:15:51.800 is open-minded,

00:15:52.460 not rigid,

00:15:54.280 but that he is

00:15:55.760 simply surrounded

00:15:56.460 by haters

00:15:57.560 who gossip about him.

00:15:59.520 Isn't the real test?

00:16:01.160 Isn't the real test

00:16:01.720 what Trump

00:16:02.240 says and does

00:16:04.400 after the debate,

00:16:05.500 after the internal

00:16:06.180 decision is made?

00:16:07.060 I'm sure making laws

00:16:08.320 and policies,

00:16:09.240 it's sort of like

00:16:09.700 making sausages.

00:16:10.740 It's not pretty.

00:16:11.800 It's not pretty.

00:16:12.800 But what happens

00:16:13.640 at the end

00:16:14.000 is what counts.

00:16:14.800 What a whiny op-ed

00:16:15.920 this is.

00:16:16.320 What whininess.

00:16:17.460 I'm not going to

00:16:17.960 go through it all.

00:16:18.540 It really reads

00:16:19.320 like some earnest

00:16:20.360 college kid

00:16:21.180 whining in

00:16:22.180 like a model

00:16:22.760 parliament or something.

00:16:24.120 Frankly,

00:16:24.440 it reads like

00:16:24.800 an Obama speechwriter.

00:16:25.960 I'd say there's

00:16:26.700 a non-zero chance

00:16:27.900 that it is

00:16:28.440 an Obama speechwriter.

00:16:29.740 But here's my

00:16:30.500 favorite line

00:16:31.120 to hate.

00:16:31.980 Here's this

00:16:33.040 anonymous insider

00:16:33.940 describes his

00:16:34.660 little team

00:16:35.420 of underminers 0.91

00:16:36.200 this way.

00:16:36.500 This is classic.

00:16:37.100 He says,

00:16:38.500 this isn't the work

00:16:39.440 of the so-called

00:16:40.200 deep state.

00:16:41.540 It's the work

00:16:42.300 of the steady state.

00:16:44.760 Ah,

00:16:45.320 the steady state.

00:16:46.480 I bet you worked

00:16:47.440 on that for a while.

00:16:49.180 It's so comforting

00:16:49.900 to know that there

00:16:51.320 is a group

00:16:51.740 of high priests,

00:16:53.260 of people

00:16:53.700 smarter than

00:16:55.020 all of us,

00:16:55.640 better than

00:16:56.160 all of us,

00:16:57.700 taking care

00:16:58.800 of all of us,

00:16:59.580 taking so much

00:17:00.180 care of us

00:17:00.680 that they will

00:17:01.500 stop us

00:17:01.960 from hurting

00:17:02.400 ourselves by

00:17:03.100 making the

00:17:03.600 wrong democratic

00:17:04.740 decisions,

00:17:05.540 a steady state.

00:17:06.760 Someone should

00:17:07.360 pass that on

00:17:08.120 to the dictators

00:17:08.740 of China

00:17:09.920 or Cuba.

00:17:11.420 We're not

00:17:12.160 dictatorships anymore,

00:17:13.420 guys.

00:17:13.880 We're a steady

00:17:14.900 state.

00:17:15.540 We're so steady.

00:17:16.900 You just can't

00:17:18.180 unelect us.

00:17:20.260 Donald Trump

00:17:20.660 says he's upset

00:17:21.240 with this op-ed.

00:17:21.920 I bet he is.

00:17:23.120 He probably thinks

00:17:23.900 that even if

00:17:24.400 the Times is

00:17:25.020 exaggerating

00:17:25.820 this person's

00:17:26.720 credentials,

00:17:27.240 and even if

00:17:27.640 this person

00:17:28.180 is exaggerating

00:17:29.520 his circle

00:17:30.060 of underminers,

00:17:30.840 there's a grain

00:17:31.260 of truth to it.

00:17:32.500 And Trump

00:17:33.040 has had problems

00:17:34.000 with leakers

00:17:34.620 since the beginning.

00:17:36.780 Last night,

00:17:37.520 Trump tweeted

00:17:38.020 one word,

00:17:39.860 treason,

00:17:41.000 or treason.

00:17:41.640 Now, I don't

00:17:43.320 know about that,

00:17:43.900 but again,

00:17:44.380 who knows

00:17:45.020 what security

00:17:45.740 clearance this

00:17:46.320 insider has,

00:17:47.160 and who knows

00:17:48.280 what he had

00:17:49.160 broken either here

00:17:50.040 or on other

00:17:50.740 occasions.

00:17:51.240 I don't know.

00:17:52.520 But here's what

00:17:53.240 I do know.

00:17:55.100 Everyone who

00:17:55.680 has ever suspected

00:17:56.560 that things are

00:17:57.180 stacked against

00:17:57.940 Donald Trump,

00:17:58.600 that the system

00:17:59.260 is rigged

00:17:59.940 against Donald

00:18:00.580 Trump,

00:18:00.920 that it is

00:18:01.500 corrupted

00:18:01.960 by undemocrats,

00:18:05.180 well, they

00:18:05.580 just got their

00:18:06.380 proof from

00:18:08.660 no one less

00:18:09.700 than the New

00:18:10.600 York Times

00:18:11.020 itself.

00:18:11.320 There's absolutely

00:18:11.960 nothing new

00:18:12.460 in this op-ed

00:18:13.040 and absolutely

00:18:13.820 nothing damning

00:18:14.640 in this op-ed

00:18:15.260 unless you're

00:18:16.340 new to the

00:18:16.720 accusation that

00:18:17.400 Trump is a

00:18:17.780 different kind

00:18:18.160 of president

00:18:18.540 than John

00:18:19.380 McCain would

00:18:19.900 have been.

00:18:20.720 John McCain

00:18:21.240 who this

00:18:21.640 snitch praises.

00:18:22.520 So there's

00:18:23.420 nothing new

00:18:23.880 in here other

00:18:24.600 than Trump

00:18:25.280 can now say

00:18:26.760 with absolutely

00:18:28.160 impeccable evidence

00:18:29.400 that he must

00:18:30.500 take a blowtorch

00:18:31.800 to the place

00:18:32.360 to reveal,

00:18:33.440 as is his

00:18:33.920 constitutional right,

00:18:35.200 the truth

00:18:35.680 about the

00:18:36.420 unlawful

00:18:37.020 surveillance against

00:18:37.960 him by the

00:18:38.580 FBI and the

00:18:39.840 NSA and the

00:18:41.180 deep state,

00:18:42.000 steady state,

00:18:42.780 whatever the

00:18:43.220 hell they're

00:18:43.600 calling themselves

00:18:44.200 today.

00:18:44.760 I think this

00:18:45.800 doesn't actually

00:18:46.540 harm Trump's

00:18:47.200 argument.

00:18:48.140 I think it

00:18:48.500 proves it.

00:18:49.960 I think Donald

00:18:50.580 Trump is stronger

00:18:51.640 today because of

00:18:53.200 it than he was

00:18:54.440 yesterday.

00:18:55.720 Stay with us for

00:18:56.520 more.

00:19:12.620 Well, I have

00:19:13.680 said it before,

00:19:14.540 the number one

00:19:15.220 issue of our

00:19:16.120 age, because it

00:19:17.600 touches on all

00:19:18.440 the other issues,

00:19:19.940 is the censorship

00:19:21.000 of alternative and

00:19:22.760 conservative and

00:19:24.020 dissident thought,

00:19:25.120 that, not by

00:19:26.160 government, but by

00:19:27.500 the titans of

00:19:29.140 Silicon Valley.

00:19:30.500 Never before has

00:19:32.000 such a small

00:19:33.420 cabal of tycoons

00:19:35.520 controlled so much

00:19:37.060 information.

00:19:38.460 Twitter, Facebook,

00:19:39.480 YouTube, Google,

00:19:40.540 Amazon, between

00:19:41.780 them, not only are

00:19:42.680 there hundreds of

00:19:43.460 billions of dollars

00:19:44.280 of wealth, but they

00:19:45.800 are a chokehold for

00:19:47.160 everything we know

00:19:48.240 about the world,

00:19:49.140 whether it's an

00:19:49.720 internet search or

00:19:51.020 what we can share

00:19:51.800 with friends and

00:19:52.420 family on Facebook,

00:19:53.500 or what we can say

00:19:55.140 about the passing

00:19:56.440 parade on Twitter.

00:19:57.980 Well, this censorship

00:19:58.760 has come to the

00:19:59.700 attention of Donald

00:20:00.500 Trump.

00:20:01.420 Of course, the

00:20:02.260 internet is how he

00:20:03.560 won his 2016

00:20:05.100 campaign, to the

00:20:06.600 surprise of Hillary

00:20:07.460 Clinton and the 0.98

00:20:08.260 establishment.

00:20:09.420 They have thus

00:20:10.500 come out with a

00:20:11.260 vengeance against

00:20:12.040 conservative thought

00:20:12.720 on Twitter.

00:20:13.140 Donald Trump

00:20:13.480 himself has

00:20:14.800 spoken about it,

00:20:15.760 and yesterday, the

00:20:17.660 president and

00:20:18.380 founder of Twitter,

00:20:19.380 Jack Dorsey,

00:20:20.140 appeared on Capitol

00:20:21.000 Hill to be grilled,

00:20:22.920 sort of, by

00:20:25.020 congressmen.

00:20:26.060 I'm not sure who

00:20:27.440 got the better of

00:20:28.140 it, but our friend

00:20:29.160 Alan Bokhari, who is

00:20:30.520 the senior technology

00:20:31.600 correspondent at

00:20:32.320 Breitbart News, was

00:20:33.620 watching it, and he

00:20:34.300 joins us now with his

00:20:35.640 review.

00:20:36.300 Alan, great to see

00:20:36.860 you again.

00:20:37.880 Great to see you,

00:20:38.340 Ezra.

00:20:38.700 I'm glad that Jack

00:20:39.900 Dorsey attended on

00:20:41.600 Capitol Hill, because

00:20:42.640 Google, they're not

00:20:44.920 even going, are they?

00:20:45.980 They refuse to send

00:20:47.060 people these days,

00:20:47.700 don't they?

00:20:49.240 Yeah, Google are just

00:20:50.480 holding out on

00:20:51.580 lawmakers, and

00:20:52.860 actually Marco

00:20:53.760 Rubio called them

00:20:55.240 out, and that is at

00:20:56.460 the Senate hearing

00:20:57.060 yesterday as well.

00:20:58.760 They've had a recent

00:20:59.620 spate of really

00:21:00.280 embarrassing stories

00:21:01.240 for them, both from

00:21:02.820 the left and from

00:21:03.540 the right.

00:21:04.080 The right has pointed

00:21:04.800 out that there's all

00:21:05.800 sorts of bias in

00:21:06.480 Google search results.

00:21:08.160 There was a

00:21:08.640 conservative journalist

00:21:09.700 who did a search

00:21:12.640 for Donald Trump on

00:21:13.720 Google News and found

00:21:14.660 like 96% of the

00:21:15.760 results were from

00:21:16.340 liberal outlets.

00:21:17.060 And you'll think

00:21:18.360 with Google having

00:21:19.700 personalized search

00:21:20.900 that show a

00:21:22.820 conservative journalist,

00:21:24.080 someone interested in

00:21:24.920 conservative topics,

00:21:25.800 more sources from

00:21:26.860 conservative news, but

00:21:27.640 instead they showed a

00:21:28.280 96% liberal mainstream

00:21:30.880 results.

00:21:32.620 So you have to wonder

00:21:33.480 what liberals and

00:21:34.820 independent voters are

00:21:35.760 seeing.

00:21:36.820 And there was an

00:21:37.240 argument there that

00:21:38.000 it's the way search

00:21:39.120 engines in general,

00:21:40.620 not just Google,

00:21:41.600 are structured because

00:21:43.380 they rank, the way

00:21:46.100 they determine whether

00:21:47.600 a news source is

00:21:48.740 authoritative, it's

00:21:49.440 whether other news

00:21:50.580 sources link to them.

00:21:51.420 And obviously the

00:21:51.860 mainstream media links

00:21:52.620 to other mainstream

00:21:54.860 outlets, but they

00:21:56.480 don't link to

00:21:57.180 right-wing media.

00:21:57.840 So that might be

00:21:58.320 why the bias occurs.

00:21:59.020 It's still a problem

00:21:59.720 though.

00:22:00.480 And Google as the

00:22:01.920 top search engine

00:22:02.780 needs to address it

00:22:03.540 even if the other

00:22:03.960 ones need to address

00:22:04.520 it too.

00:22:06.080 And also there are

00:22:07.060 other examples of

00:22:07.940 Google bias you can

00:22:08.920 look at.

00:22:09.400 You can, if you

00:22:11.100 search idiot on 0.95

00:22:13.360 Google images, you'll

00:22:14.960 find pictures of

00:22:15.500 Donald Trump right at

00:22:16.100 the top, if you

00:22:16.560 search fascists, you'll

00:22:17.420 find pictures of

00:22:17.960 Donald Trump right at

00:22:18.620 the top.

00:22:19.540 So there are all kinds

00:22:20.520 of examples you can

00:22:21.180 look at.

00:22:22.260 Yeah.

00:22:22.580 And now those are, as

00:22:23.440 you said, those are the

00:22:24.100 critiques that

00:22:24.660 conservatives would

00:22:25.320 bring, but conservatives

00:22:27.080 and even genuine

00:22:28.700 liberals who are

00:22:29.520 concerned about freedom

00:22:30.900 and human rights, they

00:22:32.760 would probably be

00:22:33.500 grilling Google, if

00:22:35.400 they ever showed up,

00:22:37.040 about work that's

00:22:38.240 being reported of

00:22:39.200 Google working in

00:22:40.420 cahoots with the

00:22:42.000 communist government of

00:22:42.940 China to provide a

00:22:44.160 communist filtered,

00:22:46.640 censored form of

00:22:48.080 Google suitable for

00:22:49.440 that tyrannical regime.

00:22:50.520 Do I have that

00:22:50.980 right?

00:22:52.280 That's absolutely

00:22:52.980 correct.

00:22:53.360 Google are moving

00:22:53.980 into China and

00:22:55.100 that's probably another

00:22:55.960 reason why Google

00:22:56.560 didn't want to show up

00:22:57.300 because one of the

00:22:58.160 things that Twitter and

00:22:58.900 Facebook were able to

00:22:59.940 say to senators

00:23:00.500 yesterday was they

00:23:01.820 are banned in China

00:23:02.660 and they have no

00:23:03.600 plans for going back

00:23:04.460 there.

00:23:04.740 But, you know,

00:23:05.180 Google wants to go

00:23:06.460 into China.

00:23:08.220 It's kind of bizarre

00:23:09.440 that a company, one of

00:23:11.920 the wealthiest and most

00:23:12.860 influential companies

00:23:13.680 in the world wants

00:23:14.840 even more to the

00:23:15.740 extent that they're

00:23:16.220 willing to work with

00:23:17.080 a really tyrannical

00:23:18.740 authoritarian regime.

00:23:20.600 I remember in the

00:23:21.520 early days Google had

00:23:23.340 sort of a goofy motto,

00:23:25.920 don't be evil.

00:23:27.740 And everyone laughed

00:23:28.700 at it because it was

00:23:29.480 so blunt and so

00:23:30.640 obvious.

00:23:31.520 Of course, the hard

00:23:32.100 part is what does evil

00:23:33.140 mean?

00:23:33.420 And we all agree,

00:23:34.060 don't be evil.

00:23:34.920 But I don't think

00:23:35.520 Google even says that

00:23:36.480 anymore because they

00:23:37.300 have decided, well,

00:23:38.980 that's naive.

00:23:40.320 That's when we were

00:23:41.120 idealists.

00:23:42.200 Now we're, you know,

00:23:44.020 we can't afford such

00:23:45.640 niceties and look, 0.54

00:23:47.240 that's the way the

00:23:47.840 world is.

00:23:49.380 The fact that they

00:23:50.320 won't even talk about

00:23:51.440 that, I think,

00:23:52.520 is cause for concern.

00:23:55.020 Yeah.

00:23:55.800 Everyone mocked that

00:23:56.920 slogan as Google

00:23:57.980 just evolved into this

00:23:59.460 all-powerful company.

00:24:02.260 Their official mission

00:24:03.300 statement is to organize

00:24:04.440 the world's information,

00:24:06.260 which is, I can see

00:24:08.740 why they want, when

00:24:09.920 you've got a mission

00:24:10.500 statement as radical

00:24:12.620 as that, which

00:24:14.040 involves so much

00:24:14.800 power concentrated in

00:24:15.680 the hands of one

00:24:16.200 company, organizing

00:24:17.060 the entire world's

00:24:17.860 information, you'd

00:24:18.660 probably want to

00:24:19.220 couple that with a

00:24:20.980 statement like, don't

00:24:21.740 be evil, because

00:24:22.380 otherwise people will

00:24:24.280 ask questions like,

00:24:25.220 you know, why should

00:24:25.980 one unaccountable

00:24:27.360 corporation, a few

00:24:29.700 executives in Silicon

00:24:30.600 Valley have the power

00:24:31.420 to organize the entire

00:24:32.400 world's information?

00:24:33.540 But that's exactly

00:24:34.100 what Google's done.

00:24:35.460 And they now spend

00:24:37.380 more on lobbying.

00:24:38.260 I believe this is

00:24:39.260 true.

00:24:39.480 They spend more on

00:24:40.020 lobbying in D.C.

00:24:40.760 than any other

00:24:41.520 company.

00:24:43.960 So Google, along

00:24:45.940 with other Silicon

00:24:46.460 Valley companies,

00:24:47.060 there aren't these

00:24:47.420 sort of nice insurgents

00:24:48.960 with these sort of

00:24:50.200 nice, cute slogans

00:24:51.180 anymore.

00:24:51.440 People know they're

00:24:52.400 the real power.

00:24:53.220 They're the real

00:24:53.780 corporate overlords

00:24:55.980 of today.

00:24:56.900 And they control

00:24:57.880 what we see.

00:24:58.960 They control what

00:24:59.580 we're allowed to say.

00:25:01.260 And, you know, if

00:25:01.960 they wanted to, they

00:25:02.660 could influence how

00:25:04.320 we vote.

00:25:04.740 They could swing

00:25:05.040 elections.

00:25:05.440 Yeah, well, that's

00:25:07.680 the thing you have

00:25:08.860 written before, how

00:25:10.460 tweaking the search

00:25:12.220 results, you've

00:25:13.260 written how a

00:25:14.980 scientist has shown

00:25:15.720 tweaking the search

00:25:16.560 results can torque an

00:25:19.060 election outcome

00:25:20.100 amongst voters by a

00:25:22.160 double-digit change.

00:25:24.680 Now, the news of

00:25:26.500 yesterday was that

00:25:27.560 Jack Dorsey did, in

00:25:29.000 fact, attend on

00:25:30.600 Capitol Hill.

00:25:32.520 He's an interesting

00:25:35.120 character.

00:25:35.820 He had a little flash

00:25:36.840 of humor yesterday.

00:25:37.780 I guess he wears a

00:25:38.840 Fitbit or some sort

00:25:40.160 of a health medical

00:25:42.460 app.

00:25:43.320 And he will show

00:25:44.380 this on the screen

00:25:45.040 now.

00:25:45.380 He posted a little

00:25:46.660 video of his heart

00:25:48.300 rate, which was very

00:25:50.960 funny.

00:25:51.320 He showed that he was

00:25:52.220 obviously quite stressed,

00:25:53.360 a bit of a sense of

00:25:54.600 humor there.

00:25:57.400 But I think...

00:25:58.700 Sorry, go ahead,

00:25:59.360 Alan.

00:26:00.300 In fact, he did

00:26:01.060 have to do two

00:26:01.600 hearings, first the

00:26:02.360 Senate in the

00:26:02.780 morning and then the

00:26:04.240 Energy Committee in

00:26:05.260 the House in the

00:26:06.160 afternoon.

00:26:06.820 So, yeah, that was

00:26:08.280 quite funny.

00:26:09.120 It was funny.

00:26:10.600 It shows he has a

00:26:12.620 bit of a sense of

00:26:13.280 humor.

00:26:15.100 I remember when

00:26:16.240 Zuckerberg attended

00:26:17.560 Congress.

00:26:18.540 He was extremely

00:26:19.580 disciplined.

00:26:21.360 He had obviously

00:26:22.060 been through a lot

00:26:23.760 of rehearsals.

00:26:25.200 And he mainly gave

00:26:26.320 non-answers.

00:26:27.600 But I think the

00:26:28.160 chief strength that

00:26:30.480 Zuckerberg had a few

00:26:31.560 months ago and Jack

00:26:32.520 Dorsey had yesterday

00:26:33.520 is that the

00:26:34.920 congressmen who are

00:26:35.900 grilling Jack Dorsey,

00:26:37.320 they are not native

00:26:38.780 Twitter users.

00:26:40.620 They are often people,

00:26:42.980 as you would expect

00:26:43.960 congressmen and

00:26:45.860 senators to be there

00:26:46.640 in their 60s and

00:26:47.640 70s, which is what you

00:26:49.380 want in the Senate, or

00:26:50.260 it comes from the

00:26:50.880 word for senior.

00:26:52.520 You know, you're the

00:26:54.060 seasoned oldsters who 0.52

00:26:56.100 have a lot of

00:26:56.540 experience and wisdom.

00:26:57.820 You don't want 20-year-old 1.00

00:26:59.500 whippersnappers on

00:27:02.880 your Senate.

00:27:03.600 But when you're trying

00:27:04.620 to grill a Zuckerberg

00:27:06.080 or a Jack Dorsey and

00:27:09.000 you're not as fluent in

00:27:11.120 the details of Twitter

00:27:13.100 and Facebook, you're

00:27:14.640 going to ask questions

00:27:16.000 that give these guys a

00:27:17.680 lot of wiggle room.

00:27:18.420 Was that your general

00:27:19.580 assessment, that most of

00:27:21.040 the questions just didn't

00:27:22.040 land a punch because they

00:27:23.220 were asked awkwardly or

00:27:25.080 not properly followed up

00:27:26.360 on?

00:27:27.800 Yeah, there's a sense that

00:27:29.120 some congressmen, you

00:27:30.440 know, a lot of these

00:27:31.280 people are quite smart

00:27:32.040 guys.

00:27:32.480 Some of them are not so

00:27:33.520 smart.

00:27:34.400 And some of them are

00:27:35.480 getting their heads

00:27:35.980 around it.

00:27:36.620 Like, you know, Ted Cruz,

00:27:37.500 for example, unlisted a

00:27:39.100 social media issue very,

00:27:40.100 very quickly.

00:27:40.680 He's been talking about

00:27:41.720 this since January and

00:27:43.300 probably was looking into

00:27:44.300 it even before that.

00:27:45.400 So there are congressmen

00:27:46.120 who get it.

00:27:47.180 There are other

00:27:48.040 congressmen who don't get

00:27:49.060 it so much.

00:27:50.400 There was a particularly

00:27:50.920 funny moment with a

00:27:52.200 Democratic senator.

00:27:53.740 His name escapes me at

00:27:54.940 the moment, but he was

00:27:58.220 asking the executives of

00:27:59.600 Facebook and Twitter if

00:28:00.620 they thought he was

00:28:02.980 warning that, you know,

00:28:03.800 Pokemon Go would be

00:28:05.320 would become a conduit for

00:28:06.860 Russian foreign propaganda.

00:28:08.040 So that was an interesting

00:28:10.200 moment from the first

00:28:11.040 hearing.

00:28:12.780 That's funny, but it

00:28:14.640 avoids the big issue,

00:28:16.300 which is the censorship.

00:28:18.080 I mean, give Jack Dorsey

00:28:19.580 credit.

00:28:20.000 He was the one social media

00:28:21.260 company of all of them

00:28:23.360 that didn't on the same

00:28:24.540 day decide to un-person

00:28:26.960 Alex Jones and InfoWars.

00:28:28.980 And whatever you think of

00:28:29.720 Alex Jones and his

00:28:30.540 personality and InfoWars

00:28:31.760 and their editorial slant

00:28:33.160 for Facebook, YouTube,

00:28:35.500 Google, Pinterest, LinkedIn,

00:28:36.960 Apple, iTunes, all of

00:28:41.080 these places on the same

00:28:42.380 day within six hours to

00:28:44.260 decide to absolutely

00:28:45.520 eradicate not only him

00:28:47.880 going forward, but any

00:28:48.900 historical work he had

00:28:49.960 ever done to un-person

00:28:51.200 him.

00:28:52.400 I don't care what you

00:28:53.200 think of Alex Jones.

00:28:53.980 That's terrifying.

00:28:55.440 Give Jack Dorsey credit.

00:28:56.520 He was the one social 0.64

00:28:57.340 media outlet that didn't

00:28:58.160 do that to him. 0.94

00:28:59.820 That's true.

00:29:00.540 And he received a lot of

00:29:01.280 flack for it.

00:29:01.860 And he gave Alex Jones a

00:29:03.660 temporary suspension later

00:29:04.920 on.

00:29:05.300 But again, I don't think

00:29:08.540 we should be necessarily

00:29:09.760 be praising these social

00:29:10.980 media executives for doing

00:29:11.840 the right thing.

00:29:12.760 Or in Jack Dorsey's case,

00:29:14.600 partly doing the right

00:29:15.560 thing.

00:29:15.940 Because he's still suspended

00:29:16.960 Alex Jones for, you know,

00:29:18.220 dubious reasons later on.

00:29:19.460 And he also kicked off

00:29:20.560 Gavin McInnes for extremely

00:29:22.180 dubious reasons.

00:29:23.100 Oh yeah, and our own, I

00:29:24.260 mean, Gavin McInnes, he's a

00:29:25.480 rebel alumnus.

00:29:27.000 Tommy Robinson, rebel alumnus.

00:29:29.580 So many rebels soon find

00:29:32.900 themselves unperson.

00:29:34.460 There's something that you

00:29:35.380 pointed out.

00:29:35.860 Let me just refer to your

00:29:36.820 article, which is, and I've

00:29:38.680 said this on the show before,

00:29:39.780 and I know you must think I'm

00:29:40.960 just sucking up to you. 0.99

00:29:41.820 I'm not.

00:29:42.360 I'm trying to communicate to

00:29:44.360 our viewers what I think is

00:29:46.220 the leading issue of our day.

00:29:47.760 And that is censorship.

00:29:49.560 I was censored at the hands of

00:29:51.500 the Alberta Human Rights

00:29:52.340 Commission a dozen years ago.

00:29:53.960 And that was bad enough, but

00:29:54.980 there were checks and

00:29:55.620 balances.

00:29:56.080 There was some transparency.

00:29:57.400 There was some procedure.

00:29:58.520 There was some route of

00:30:00.200 appeal.

00:30:00.580 There was some ways to fight

00:30:03.280 back, even though it was

00:30:04.240 abusive.

00:30:05.680 But tech censorship done in

00:30:07.740 secret by corporations has

00:30:09.180 none of those things.

00:30:10.000 No warning, no appeal, no

00:30:11.120 rationale, no transparency, no

00:30:13.820 time frame.

00:30:15.460 So let me refer, and this is

00:30:16.540 your beat, let me refer to

00:30:17.480 your latest story.

00:30:18.720 The headline in Breitbart.com

00:30:20.060 is, Jack Dorsey says Twitter

00:30:22.040 is a public square more than

00:30:25.300 five times.

00:30:26.020 And I think we have a video

00:30:26.900 clip of that.

00:30:27.320 I just want to play it.

00:30:28.440 And then I'd like you to share

00:30:30.460 with me and our viewers why

00:30:32.060 you believe that is such a

00:30:33.260 key concession or admission

00:30:35.900 by Jack Dorsey.

00:30:37.280 So let's take a quick look at

00:30:38.160 that clip.

00:30:39.460 We believe many people use

00:30:40.680 Twitter as a digital public

00:30:42.100 square.

00:30:42.860 And we believe that the people

00:30:44.440 use Twitter as they would a

00:30:46.780 public square.

00:30:47.680 The value of what they're

00:30:49.300 giving to that digital public

00:30:50.620 square.

00:30:51.340 We believe many people use

00:30:52.780 Twitter as a digital public

00:30:54.540 square.

00:30:55.200 Twitter cannot rightly serve as

00:30:57.140 a public square if it's

00:30:58.760 constructed around the personal

00:31:00.420 opinions of its makers.

00:31:02.760 We believe a key driver of a

00:31:04.560 thriving public square.

00:31:05.920 We believe it was important

00:31:07.280 for us to continue to increase

00:31:09.460 the health of this public

00:31:10.500 square.

00:31:10.820 We believe we're used as a

00:31:12.360 public square.

00:31:13.400 Yeah, that was quite a few,

00:31:14.720 quite a bit more than five

00:31:15.960 times.

00:31:16.640 Now, public square, we know

00:31:17.720 what that means.

00:31:18.320 In the center of a town is a

00:31:19.720 square where the public can

00:31:20.780 congregate and communicate.

00:31:23.140 In some places, it's

00:31:24.360 formalized like the traditions

00:31:25.800 at Hyde Park in London.

00:31:29.140 The concept of the town hall.

00:31:33.000 This is part of Western

00:31:34.800 tradition, leafleting, posters,

00:31:39.780 campaigns, debates.

00:31:42.000 What is the importance of Jack

00:31:45.080 Dorsey confirming so repetitively

00:31:47.300 there that he sees and he wants

00:31:50.880 Twitter to be a form of a public

00:31:54.400 square?

00:31:55.600 So here's why I think that's

00:31:56.720 important.

00:31:57.740 Public squares in the U.S.

00:32:00.220 has a very specific legal term

00:32:01.860 because whether a public square is

00:32:03.860 privately owned as Twitter is

00:32:05.440 or publicly owned like an actual

00:32:08.220 municipal town hall in the center

00:32:10.100 of the town, the First Amendment

00:32:13.100 applies that.

00:32:13.780 You can't stop people expressing

00:32:15.320 themselves.

00:32:16.520 You can't stop the lawful speech

00:32:18.780 in a public square.

00:32:19.540 So there was a Supreme Court case

00:32:22.500 back in the 1940s, Marsh v.

00:32:25.700 Alabama, where you had an entire

00:32:28.780 town that was privately owned by a

00:32:31.020 shipbuilding company.

00:32:33.080 And the town used trespassing laws

00:32:36.760 to eject a Jehovah's Witness who was 0.99

00:32:39.940 handing out religious materials.

00:32:41.660 So their argument was because they owned

00:32:43.400 the entire town, including the sidewalks,

00:32:44.740 then they could use trespassing laws to

00:32:48.080 stop lawful First Amendment

00:32:49.760 protected speech in that particular town.

00:32:52.740 The Supreme Court said no.

00:32:54.600 Even if a public square is privately

00:32:57.580 owned, in that case it was,

00:32:59.420 then the First Amendment still applies.

00:33:01.280 And we've seen similar cases with

00:33:02.520 shopping malls more recently in recent

00:33:04.800 decades.

00:33:06.520 So it's been well established that if a

00:33:09.420 private company owns a public square,

00:33:12.000 then they have to protect the First

00:33:13.040 Amendment in that space.

00:33:15.260 And Twitter obviously isn't doing that.

00:33:16.660 There's all sorts of lawful speech

00:33:17.920 that's banned on Twitter.

00:33:19.860 So Jack is admitting that it was a

00:33:21.720 public square.

00:33:22.200 That's an important concession.

00:33:23.660 Maybe he wasn't getting the correct

00:33:25.000 legal advice.

00:33:25.620 Who knows?

00:33:27.080 It was very interesting.

00:33:28.760 And, you know, in Canada, we don't

00:33:30.880 have a First Amendment.

00:33:32.680 We have Section 2B of our Constitution,

00:33:35.700 which guarantees freedom of expression,

00:33:37.540 including freedom of speech in the media,

00:33:39.040 et cetera.

00:33:39.320 But it is much weaker than the U.S.

00:33:41.920 First Amendment because it is subject

00:33:43.500 to any infringements as justified in a

00:33:46.520 democratic society, as in we have a

00:33:48.720 First Amendment but, whereas the United 0.53

00:33:51.360 States just has a First Amendment.

00:33:53.440 And I think that's why some people from

00:33:56.480 Canada, from the U.K., from around the

00:33:58.300 world are startled at American tolerance

00:34:01.440 for radical speech in airports, in

00:34:03.900 shopping malls.

00:34:05.000 You're accosted by people pitching you the

00:34:07.220 Moonies, you know, or other religious

00:34:08.780 group, and sometimes it's a bit of a

00:34:11.180 nuisance.

00:34:12.160 But if you understand that it's because

00:34:14.540 Americans have the freedom to do that,

00:34:16.940 it's actually a wonderful revelation.

00:34:19.920 And the case you referred to, Marsh v.

00:34:23.520 Alabama, and you cite that in your

00:34:24.900 article, it's very illuminating.

00:34:28.400 Alan, I've got to say, using that phrase,

00:34:31.680 he probably said it almost 10 times there.

00:34:35.420 I can't imagine that was accidental or

00:34:38.980 coincidental.

00:34:39.960 Here's a theory I'd like to put to you.

00:34:42.520 Maybe Jack Dorsey actually wants to be

00:34:46.000 declared a public square to remove from

00:34:49.580 him the entire hassle of being the arbiter

00:34:53.680 of taste and politics.

00:34:55.980 Now, some people in Silicon Valley get a

00:34:58.380 Messiah complex, a God complex.

00:35:00.880 They want to, I think Zuckerberg has this

00:35:03.940 for sure, they want to tell everyone what

00:35:06.020 to think and feel.

00:35:07.880 Maybe Jack Dorsey, this is his way of saying,

00:35:11.380 please regulate me.

00:35:12.960 Let me get back to the tech business.

00:35:15.380 Sure, we'll stop terrorists and true crimes,

00:35:18.800 but get me out of this political BS that I never

00:35:21.460 wanted to be in when I was a kid.

00:35:23.020 It's entirely possible.

00:35:25.640 I mean, remember, he is Twitter's co-founder

00:35:27.860 and Twitter was founded as, you know,

00:35:29.800 the free speech member of the free speech

00:35:30.980 party.

00:35:31.400 That's what they were originally.

00:35:33.400 And in many cases in these companies,

00:35:36.560 and I hear this is the case in Twitter as

00:35:38.160 well, you've got very radical left-wing

00:35:40.440 employees further down the food chain inside

00:35:42.380 the companies who are pushing for harsher

00:35:44.480 censorship, and you've got CEOs trying to

00:35:47.120 resist that.

00:35:48.600 So it's possible that's the case in Twitter.

00:35:50.340 And also, you've got that internal pressure

00:35:53.320 combined with external pressure from, say,

00:35:54.860 the Democrats and the media urging platforms

00:35:57.420 to take responsibility for what's on their

00:35:59.660 platforms.

00:36:01.480 So it's entirely possible that Jack Dorsey doesn't

00:36:04.140 want the hassle anymore.

00:36:05.600 And the only free market Republicans don't really

00:36:08.920 understand this very well.

00:36:10.700 One of the only ways you can ensure free speech

00:36:12.980 on social media is if you have regulation,

00:36:15.040 because otherwise CEOs, whether they want free

00:36:20.480 speech on their platforms or not, they won't

00:36:22.140 be able to withstand the pressure from

00:36:23.640 advertisers, from politicians, from the

00:36:27.160 mainstream media, and from their own

00:36:28.500 employees.

00:36:29.060 They will not be able to withstand that

00:36:30.280 pressure unless there's a regulation that

00:36:32.420 says you've got to guarantee free, you run a

00:36:36.000 public square, you've got to guarantee free

00:36:37.260 speech.

00:36:37.600 So I do think it's entirely likely that some

00:36:42.500 CEOs do want regulation forcing them to have free

00:36:45.620 speech on their platforms.

00:36:46.520 It would certainly make their lives a lot easier.

00:36:48.560 Yeah, especially if they could say, well, don't

00:36:49.980 blame me, guys.

00:36:50.960 My hands are tied.

00:36:52.280 This new, you know, public utility, public square

00:36:55.320 law, I can't fight that.

00:36:58.280 Oh, well, we have to go along with the law.

00:37:00.860 I mean, I was talking with Gavin McKinnis the other

00:37:03.520 day about this.

00:37:04.220 It's, it would be like if a phone company was

00:37:09.400 listening in to your calls and said, we don't

00:37:11.040 like what you're talking about on our phone, so

00:37:13.400 you can't use the phone anymore.

00:37:14.740 And I've talked to all the other cell phone

00:37:16.300 companies, they don't like it either, so you're

00:37:17.880 banned from phones.

00:37:19.020 I mean, telephone companies, correct me if I'm

00:37:21.460 wrong, Alan, they are in the same sphere, public

00:37:25.480 utility, they're not publishers, they're a

00:37:27.980 platform that anyone can say what they want.

00:37:30.640 If someone uses a phone to utter a death threat

00:37:33.860 against you, you don't sue the phone company

00:37:36.620 because they had nothing to do with it.

00:37:38.280 That's the same, that's the analogy here, right?

00:37:40.840 Yeah, indeed.

00:37:41.800 And Section 230, which is kind of a flawed piece

00:37:45.120 of legislation, it needs to be changed.

00:37:47.860 It says that platforms aren't going to be held

00:37:50.480 legally liable for things that are said on their

00:37:53.240 platform, because, you know, why would they be?

00:37:55.260 It's not, they're not taking any editorial role

00:37:58.140 in what a user says unless they start moderating content

00:38:02.460 and saying some content is allowed, some content isn't,

00:38:04.480 some content is going to be prioritized, some content

00:38:06.360 isn't, then they start acting like a publisher.

00:38:08.120 But unfortunately, that piece of legislation also says

00:38:10.280 that platforms have this protection that allows them

00:38:13.860 to do good-faith blocking so they can block content

00:38:16.640 on behalf of their users.

00:38:17.880 That's the part of Section 230 that really needs to come out

00:38:20.180 because, as you said, it's as bizarre as the phone company

00:38:23.440 saying that two people aren't allowed to have a conversation.

00:38:26.560 It's like, you know, you've got two people,

00:38:28.300 Person A and Person B.

00:38:29.660 Person A agrees to hear what Person B says,

00:38:32.020 Person B agrees that Person A can listen

00:38:35.640 to what they have to say.

00:38:36.980 And what we have in Silicon Valley is a third party

00:38:39.640 coming in between those two people saying

00:38:42.400 you're not allowed to have that conversation.

00:38:43.880 It's completely bizarre.

00:38:44.760 It's an interference in consent between two people.

00:38:48.260 Yeah, what two consenting adults want to do

00:38:50.700 in the privacy of their own phone.

00:38:53.280 I mean, I remember when Tommy Robinson was kicked off Twitter,

00:38:56.360 he had 400,000 followers.

00:38:58.180 By definition, those people pushed a button indicating

00:39:00.640 I want to hear what Tommy says.

00:39:02.440 Now, you might not like Tommy, you might think he's a scallywag, 0.99

00:39:06.340 but why should 400,000 people not have their wish

00:39:11.880 and why should Tommy not have his right to grant their wish

00:39:14.600 because someone in Silicon Valley said,

00:39:17.160 well, I don't like the cut of his jib.

00:39:19.520 Yeah, absolutely.

00:39:20.260 And it's even more bizarre when you consider the fact

00:39:22.140 that there are way more tools available to users

00:39:24.460 to block and filter content they don't want to see

00:39:27.000 than you have on a telephone.

00:39:29.440 I mean, nowadays, with modern telephones,

00:39:30.820 you have blocking and so on.

00:39:31.860 Back in the day, I mean, there were very little ways

00:39:34.280 to stop, you know, nuisance phone calls.

00:39:36.460 If you want to, there was very little ways to stop that.

00:39:38.440 There are tons and tons of ways to stop content

00:39:40.960 you don't want to see from appearing on your feed.

00:39:42.400 There are shared block lists.

00:39:44.760 There are word filters.

00:39:46.260 If you don't want to see a certain word,

00:39:47.820 there are all sorts of ways to give consumers choice

00:39:50.820 about what they can and can't see on social media.

00:39:53.300 So there's absolutely no reason for executives

00:39:56.060 in Silicon Valley to take those decisions

00:39:57.820 on behalf of their users.

00:39:59.780 It's anti-choice and it's anti-consumer.

00:40:01.640 And I think the only reason they're doing it

00:40:02.960 is because they're scared of advertisers,

00:40:04.380 they're scared of democratic politicians,

00:40:05.820 and they're scared of the mainstream media.

00:40:07.540 Yeah.

00:40:07.900 Yeah, you take those fears away through a law

00:40:10.080 and all of a sudden they can get back to tech work.

00:40:11.860 Well, listen, Alan, it's great to talk to you.

00:40:13.320 You really are one of my favorite guests.

00:40:14.820 Not only do I like you,

00:40:16.220 but I just really wish other journalists

00:40:19.720 were covering the truest threat to our speech,

00:40:23.820 which is, I mean, when I was,

00:40:26.020 a dozen years ago, before social media was big,

00:40:29.740 the threat was from governments.

00:40:31.660 But I absolutely, as a veteran of those free speech wars,

00:40:36.680 I know in my bones,

00:40:38.380 I have far greater threats from YouTube executives

00:40:42.300 than I do from any prosecutor in this country.

00:40:45.640 And that's what terrifies me.

00:40:47.160 It's great to have you on, Alan.

00:40:48.080 Thanks.

00:40:48.400 Keep writing these great stories

00:40:50.500 and we'll keep talking about them.

00:40:51.680 I can assure you that.

00:40:53.140 Thanks, Ezra.

00:40:53.720 Great to be on.

00:40:54.400 Right on.

00:40:54.960 There's our friend Alan Bokari.

00:40:56.600 As you know,

00:40:57.340 he is the senior technology correspondent

00:40:59.500 at Breitbart News.

00:41:00.960 And I've said many times

00:41:02.340 that I believe that beat

00:41:03.620 is the most important political beat

00:41:06.400 in the Western world these days.

00:41:08.980 Stay with us.

00:41:09.660 More ahead on The Ripple.

00:41:21.200 Hey, welcome back.

00:41:22.300 On my monologue yesterday about Trudeau

00:41:24.160 wanting to lose NAFTA

00:41:26.240 so he can blame Trump in the next election,

00:41:27.800 Liza writes,

00:41:28.640 Trudeau wants to protect Canadian media companies

00:41:31.680 from U.S. ownership

00:41:32.480 when they are already owned by U.S. companies?

00:41:35.300 Huh?

00:41:35.840 And he's using that false premise

00:41:37.160 for not doing a deal with Trump?

00:41:38.500 God, I hope Canadians aren't as stupid

00:41:40.300 as Trudeau thinks they are.

00:41:42.940 Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

00:41:46.020 And even on Canadian-owned networks

00:41:48.700 like Global or CTV,

00:41:50.440 we're mainly watching American shows.

00:41:53.980 I mean, stop and think about

00:41:54.720 all your favorite shows.

00:41:56.520 They're American.

00:41:57.400 And even the knockoffs are American. 0.52

00:41:58.860 Remember when they had Canadian Idol?

00:42:01.000 Well, what's that other than the local franchise

00:42:03.260 of the international American Idol,

00:42:04.760 pop idol franchise?

00:42:06.400 I mean, sports, music,

00:42:10.620 to pretend that we are not already awash

00:42:14.680 in American culture,

00:42:16.020 either directly or indirectly,

00:42:17.000 is foolish.

00:42:17.480 And anyone with a Netflix account

00:42:20.260 or an HBO account

00:42:21.400 obviously likes it that way.

00:42:25.340 Lawrence writes,

00:42:27.040 didn't Trudeau himself say

00:42:28.120 that Canada has no real identity?

00:42:29.960 And now he says he won't give up

00:42:31.660 our sovereignty or identity

00:42:32.500 to the U.S. and the NAFTA deal.

00:42:34.680 Well, that's a great point, isn't it?

00:42:36.440 Justin Trudeau flips some flops on that

00:42:38.120 when he wants to.

00:42:38.880 When he's praising extreme multiculturalism,

00:42:41.000 he says,

00:42:41.400 we have no core identity.

00:42:43.860 Our identity is diversity,

00:42:45.920 university in diversity,

00:42:47.480 whatever.

00:42:48.620 So he says we're nothing

00:42:50.180 but a hotel room

00:42:51.820 when it suits him.

00:42:53.200 But when he's fighting against Donald Trump,

00:42:55.560 boy, he wraps that flag around

00:42:57.120 him, the same flag.

00:42:58.780 And he's just such a Canadian identity guy.

00:43:01.000 He's all for taking down

00:43:02.580 Sir John and MacDonald,

00:43:03.660 whether it's a statue in Victoria

00:43:05.820 or stripping him from the $10 bill.

00:43:08.840 Don writes,

00:43:09.340 Yeah, I think you're right,

00:43:24.680 but I'm puzzled by why they would

00:43:26.920 risk the auto industry.

00:43:30.220 It's dominantly in Ontario,

00:43:32.380 but there are automakers

00:43:34.000 in Quebec as well.

00:43:35.220 If I'm not mistaken,

00:43:36.240 I mean, things are waxing and waning.

00:43:37.620 I'm not an expert in the auto industry,

00:43:39.340 but I'm pretty sure

00:43:39.760 they make some in Quebec too.

00:43:41.740 So they're in,

00:43:43.100 it's not like Alberta,

00:43:44.000 which the liberals hate

00:43:44.980 and they know they're going to lose

00:43:46.380 their handful of seats there anyways.

00:43:49.480 Although auto industry

00:43:51.160 is a heavy industry

00:43:52.320 that uses steel

00:43:53.380 and obviously cars run on oil,

00:43:56.240 it is not being denormalized

00:43:58.600 the same way oil and gas

00:43:59.640 and the oil sands have.

00:44:00.480 So it's not like they find

00:44:01.620 the auto industry yucky.

00:44:03.240 Like they find pipelines

00:44:05.420 or oil and gas yucky.

00:44:08.420 So these are real jobs

00:44:10.400 for who they probably think

00:44:13.080 could be liberal voters.

00:44:15.600 And of course,

00:44:17.100 those companies pour so much

00:44:18.740 into the economy.

00:44:20.100 That's what I don't get.

00:44:21.800 Why would you risk that industry?

00:44:25.020 An industry, remember,

00:44:26.020 that just 10 years ago,

00:44:27.860 federal and provincial governments

00:44:29.440 poured billions of dollars

00:44:30.540 into to bail them out.

00:44:31.760 I don't know if you remember that.

00:44:33.780 Just give me a minute on this.

00:44:35.220 In the 2008 crisis,

00:44:36.800 Barack Obama said to Stephen Harper,

00:44:39.460 I'm bailing out the auto industry.

00:44:41.300 If you don't bail out

00:44:42.400 the auto industry proportionately

00:44:44.240 in Canada,

00:44:46.260 I'm going to take those factories back.

00:44:47.820 So if I'm putting in all the dough,

00:44:49.160 Barack Obama said,

00:44:50.820 you Canadians are better put in the dough 1.00

00:44:52.200 because I'm not putting in American money

00:44:54.640 to bail out Canadian factories.

00:44:56.740 Do you understand?

00:44:57.400 And I'm against bailouts,

00:44:59.660 but if you're going to bail out

00:45:01.080 GM,

00:45:02.720 Chrysler,

00:45:03.440 whatever,

00:45:04.420 and if Canada doesn't chip in equally,

00:45:06.860 you can imagine why Obama

00:45:07.900 wanted those factories back.

00:45:09.360 So Stephen Harper,

00:45:10.120 and I think it was Dalton McGinty at the time,

00:45:11.620 did in fact bail out the auto industry.

00:45:14.640 Well,

00:45:14.880 why did you bail out the auto industry

00:45:16.420 if you're just going to give it up

00:45:18.600 for free to Trump anyways?

00:45:20.620 Well,

00:45:21.000 only a liberal can figure that one.

00:45:23.220 That's our show for today.

00:45:24.460 I think that last letter writer is correct.

00:45:27.600 I think they really don't understand the economy.

00:45:30.180 They don't care about the economy,

00:45:31.820 but boy,

00:45:32.860 they love to virtue signal

00:45:34.100 and nothing will look better on them,

00:45:35.720 they think,

00:45:36.380 than being the anti-Trump country of 2019.

00:45:40.840 They won't lose their job.

00:45:43.080 Well,

00:45:43.680 I don't think they will.

00:45:45.760 That's it for today.

00:45:46.700 Until tomorrow,

00:45:47.620 on behalf of all of us here

00:45:48.700 at Rebel World Headquarters,

00:45:49.640 good night,

00:45:50.360 and keep fighting for freedom.

00:45:51.460 We'll see you next time.

Rebel News Podcast - September 07, 2018

“Trump is stronger today than he was before the NYT printed that anonymous ‘insider’s’ op-ed”

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript