Frank Gaffney is Founder and President at The Center for Security Policy and bestselling author of the new book THE INDICTMENT: Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party & Friends for Crimes against America, China, and the World. He breaks down China's place in the world today, and their strategy to take over the world moving forward. China can do this by paying off politicians worldwide and unleashing future pandemics like what the world just experienced. Gaffney also shares his thoughts on Islamism, predicting more terrorist attacks against the U.S. and worldwide. Websites: www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org www.PresentDangerChina.org www.SecuringAmerica.TV
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #PRC: The fishing fleet is a weapon of war. James Fanell, government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and retired U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,. @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill https://www.ft.com/content/5b3cc3a1-0c42-4679-81ca-be0ca7f448d1
The war in Ukraine drags on at a terrible cost for all involved with no seeming end in sight. Some estimate that there have been almost 400,000 total Russian and Ukraine casualties so far, although both sides claim their losses are much lower. Ukraine is on the ropes and running out of manpower with its most of its elite forces destroyed. Missiles for its air defenses are depleted. Both sides are dragooning teenagers and old men for their armies. Russia's military command is in disarray. But no one knows what is really going on. A key problem understanding the war in Ukraine is the reliability of sources of information and the fact that both sides specialize in disinformation and fake news. To sort through what might be true, and where events are leading us, I'm joined again by an astute observer of the world scene, Dr. Steven Bryen, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. With over 50 years national security experience, including many stints at the Pentagon where he was known as the Yoda of the arms trade, he's been following closely the details and the ins and outs of the war in Ukraine. What was initially sold by the Biden Administration as humanitarian aid to Ukraine has had from the very start a deeper agenda: The White House wanted this war to bring about regime change in Russia. "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power,” declares Joe Biden. And this: “Our objective is to exhaust and degrade Russian forces so they cannot fight anywhere else in the world,” warned Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin last year. So has their proxy war been a smart move? So far, hardly. It ranks right up there with their catastrophic exit from Afghanistan and the mess they've made in the Middle East. It's also driven Russia into the arms of our real geopolitical enemy China. “If you want to break up Russia, it's a fool's errand, it won't work,” says Stephen. “Russia's not going to break up. It's a big powerful country and a nuclear power. So why tempt the furies with that kind of nonsense? It doesn't make any sense. It's not in the United States' national interest. It's not in the Europeans interest, although you'd never know it from listening to them. Having a war in Europe in this day and age would be a horrible tragedy. It would destroy the West. So why would anyone risk that?” Henry Kissinger says that conditions are right for negotiations on Ukraine by the end of the year. “But negotiations won't start unless Washington wants them to start,” says Stephen. “Or unless Zelensky and his crowd are gone and someone else takes over in Ukraine. But if things stay the way they are, there's not going to be any negotiations. Biden doesn't want them. He wants a victory, a total victory over Russia in Ukraine.” But if things stay the way they are there will be no victory. This will grind on and on, there'll be many more dead, more destruction, and let's not forget the risk of bringing nuclear weapons into play. It's time for the US to use its power to bring the war in Ukraine to an end now. It's in our interest. It's in the world's interest. This episode is a treasure trove of Stephen Bryen's nuanced and penetrating insights. I keep bringing Stephen back on for his wisdom and he never disappoints. Well worth your time to listen.
COL. (RET.) JOHN MILLS, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Member, Committee on the Present Danger: China What are the implications of "elite capture" by the Chinese of American elites? How China wants to beat the United States "without having to fight us" What can the U.S. do to help deter a Chinese attack of Taiwan? RAVEN HARRISON, Author, Raven's Mantle Harrison's personal experience fighting for freedom A large number of Chinese nationals coming through the U.S. southern border The great risks many of those coming to the United States face from Mexican cartels PETER HUESSY, Senior fellow at Hudson Institute Does China have more ICMB launchers than the United States? How many nuclear weapons could China have in the next decade? What can the U.S. do to help bolster its nuclear arsenal?
GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow, Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant What is the "objective" of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party? Can the U.S. and China exist together in the eyes of the CCP? Why is the U.S. establishment "clueless" about the threat from China? The continuing "invasion" of our southern border MICHAEL RECTENWALD, Co-Founder and Chief Academic Officer, American Scholars, Author, “Thought Criminal,” “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom” and “Beyond Woke,” former New York University Professor, Liberal Studies, @antipcnyuprof Are Chinese students in America aware of China's history? How the Chinese government trains its people to "ignore China's flaws" The World Economic Forum's strong relationship with China STEPHEN BRYEN, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy The new importance of drones in warfare around the world An update on the Ukraine-Russia war Why is the Air Force determined to get rid of the A-10 from its arsenal?
Funding is renewed for a U.S. agency that's come under fire for working with the Wuhan Institute for Virology. We hear from some lawmakers and medical experts who are concerned about the grant money. Former President Donald Trump has been found liable in court in the assault case from writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump's attorney called the allegations “odd and unbelievable.” How much did the jury award Carroll? A high-stakes face-off takes place as President Joe Biden meets House Speaker Kevin McCarthy over the debt ceiling. Will they come together as an unprecedented default is looming? Congressman Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) joins us to offer the GOP perspective on the debt ceiling talks. Apart from raising the debt ceiling for the time being, what is a long-term plan to balance the budget? Does the House GOP have a smoking gun on the Bidens' business dealings? That's the question as House Republicans gear up to make public their discoveries after months of investigations. Frank Gaffney from the Center for Security Policy joins us to explore Tucker Carlson's exit from Fox News. What impact will this have on the conservative movement? ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV
ITSPmagazine | Technology. Cybersecurity. Society
Guest: Aunshul Rege, Director at The CARE Lab at Temple University [@TU_CARE]On Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/aunshul-rege-26526b59/On Twitter | https://twitter.com/Prof_Rege____________________________Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast [@RedefiningCyber]On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/sean-martin____________________________This Episode's SponsorsPentera | https://itspm.ag/penteri67aCrowdSec | https://itspm.ag/crowdsec-b1vp___________________________Episode NotesWelcome to a riveting new episode of the Redefining Cybersecurity Podcast, hosted by Sean Martin! Today, we're diving into the fascinating world of social engineering and the crucial role of education in understanding cybersecurity. Join us in this engaging conversation with Aunshul Rege from Temple University, who does amazing work in helping students comprehend the importance of cybersecurity and how social engineering plays a vital part in it.Imagine a world where computer science students and liberal arts students come together to tackle cybersecurity challenges from different angles. Aunshul Rege is an associate professor at the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University, who has a unique journey starting as a software engineer and eventually realizing that computer science wasn't enough to answer the who, why, and how of cyber attacks. Her passion for understanding human behavior, sociology, and cybersecurity led her to explore the liberal arts side of cybersecurity.In this episode, Aunshul talks about her innovative teaching methods, where she pushes her students to collaborate across disciplines and explore the importance of social engineering in cyber attacks. From shoulder surfing activities to discussing ethics and multidisciplinary teamwork, her students learn to appreciate the different skill sets and perspectives they bring to the table.But it's not just about the technical aspect of cybersecurity. Aunshul's approach to teaching focuses on building students' understanding of human behavior and psychology in cyber attacks, emphasizing the value of social engineering in both the attack and defense aspects of cybersecurity.As you listen to this fascinating conversation, you'll discover the powerful impact of merging computer science and liberal arts perspectives, the importance of ethics in cybersecurity, and how Aunshul's unique teaching methods help students appreciate their role in the ever-evolving world of cybersecurity.So, get ready to be inspired by Aunshul's story and her innovative approach to cybersecurity education. You won't want to miss this captivating episode that challenges our understanding of cybersecurity and the critical role of social engineering in it. And don't forget to share this episode, subscribe to the podcast, and join us for more insightful conversations on Redefining Cybersecurity.____________________________Watch this and other videos on ITSPmagazine's YouTube ChannelRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast with Sean Martin, CISSP playlist
Frank J. Gaffney is the author of The Indictment: Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party & Friends for Crimes against America, China, and the World, is the founder and executive chairman of the Center for Security Policy. The Indictment: Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party & Friends for Crimes against America, China, and the World
Tipping Point with Kara McKinney
The amazing Katy Faust from "Them Before Us" swings by to give a better account than Freud on how our childhood experiences shape our adult lives and politics. Plus, did Prince Harry lie on his visa application or did DHS give him special immigration privileges? Then, border crisis related homicides from Texas to California. And finally, the January 6th Proud Boys case shows that deleted evidence, a left-wing biased jury, and the surveillance of attorney-client jailhouse communications is what now passes as a fair trial.Guests:Katy Faust | Founder, Them Before UsEvita Duffy-Alfonso | Co-Founder, The Chicago Thinker & Staff Writer, The FederalistAnthony Sabatini | Attorney & Former Florida State RepresentativeKyle Shideler | Director of Homeland Security & Counterterrorism, Center for Security Policy
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Philippines: #PRC: Manila votes with US security. James Fanell, government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and retired U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-reassure-philippines-marcos-china-tensions-flare-2023-05-01/
https://westminster-institute.org/events/are-japan-australia-the-united-states-and-others-prepared-militarily-to-meet-the-ccp-threat/ Col. (Ret.) Grant Newsham is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy. He is also a Research Fellow at the Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, focusing on Asia/Pacific defense, political, and economic matters. He is a retired U.S. Marine Colonel and was the first U.S. Marine Liaison Officer to the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. He also served as reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific and was the U.S. Marine attaché, US Embassy Tokyo on two occasions. Grant Newsham has more than 20 years of experience in Japan and elsewhere in Asia so he is well able to offer the Asian perspective on the strategic challenges China presents to Japan and Taiwan, and how the two of them may face that threat.
BRADLEY THAYER, Director of China Policy, Center for Security Policy, Author, How China Sees the World MAC WARNER, West Virginia Secretary of State What is West Virginia doing to ensure "voter confidence" remains high? What role did U.S. 3 letter agencies play in the 2020 presidential election? Potential issues of voter fraud in 2020 ELAINE DONNELLY, Founder and President, Center for Military Readiness The most recent Executive Order signed by President Biden on "diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)" Why the DoD can't be treated like other "equal opportunity employers" How DEI ties directly into Critical Race Theory
Annie speaks with Heritage's foreign and Security Policy expert, Jim Carafano about the harsh truth behind the border crisis. Carafano reacts to how The Biden Administration is handling issues at the border. Then, Annie asks Carafano for information about human trafficking and how common it is in our Country. © 2023 KFTK (Audacy). All rights reserved. | iStock / Getty Images Plus
BILL WALTON, Host, The Bill Walton Show The recent collapse of First Republic Bank Why are U.S. banks continuing to collapse? Are China and the U.S. "on the brink" of war? What would happen to U.S. investments in China if war broke out? GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow, Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant How China is expanding their presence to all the Pacific islands, even those with treaties with the U.S. Can the U.S. still lose to China, even with their allies in Asia? An upcoming webinar discussing Xi Jinping's "frog boiling" GEORGE RASLEY, Editor, Conservative HQ, former White House Staff Member, Vice President Dan Quayle, former Assistant Director, National Park Service, former Director of Policy and Communication, Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) The recent departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News Ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling within Congress How "digital health passports" could be making their way to the U.S. in the near future
WallBuilders Live! with David Barton & Rick Green
Today, we have Frank Gaffney from Center for Security Policy on to talk to us about the World Health Organization. The WHO is taking over not just our national sovereignty but our personal sovereignty and liberties. The Biden administration wants their policy to become our law. With policies such as forced vaccinations and vaccine passports, where will this end? What can we do about it?
Débat entre Thomas Greminger, directeur du Geneva Center for Security Policy, Vincent de Siebenthal, président des chrétiens de gauche romands et Karyna Pavlova, membre de la Société des ukrainiens de Genève.
GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow, Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant: How China has been "attacking" the United States for 30 years The United States' reliance on China for medial supplies Why do most American reporters not give faithful reports on China? Where are U.S. retirement dollars going that are invested in Chinese stocks? Assessing China's military strength compared to the U.S. China's much-improved missile program that can reach many U.S. territories
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is proceeding with plans to build a new headquarters which would be twice the size of the The Pentagon, the world's largest office building. The new FBI headquarters is to be built on one of three sites in suburban Virginia and Maryland. Those sites are large parcels of 58, 61, and 80 acres. The Kremlin in Moscow —a walled fortress containing the administrative offices of the Russian central government, the official presidential residence, massive auditoriums, an arsenal, a museum, four palaces, three cathedrals and several churches—is just over 66 acres in area. Vatican City in Rome, the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, is tucked into 110 acres. The FBI is proceeding with its plans at a time when Americans have grown increasingly alarmed about the mission creep of an institution we once regarded as the world's greatest law-enforcement agency. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bureau's mission changed to become an intelligence operation rather than a law enforcement agency. Case management has been centralized in its headquarters in Washington DC rather than as before in the field offices around the country. It did this to place so-called operational decisions in the hand of what they've called “politically sensitive” individuals at headquarters. What this means in practice it that the political biases of FBI leadership, and some of its investigators, have come to influence the conduct and public perception of the agency's most consequential investigations. Joining me to talk about the planned building, the FBI's history and what it's become today, is my frequent guest and astute observer of US intelligence agencies, Mike Waller. J. Michael Waller, is a Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy where he concentrates on propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion. Mike's author of a soon to be published book about the CIA and the FBI. The FBI hasn't revealed a reason or strategy for its colossal new HQ but we do know this according to the GSA specs: “Riveted into its new project are woke regulations to ensure that the FBI center will comply with diversity, equity, LGBTQ+, and climate change political goals,” explains Mike. The site, design, and structure of the new FBI headquarters must “advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the Federal Government,” as part of Joe Biden's Executive Order 13985 calling for “an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda.” But the problem with today's FBI runs deeper. “After 9/11 the FBI has been stuck in this netherworld of being a law enforcement agency and an intelligence agency, and you can't combine those with the same people in the same organization or you get political police.” Is this what we want from our FBI? There is a lot packed into this episode about a woke and politicized FBI. Mike explains how we got here - from the 1920s to today - and it's a fascinating, and disturbing, story.
Frank Gaffney has been up-close and personal to our nation's security status. Former president Ronald Reagan nominated Gaffney to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He now works to keep our nation secure as part of the Center for Security Policy. Mike Ridaught is well-known in NorthCentral Florida as a sports broadcaster, and he also writes on sports for Mainstreet Daily News (www.mainstreetdailynews.com). Finally, John Crossman on all things Central Florida business.
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #PRC: Philippines: Countering the South China Sea fortified isllands. James Fanell, government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and retired U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65236459
STEPHEN BRYEN, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy How the recently leaked intelligence documents could impact the United States' relationship with Ukraine Does the United States have confidence in the Ukrainian military? What would happen if Ukraine ends up losing the war with Russia? Various ways in which Taiwan is "exposed" to China WAYNE ALLYN ROOT, Co-author, The Great Patriot BUY-cott Root's work in helping shed light on pro-American companies to support How the recent Bud Light marketing campaign could impact other companies in the future Why China believes they "need" to attack Taiwan under the Biden administration KEVIN FREEMAN, Host, Economic War Room, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Author, “Game Plan: How to Protect Yourself from the Coming Cyber-Economic Attack” and “Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Can Happen Again,” Founder, Globaleconomiwarfare.com, @SecretWeaponUSA: Continual attacks on the American dollar Is the United States aware of the economic warfare China is waging? Issues with a "central bank digital currency"
America's sovereignty is facing a massive danger from the World Health Organization, thanks in large part to the fact this president, Joe Biden, is all-in with the global bureaucrats. The WHO has for some time been pushing a global treaty on pandemic responses, and if passed, if signed, if ratified in the United States, would strip America's ability to decide its own course of action on health-related matters. Imagine the likes of a Bill Gates -- who is a top funder of the China-loving WHO -- having at his disposal the power to tell Americans how to deal with the next emerging virus. More than that, imagine the likes of a Bill Gates having at his disposal the power to decide what constitutes a pandemic. The possibilities for control would be endless. Yet that is what the WHO wants -- and that is what Joe Biden is quite OK with -- and that is the threat America faces that could result in the final blow to sovereignty. Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy, is fighting back hard.
BRADLEY THAYER, Director of China Policy, Center for Security Policy, Author, How China Sees the World Is Xi Jinping trying to change international politics? Various diplomatic negotiations in March of 2023 involving the CCP Are some previous allies of the U.S. turning away and trusting China? The need for the U.S. to take steps in deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan BILL WALTON, Host, The Bill Walton Show The Biden administration's focus on climate, equity and Ukraine Is the United States' focus on Ukraine pushing its allies away? Analyzing the large amounts of money the U.S. owes China
Professional Military Education
Col. Grant Newsham (USMC-Ret.), has a warning for America: China is at war with us. It is time for Americans to understand that China does not believe war starts with the deployment of missiles, tanks, and infantry. From the perspective of the People's Republic of China (PRC), war has already begun. Furthermore, over the last several decades, China has used influence operations, economic policies, political warfare, and lawfare to cripple America. The results have left American communities jobless with rampant drug use, deaths of despair, and social disfunction. As one example, fentanyl related drug overdoses caused 70,000 American deaths in 2021. This number is higher than the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The chemical components of fentanyl are manufactured in China. After decades of economic growth and political warfare, China has undergone one of the most significant military build-ups during a period of "peace." What are their next moves? As China has trained, mobilized, and built up its army and navy, the obvious question is for what purpose? In this interview, we discuss these questions and much more. Interview topics include: China's current military capabilities: Key strengths and weaknesses China has a mission: To defeat the United States and they believe that war is already taking place. Does China believe they can successfully invade Taiwan? If China does attack Taiwan, what would the attack look like? How would the United States respond? Is nuclear war possible? What is military-civilian fusion? How does China think of Comprehensive National Power (CNP) How have American elites both in business and politics helped to facilitate China's rise to power. On the American business class and Wall Street, Grant says, "You can't expect to win if you're funding your enemies." Check out the book: When China Attacks A Warning to America Biography: Grant Newsham is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy. He is also a Research Fellow at the Japan Forum for Strategic Studies focusing on Asia-Pacific defense, political, and economic matters. Grant is a retired U.S. Marine Colonel and was the first U.S. Marine Liaison Officer to the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. He also served as reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific, and was the U.S. Marine Attaché, US Embassy Tokyo on two occasions. Check out Grant's work at the Center for Security Policy. Find Grant on Twitter: @NewshamGrant HELP SPREAD THE WORD! If you like the interview and want to hear others, subscribe in iTunes, Spotify, or Audible. Support the show with written reviews, share on social media, and through word of mouth. To request additional shows or guests, e-mail me: email@example.com Check out the website: www.professionalmilitaryeducation.com
MICHELE BACHMANN, Dean, Robertson School of Government at Regent University, former US Representative, Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, former State Senator, Minnesota, Author, “Care of Conviction: My Story,” @MicheleBachman The Biden administration's desire to change the World Health Organization (WHO) and make it similar to the United States' CDC The need to keep the U.S. "sovereign" from the WHO What can U.S. citizens do to help preserve U.S. sovereignty? TYLER O'NEIL, Managing Editor, The Daily Signal A background of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) The SPLC's use of the term "hate group" Do these hate group accusations impact companies on social media? GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow, Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant: How China is putting together the "systematic capabilities" to attack Taiwan How does China's military continue to improve? The importance of Japan's military in helping the United States protect Taiwan
CAPT. JAMES FANELL, Retired Intelligence Officer for the Indo-Pacific, US Navy, former National Security Affairs Fellow, Hoover Institute A recent leak of classified U.S. military documents Why have previous leakers not been held accountable in the U.S.? A "breakdown of institutions" happening across American society What are the potential phases to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? The urgent need for the U.S. to prepare itself to help defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion COL. (RET.) JOHN MILLS, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Member, Committee on the Present Danger: China What is the United States' strategic interest in defending Taiwan? Differentiating between U.S. support of Ukraine and Taiwan Analyzing the possible ways China could attack Taiwan
Annie calls in Jim Carafano, the Vice President for Foreign & Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, to the show to ask him about the possibility of America going to war with China. Carafano speaks as an expert on this topic and breaks down the current threats to our Country.
The government may try to hide the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan - but Shaun will expose every corrupt piece of it! Frank Gaffney, Founder and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy, talks to Shaun about his new 'Sovereignty Coalition' and how they will prevent the surrender of our American Freedoms. PLUS, Bryce Hill, from the Illinois Policy Institute, shares shocking data of Chicago's pension problem and how Brandon Johnson is adding $1.1 million to it (not counting his mayoral pension!)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
BRADLEY THAYER, Director of China Policy, Center for Security Policy, Author, How China Sees the World A new split in Taiwanese politics Are there still elements in Taiwan who support the Chinese Communist Party? How would the Chinese blockade Taiwan? REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, President, Women's Rights Without Frontiers, @reggielittlejhn The launch of a new "Sovereignty Coalition" to encourage the U.S. to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) The WHO's impact on American sovereignty Are "digital health IDs" coming to the United States? ROBERT SPENCER, Director, Jihad Watch, Weekly columnist, PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, Author, “Mass Migration in Europe: A Model for the U.S.?,” and “Islamophobia and the Threat to Free Speech,” @jihadwatchRS A recent attack by the Islamic State in Vancouver, Canada Are members of ISIS coming to the United States posing as immigrants? Is the U.K. government doing anything about the grooming problem occurring there?
Mícheál Lehane, Political Correspondent, outlines what's on the agenda at cabinet today.
Micheál Martin, Tánaiste & Minister for Defence also talks to us about the visit of US President Joe Biden & the follow-up to the defence forces report
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #PRC:PLA Navy seeks naval supremacy in the Indo-Pacific & What is to be done? James Fanell, government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and retired U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/china-more-ships-than-us-by-2028
On this WPN Call #223, Dr. Jim Garlow is joined by three special guests: Kevin Freeman, one of the world's leading experts on economic warfare and financial terrorism, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy; Greg Berg, the VP of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management and a Well Versed Board Member; and Pastor Gary Cass, the senior pastor of Christ Community Reformed Church in San Diego, California. They discuss and explain everything we need to know about the recent bank closures and failures. Dr. Jim Garlow has partnered with Pastor Mario Bramnick and Terry Barnes to bring you World Prayer Network (WPN), which seeks out Holy Spirit given strategies for how to be an effective and contagious Christ-follower in our present national situations. WPN hosts weekly prayer calls to seek out strategies for the transformation of nations, including our own. During these live calls, we share briefings from key leaders and then pray into what we see and hear from the Lord. Follow us on social media: facebook.com/wellversedworld twitter: @wellversedworld instagram: @wellversedworld www.wellversedworld.org
If elected president, Senator Barack Obama promised a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” In the course of what's been called his third term, a nominal Biden administration dominated by Obama's staff is in the process of fundamentally transforming the world. Reflect, for example, on the Middle East at the end of Donald Trump's presidency. Our most important regional ally, Israel, had arguably never been stronger. Its strategic alliance with the U.S. was robust, encouraging stability through peace accords with former adversaries and isolating and deterring their common enemy, Iran. As an extremely timely Center for Security Policy webinar yesterday made clear, Israel is now isolated, undermined by Biden's Obama retreads, dangerously divided at home and facing an array of emboldened foes, including a nuclear-capable Iran backed by Communist China. That's a formula literally for disaster. This is Frank Gaffney.
COL. (RET.) JOHN MILLS, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Member, Committee on the Present Danger: China Would China attack U.S. bases or Taiwan first in the event of a kinetic conflict? The significance of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin's recent meeting in Russia Financial tools the U.S. has at its disposal to counter China PETER MCCULLOUGH, Board Certified Cardiovascular Diseases and Clinical Lipidology Expert, Former Chief Academic and Scientific Officer, St. John Providence Health System, President, Cardiorenal Society of America, @P_McCulloughMD The immense political power of the World Health Organization and World Economic Forum A "shift" in treating COVID-19 in recent months Is the FDA trying to block information about the COVID vaccines? Were the COVID vaccines subject to the same standards as other vaccines in the past?
BRADLEY THAYER, Director of China Policy, Center for Security Policy, Author, How China Sees the World Political warfare between the West and the Chinese Communist Party Is the CCP “illegitimate”? Comparing the Soviet Union to the modern-day CCP A new “link” between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping Do U.S. military leaders understand the fundamental values of communism with respect to the Chinese?
DAVID WURMSER, Director, Center for Security Policy's Program on Global Anti-Semitism, former Middle East Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, retired, US Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander The ongoing debate over Judicial Reform in Israel How the Israeli Supreme Court has increased its power in recent years Is Netanyahu at risk of losing his office? BILL WALTON, Host, The Bill Walton Show Why have people invested in Chinese companies in the past? Is China turning away new investors? Reasons to be skeptical of China's economic growth numbers KEVIN FREEMAN, Host, Economic War Room, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Author, “Game Plan: How to Protect Yourself from the Coming Cyber-Economic Attack” and “Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Can Happen Again,” Founder, Globaleconomiwarfare.com, @SecretWeaponUSA: The recent hearing at the Capitol with the CEO of TikTok Has the CCP weaponized the data gathering capabilities of TikTok? Are foreign governments trying to take advantage of the U.S. banking system?
Jim Carafano, Vice President for Foreign & Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, joins the show to discuss the potential TikTok ban, the recent shooting in Nashville, and other pressing matters in foreign and domestic policy.
"The Annie Frey Show" continues live from Mission Depot in High Ridge. In this episode, we dive into the topic of rising anti-Americanism with nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, Deroy Murdock. But the conversation doesn't stop there. We also talk with Jim Carafano, Vice President for Foreign & Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, to discuss the potential TikTok ban, the recent shooting in Nashville, and other pressing matters in foreign and domestic policy.
The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from censoring speech. In this episode, drawing from internal Twitter documents known as “the Twitter files” and Congressional testimony from tech executives, former Twitter employees, and journalists, we examine the shocking formal system of censorship in which government employees are using their influence over private companies to indirectly censor speech in a way that they are clearly prohibited from doing directly. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd270-the-twitter-files Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD224: Social Media Censorship CD141: Terrorist Gifts & The Ministry of Propaganda (2017 NDAA) CD113: CISA is Law The Twitter Files "Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary.” Matt Taibbi. Jan 4, 2023. Racket News. Matt Taibbi “The Democrats' Disastrous Miscalculation on Civil Liberties.” Matt Taibbi. Mar 12, 2023. Racket News. “#1940 - Matt Taibbi.” Feb 13, 2023. The Joe Rogan Experience. Hunter Biden Laptop Story “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.” “13. They did the same to Facebook, according to CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ‘The FBI basically came to us [and] was like, “Hey... you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016 election. There's about to be some kind of dump similar to that”'” [tweet]. Michael Shellenberger [@ShellenbergerMD]. Dec 19, 2022. Twitter. Influence, Propaganda, and Censorship “From the Twitter Files: Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to hide posts challenging his company's massively profitable Covid jabs.” Alex Berenson. Jan 9, 2023. Unreported Truths. “Twitter Aided the Pentagon in Its Covert Online Propaganda Campaign.” Lee Fang. December 20, 2022. The Intercept. “Facebook, Twitter dismantle a U.S. influence campaign about Ukraine.” Aug 24, 2022. The Washington Post. Angus King Takedown Request Spreadsheet Audio Sources Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, the Twitter Files March 9, 2023 House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Witnesses: Matt Taibbi, Journalist Michael Shellenberger, Author, Co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition Clips 17:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): In the run up to the 2020 Presidential election, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, in his deposition in Missouri versus Biden, said that he repeatedly, repeatedly, informed Twitter and other social media platforms of the likelihood of a hack and leak operation in the run up to that Presidential election. He did it even though there was no evidence. In fact, he said in his deposition that we hadn't seen anything, no intrusions, no hack, yet he repeatedly told them something was common. Yoel Ross, Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter, testified that he had had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other folks regarding election security. During these weekly meetings, federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected a hack and leak operation. The expectations of a hack and leak operation were discussed throughout 2020. And he was told they would occur in a period shortly before the 2020 Presidential election, likely in October. And finally, he said "I also learned in these meetings, that there were rumors that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden." So what did the government tell him? A hack and leak operation was coming. How often did the government tell him this? Repeatedly for a year. When did the government say it was going to happen? October of 2020. And who did the government say it would involve? Hunter Biden. 19:35 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): How did they know? Maybe it's because they had the laptop and they had had it for a year. 21:50 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Finally, as if on cue, five days later on October 19, 51 former intel[ligence] officials signed a letter with a now famous sentence "the Biden laptop story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Something that was absolutely false. 25:25 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): And the Republicans have brought in two of Elon Musk's public scribes to release cherry-picked, out-of-context emails and screenshots designed to promote his chosen narrative, Elon Musk's chosen narrative, that is now being paroted by the Republicans, because the Republicans think that these witnesses will tell a story that's going to help them out politically. 25:50 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): On Tuesday, the majority released an 18 page report claiming to show that the FTC is quote, "harassing" Twitter -- oh my poor Twitter -- including by seeking information about its interactions with individuals before us today. How did the report reach this conclusion? By showing two single paragraphs from a single demand letter, even though the report itself makes clear that there were numerous demand letters with numerous requests, none of which we've been able to see, that are more demand letters and more requests of Twitter. 28:05 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Mr. Chairman, Americans can see through this. Musk is helping you out politically and you're going out of your way to promote and protect him and to praise him for his work. 28:15 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): This isn't just a matter of what data was given to these so-called journalists before us now. 31:35 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Mr. Chairman, I'm not exaggerating when I say that you have called before you two witnesses who pose a direct threat to people who oppose them. 32:30 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): We know this is because at the first hearing, the Chairman claimed that big government and big tech colluded to shape and mold the narrative and suppress information and censor Americans. This is a false narrative. We're engaging in false narratives here and we are going to tell the truth. 37:35 Michael Shellenberger: I recognize that the law allows Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies to moderate content on their platforms and I support the right of governments to communicate with the public, including to dispute inaccurate information, but government officials have been caught repeatedly pushing social media platforms to censor disfavored users and content. Often these acts of censorship threaten the legal protection social media companies need to exist, Section 230. If government officials are directing or facilitating such censorship, and as one law professor, it raises serious First Amendment questions. It is axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. 41:50 Matt Taibbi: My name is Matt Taibbi, I've been a reporter for 30 years and a staunch advocate of the First Amendment. Much of that time was spent at Rolling Stone magazine. Ranking Member Plaskett, I'm not a "so-called" journalist. I've won the National Magazine Award, the I.F Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written 10 books, including four New York Times bestsellers. 45:35 Matt Taibbi: Ordinary Americans are not just being reported to Twitter for deamplification or deplatforming, but to firm's like Pay Pal, digital advertisers like Xandr, and crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe. These companies can and do refuse service to law abiding people and businesses whose only crime is falling afoul of a distant, faceless, unaccountable, algorithmic judge. 44:00 Matt Taibbi: Again, Ranking Member Plaskett, I would note that the evidence of Twitter-government relationship includes lists of tens of thousands of names on both the left and right. The people affected include Trump supporters, but also left leaning sites like Consortium and Truthout, the leftist South American channel TeleSUR, the Yellow Vest movement. That, in fact, is a key point of the Twitter files, that it's neither a left nor right issue. 44:40 Matt Taibbi: We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at [the Department of] State, even the CIA. For every government agency scanning Twitter, there were perhaps 20 quasi private entities doing the same thing, including Stanford's Election Integrity Partnership, Newsguard, the Global Disinformation Index, and many others, many taxpayer funded. A focus of this fast growing network, as Mike noted, is making lists of people whose opinions beliefs, associations, or sympathies are deemed misinformation, disinformation or malinformation. That last term is just a euphemism for true but inconvenient. Undeniably, the making of such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism. 1:01:00 Matt Taibbi: So, a great example of this is a report that the Global Engagement Center sent to Twitter and to members of the media and other platforms about what they called "the Pillars of Russian Disinformation." Now, part of this report is what you would call, I think you would call, traditional hardcore intelligence gathering where they made a reasoned, evidence baseed case that certain sites were linked to Russian influence or linked to the Russian government. In addition to that, however, they also said that sites that quote, "generate their own momentum," and have opinions that are in line with those accounts are part of a propaganda ecosystem. Now, this is just another word for guilt by association. And this is the problem with the whole idea of trying to identify which accounts are actually the Internet Research Agency and which ones are just people who follow those accounts or retweeted them. Twitter initially did not find more than a handful of IRA accounts. It wasn't until they got into an argument with the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that they came back with a different answer. 1:06:00 Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Before you became Elon Musk's handpicked journalists, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan's podcast about being spoon fed information. And I quote, "I think that's true of any kind of journalism," and you'll see it behind me here. "I think that's true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you've lost. They have you at that point and you got to get out of that habit. You just can't cross that line." Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan? Yes or no? Yes or no? Matt Taibbi: Yes. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Good. Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter files. Matt Taibbi: No. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Elon Musk -- It's my time, please do not interrupt me. Crowd: [laughter] Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Elon Musk spoon fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint, or at the very least generates another right wing conspiracy theory. 1:11:20 Matt Taibbi: That moment on the Joe Rogan show, I was actually recounting a section from Seymour Hersh's book, Reporter, where he described a scene where the CIA gave him a story and he was very uncomfortable. He said that "I, who had always gotten the secrets, was being handed the secrets." Again, I've done lots of whistleblower stories. There's always a balancing test that you make when you're given material, and you're always balancing newsworthiness versus the motives of your sources. In this case, the newsworthiness clearly outweighed any other considerations. I think everybody else who worked on the project agrees. 1:14:45 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Richard Stengel, you know who that is? Matt Taibbi: Yes, he's the former, the first head of the Global Engagement Center. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): I want the American people to hear from him for 30 seconds. Richard Stengel: Basically, every country creates their own narrative story. And, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the "chief propagandist" job. We haven't talked about propaganda. Propaganda. I'm not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population. 1:24:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): December 13, the very first letter that the FTC sends to Twitter after the Twitter files, 11 days after the first Twitter file, there have been five of them come out, the FTC's first demand in that first letter after the Twitter files come out is identify all journalists. I'm quoting "identify all journalists and other members of the media" to whom Twitter worked with. You find that scary, Mr. Taibbi, that you got a federal government agency asking a private company who in the press are you talking with? Matt Taibbi: I do find it scary. I think it's none of the government's business which journalists a private company talks to and why. I think every journalist should be concerned about that. And the absence of interest in that issue by my fellow colleagues in the mainstream media is an indication of how low the business has sunk. There was once a real esprit de corps and camaraderie within Media. Whenever one of us was gone after, we all kind of rose to the challenge and supported -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): It used to be, used to be the case. Matt Taibbi: Yeah, that is gone now. 1:28:50 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): How many emails did Mr. Musk give you access to? Michael Shellenberger: I mean, we went through thousands of emails. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Did he give you access to all of the emails for the time period in which? Michael Shellenberger: We never had a single, I never had a single request denied. And not only that, but the amount of files that we were given were so voluminous that there was no way that anybody could have gone through them beforehand. And we never found an instance where there was any evidence that anything had been taken out. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Okay. So you would believe that you have probably millions of emails and documents, right? That's correct, would you say? Michael Shellenberger: I don't know if -- I think the number is less than that. Matt Taibbi: Millions sounds too high. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Okay. 100,000? Matt Taibbi: That's probably closer. Michael Shellenberger: Probably, yeah. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): So 100,000 that both of you were seeing. 1:37:10 Matt Taibbi: There were a couple of very telling emails that wepublished. One was by a lawyer named [Sasha Cardiel???], where the company was being so overwhelmed by requests from the FBI and in fact they, they gave each other a sort of digital High Five after one batch, saying "that was a monumental undertaking to clear all of these," but she noted that she believed that the FBI was essentially doing word searches keyed to Twitter's Terms of Service, looking for violations of the Terms of Service, specifically so that they could make recommendations along those lines, which we found interesting. 1:48:15 Michael Shellenberger: And we haven't talked about Facebook, but we now know that we have the White House demanding that Facebook take down factual information and Facebook doing that. 1:48:25 Michael Shellenberger: And with Matt [Taibbi]'s thread this morning we saw the government contractors demanding the same thing of Twitter: accurate information, they said, that needed to be taken down in order to advance a narrative. 1:49:55 Matt Taibbi: You know, in conjunction with our own research, there's a foundation, the Foundation for Freedom Online, which, you know, there's a very telling video that they uncovered where the Director of Stanford's Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) talks about how CISA, the DHS agency, didn't have the capability to do election monitoring, and so that they kind of stepped in to "fill the gaps" legally before that capability could be amped up. And what we see in the Twitter files is that Twitter executives did not distinguish between DHS or CISA and this group EIP, for instance, we would see a communication that said, from CISA, escalated by EIP. So they were essentially identical in the eyes of the company. EIP is, by its own data, and this is in reference to what you brought up, Mr. Congressman, according to their own data, they significantly targeted more what they call disinformation on the right than on the left, by a factor I think of about ten to one. And I say that as not a Republican at all, it's just the fact of what we're looking at. So yes, we have come to the realization that this bright line that we imagine that exists between, say the FBI or the DHS, or the GEC and these private companies is illusory and that what's more important is this constellation of kind of quasi private organizations that do this work. 1:52:10 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): What was the first time that Mr. Musk approached you about writing the Twitter files? Matt Taibbi: Again, Congresswoman that would — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I just need a date, sir. Matt Taibbi: But I can't give it to you, unfortunately, because this this is a question of sourcing, and I don't give up... I'm a journalist, I don't reveal my sources. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): It's a question of chronology. Matt Taibbi: No, that's a question of sourcing — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Earlier you said that someone had sent you, through the internet, some message about whether or not you would be interested in some information. Matt Taibbi: Yes. And I refer to that person as a source. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So you're not going to tell us when Musk first approached you? Matt Taibbi: Again, Congresswoman, you're asking me, you're asking a journalist to reveal a source. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You consider Mr. Musk to be the direct source of all this? Matt Taibbi: No, now you're trying to get me to say that he is the source. I just can't answer — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Either he is or he isn't. If you're telling me you can't answer because it's your source, well, then the only logical conclusion is that he is in fact, your source. Matt Taibbi: Well, you're free to conclude that. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Well, sir, I just don't understand. You can't have it both ways. But let's move on because -- Unknown Representative 1: No, he can. He's a journalist. Unknown Representative 2: He can't, because either Musk is the source and he can't talk about it, or Musk is not the source. And if Musk is not the source, then he can discuss [unintelligible] Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): No one has yielded, the gentlelady is out of order, you don't get to speak — Multiple speakers: [Crosstalk] Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The gentlelady is not recognized...[crosstalk]...he has not said that, what he has said is he's not going to reveal his source. And the fact that Democrats are pressuring him to do so is such a violation of the First Amendment. Multiple speakers: [Crosstalk] Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I have not yielded time to anybody. I want to reclaim my time. And I would ask the chairman to give me back some of the time because of the interruption. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you, if you will give me the seconds that I lost. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): We will give you that 10 seconds. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Thank you. Now let's talk about another item. When you responded to the ranking member, you said that you had free license to look at everything but yet you yourself posted on your...I guess it's kind of like a web page...I don't quite understand what Substack is, but what I can say is that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions." What were those conditions? She asked you that question and you said you had none. But you yourself posted that you had conditions? Matt Taibbi: The conditions, as I've explained multiple times -- Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): No sir, you have not explained, you told her in response to her question that you had no conditions. In fact, you used the word licensed, that you were free to look at all of them. All 100,000 emails. Matt Taibbi: The question was posed, was I free to to write about — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, did you have any conditions? Matt Taibbi: The condition was that we publish — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, did you have any conditions? Yes or no? A simple question. Matt Taibbi: Yes. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): All right. Could you tell us what conditions those were? Matt Taibbi: The conditions were an attribution of sources at Twitter and that we break any news on Twitter. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): But you didn't break it on Twitter. Did you send the file that you released today to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: Did I send the...actually I did, yes. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Did you send it to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: The Twitter files thread? Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): That was one of the conditions? Yes or no, sir. Matt Taibbi: The Twitter files thread actually did come out first. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): But sir, you said earlier that you had to attribute all the sources to Twitter first. What you released today, did you send that to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: No, no, no, I post I posted it on Twitter Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): First. First, sir, or did you give it to the Chairman of the Committee or the staff of the Committee first? Matt Taibbi: Well, that's not breaking the story, that's giving...I did give — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So you gave all the information that you did not give to the Democrats, you gave it to the Republicans first, then you put it on Twitter? Matt Taibbi: Actually, no, the chronology is a little bit confused. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Well then tell us what the chronology was. Matt Taibbi: I believe the thread came out first. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Where? Matt Taibbi: On Twitter Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): On Twitter. So then you afterwards gave it to the Republicans, and not the Democrats? Matt Taibbi: Yes, because I'm submitting it for the record as my statement. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Did you give it to him in advance? Matt Taibbi: I gave it to them today. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You gave it to them today, but you still have not given anything to the Democrats. Well, I'll move on. 1:57:20 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Now in your discussion, in your answer, you also said that you were invited by a friend, Bari Weiss? Michael Shellenberger: My friend, Bari Weiss. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So this friend works for Twitter, or what is her....? Matt Taibbi: She's a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, I didn't ask you a question. I'm now asking Mr. Shellenberger a question. Michael Shellenberger: Yes, ma'am, Bari Weiss is a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I'm sorry, sir? Michael Shellenberger: She's a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): She's a journalist. So you work in concert with her? Michael Shellenberger: Yeah. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Do you know when she first was contacted by Mr. Musk? Michael Shellenberger: I don't know. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You don't know. So you're in this as a threesome? 2:00:10 Michael Shellenberger: Reading through the whole sweep of events, I do not know the extent to which the influence operation aimed at "pre-bunking" the Hunter Biden laptop was coordinated. I don't know who all was involved. But what we saw was, you saw Aspen and Stanford, many months before then, saying don't cover the material in the hack and leak without emphasizing the fact that it could be disinformation. Okay, so they're priming journalists to not cover a future hack and leak in a way that journalists have long been trained to in the tradition of the Pentagon Papers, made famous by the Steven Spielberg movie. They were saying [to] cover the fact that it probably came from the Russians. Then you have the former General Counsel to the FBI, Jim Baker, and the former Deputy Chief of Staff to the FBI, both arriving at Twitter in the summer of 2020, which I find, what an interesting coincidence. Then, when the New York Post publishes its first article on October 14, it's Jim Baker who makes the most strenuous argument within Twitter, multiple emails, multiple messages saying this doesn't look real. There's people, there's intelligence experts, saying that this could be Russian disinformation. He is the most strenuous person inside Twitter arguing that it's probably Russian disinformation. The internal evaluation by Yoel Roth, who testified in front of this committee, was that it was what it looked to be, which was that it was not a result of a hack and leak operation. And why did he think that? Because the New York Post had published the FBI subpoena taking the laptop in December of 2019. And they published the agreement that the computer store owner had with Hunter Biden that gave him permission, after he abandoned the laptop, to use it however he wanted. So there really wasn't much doubt about the provenance of that laptop. But you had Jim Baker making a strenuous argument. And then, of course, you get to a few days after the October 14 release, you have the president of the United States echoing what these former intelligence community officials were saying, which is that it looked like a Russian influence operation. So they were claiming that the laptop was made public by the conspiracy theory that somehow the Russians got it. And basically, they convinced Yoel Roth of this wild hack and leak story that somehow the Russians stole it, got the information, gave us the computer, it was bizarre. So you read that chain of events, and it appears as though there is an organized influence operation to pre-bunk.... Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Why do you think they could predict the time, the method, and the person? Why could the FBI predict it? Not only did they predict this, they predicted it, so did the Aspen Institute, seemed like everyone was in the know saying, here's what's gonna happen, we can read the future. Why do you think, how do you think they were able to do that? Michael Shellenberger: I think the most important fact to know is that the FBI had that laptop in December 2019. They were also spying on Rudy Giuliani when he got the laptop and when he gave it to the New York Post. Now, maybe the FBI agents who are going to Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Twitter executives and warning of a hack and leak, potentially involving Hunter Biden, maybe those guys didn't have anything to do with the guys that had the top. We don't know that. I have to say, as a newcomer to this, as somebody that thought it was Russian disinformation in 2020, everybody I knew thought it was Russian disinformation, I was shocked to see that series of events going on. It looks to me like a deliberate influence operation. I don't have the proof of it, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty disturbing. 2:14:30 Matt Taibbi: We found, just yesterday, a Tweet from the Virality Project at Stanford, which was partnered with a number of government agencies, and Twitter, where they talked explicitly about censoring stories of true vaccine side effects and other true stories that they felt encouraged hesitancy. Now the imp— Unknown Representative: So these were true. Matt Taibbi: Yes. So they use the word truth three times in this email, and what's notable about this is that it reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of this whole disinformation complex, anti-disinformation complex. They believe that ordinary people can't handle difficult truths. And so they think that they need minders to separate out things that are controversial or difficult for them, and that's again, that's totally contrary to what America is all about, I think. 2:17:30 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): Of course we all believe in the First Amendment, but the First Amendment applies to government prohibition of speech, not to private companies. 2:33:00 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): And even with, Twitter you cannot find actual evidence of any direct government censorship of any lawful speech. 2:33:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following email from Clarke Humphrey, Executive Office of the Presidency, White House Office, January 23, 2021. That's the Biden Administration. 4:39am: "Hey folks," this goes to Twitter, "Hey folks, wanted..." they used the term Mr. Goldman just used, "wanted to flag the below Tweet, and I'm wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP." 2:35:40 Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): He said the First Amendment applies to government censorship of speech and not private companies, but what we're talking about and what the Chairman just illustrated is that what we have here and what your Twitter files show is the Federal government has partnered with private companies to censor and silence the speech of American citizens. 2:29:20 Matt Taibbi: In the first Twitter files, we saw an exchange between Representative Ro Khanna and Vijaya Gadde, where he's trying to explain the basics of speech law in America and she's completely, she seems completely unaware of what, for instance, New York Times v. Sullivan is. There are other cases like Bartnicki v. Vopper, which legalized the publication of stolen material, that's very important for any journalists to know. I think most of these people are tech executives, and they don't know what the law is around speech and around reporting. And in this case, and in 2016, you are dealing with true material. There is no basis to restrict the publication of true material no matter who the sources and how you get it. And journalists have always understood that and this has never been an issue or a controversial issue until very recently. 2:44:40 Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Would you agree that there was a black list created in 2021? Michael Shellenberger: Sorry, yes, Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford Professor, who I don't think anybody considers a fringe epidemiologist, was indeed -- I'm sorry, I couldn't, I didn't piece it together -- he was indeed visibility filtered. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Correct. And so this blacklist that was created, that really was used to de-platform, reduce visibility, create lists internally, where people couldn't even see their profiles, that was used against doctors and scientists who produced information that was contrary to what the CDC was putting out, despite the fact that we now know that what they were publishing had scientific basis and in fact was valid. Michael Shellenberger: Absolutely. And not only that, but these are secret blacklists, so Professor Bhattacharya had no idea he was on it. 43:05 Matt Taibbi: The original promise of the internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow, its very existence a threat to anti-democratic forms of government everywhere. What we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise and use machine learning and other tools to turn the Internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. We saw the first hints and communications between Twitter executives before the 2020 election, when we read things like "flagged by DHS," or "please see attached report from FBI for potential misinformation." This would be attached to an Excel spreadsheet with a long list of names, whose accounts were often suspended shortly after. #1940 - Matt Taibbi February 13, 2023 The Joe Rogan Experience Clips Matt Taibbi: So this is another topic that is fascinating because it hasn't gotten a ton of press. But if you go back all the way to the early 70s, the CIA and the FBI got in a lot of trouble for various things, the CIA for assassination schemes involving people like Castro, the FBI for, you know, COINTELPRO and other programs, domestic surveillance, and they made changes after Congressional hearings, the Church Committee, that basically said the FBI, from now on, you have to have some kind of reason to be following somebody or investigating somebody, you have to have some kind of criminal predicate and we want you mainly to be investigating cases. But after 9/11 they peeled all this back. There was a series of Attorney General memos that essentially re-fashioned what the FBI does, and now they don't have to be doing crimefighting all the time. Now they can be doing basically 100% intelligence gathering all the time. They can be infiltrating groups for no reason at all, not to build cases, but just to get information. And so that's why they're there. They're in these groups, they're posted up outside of the homes of people they find suspicious, but they're not building cases and they're not investigating crimes. It's sort of like Minority Report there, right? It's pre-crime. Matt Taibbi: We see reports in these files of government agencies sending lists of accounts that are accusing the United States of vaccine corruption. Now, what they're really talking about is pressuring foreign countries to not use generic vaccines. Right. And, you know, that's a liberal issue, that's a progressive issue. The progressives want generic vaccines to be available to poor countries, okay? But, you know, you can use this tool to eliminate speech about that if you want too, right? I think that's what they don't get is that the significance is not who [it's used against], the significance is the tool. What is it capable of doing, right? How easily is it employed, and you know, how often is it used? And they don't focus on that. Joe Rogan: Has anything been surprising to you? Matt Taibbi: A little bit. I think going into it, I thought that the relationship between the security agencies like the FBI and the DHS and companies like Twitter and Facebook, I thought it was a little bit less formal. I thought maybe they had kind of an advisory role. And what we find is that it's not that, it's very formalized. They have a really intense structure that they've worked out over a period of years where they have regular meetings. They have a system where the DHS handles censorship requests that come up from the States and the FBI handles international ones, and they all float all these companies and it's a big bureaucracy. I don't think we expected to see that. Matt Taibbi: I was especially shocked by an email from a staffer for Adam Schiff, the Congressperson, the California Congressman. And they're just outright saying we would like you to suspend the accounts of this journalist and anybody who retweets information about this Committee. You know, I mean, this is a member of Congress. Joe Rogan: Yeah. Matt Taibbi: Right? Most of these people have legal backgrounds. They've got lawyers in the office for sure. And this is the House Intelligence Committee. Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story February 8, 2023 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Witnesses: Vijaya Gadde, Former Chief Legal Officer, Twitter James Baker, Former Deputy General Counsel, Twitter Yoel Roth, Former Global Head of Trust & Safety, Twitter Annika Collier Navaroli, Former Policy Expert for Content Moderation, Twitter Clips 14:50 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): What's more, Twitter's editorial decision has been analyzed and debated ad nauseam. Some people think it was the right decision. Some people think it was the wrong decision. But the key point here is that it was Twitter's decision. Twitter is a private media company. In America, private media companies can decide what to publish or how to curate content however they want. If Twitter wants to have nothing but Tweets commenting on New York Post articles run all day, it can do that. If it makes such tweets mentioning New York Post never see the light of day they can do that too. That's what the First Amendment means. 16:05 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Officially Twitter happens to think they got it wrong about that day or two period. In hindsight, Twitter's former CEO Jack Dorsey called it a mistake. This apology might be a statement of regret about the company being overly cautious about the risks of publishing contents and potentially hacked or stolen materials, or it may reflect craven surrender to a right wing pressure campaign. But however you interpreted the apology just makes the premise of this hearing all the more absurd. The professional conspiracy theorists who are heckling and haranguing this private company have already gotten exactly what they want: an apology. What more do they want? And why does the US Congress have to be involved in this nonsense when we have serious work to do for the American people? 26:20 James Baker: The law permits the government to have complex, multifaceted, and long term relationships with the private sector. Law enforcement agencies and companies can engage with each other regarding, for example, compulsory legal process served on companies, criminal activity that companies, the government, or the public identify, such as crimes against children, cybersecurity threats, and terrorism, and instances where companies themselves are victims of crime. When done properly, these interactions can be beneficial to both sides and in the interest of the public. As you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jordan, and others have proposed, a potential workable way to legislate in this area may be to focus on the actions of federal government agencies and officials with respect to their engagement with the private sector. Congress may be able to limit the nature and scope of those interactions in certain ways, require enhanced transparency and reporting by the executive branch about its engagements, and require higher level approvals within the executive branch prior to such engagements on certain topics, so that you can hold Senate confirmed officials, for example, accountable for those decisions. In any event, if you want to legislate, my recommendation is to focus first on reasonable and effective limitations on government actors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 31:05 Vijaya Gadde: On October 14, 2020, The New York Post tweeted articles about Hunter Biden's laptop with embedded images that looked like they may have been obtained through hacking. In 2018, we had developed a policy intended to prevent Twitter from becoming a dumping ground for hacked materials. We applied this policy to the New York Post tweets and blocked links to the articles embedding those sorts of materials. At no point to Twitter otherwise prevent tweeting, reporting, discussing or describing the contents of Mr. Biden's laptop. People could and did talk about the contents of the laptop on Twitter or anywhere else, including other much larger platforms, but they were prevented from sharing the primary documents on Twitter. Still, over the course of that day, it became clear that Twitter had not fully appreciated the impact of that policy on free press and others. As Mr. Dorsey testified before Congress on multiple occasions, Twitter changed its policy within 24 hours and admitted its initial action was wrong. This policy revision immediately allowed people to tweet the original articles with the embedded source materials, relying on its long standing practice not to retroactively apply new policies. Twitter informed the New York Post that it could immediately begin tweeting when it deleted the original tweets, which would have freed them to retweet the same content again. The New York Post chose not to delete its original tweets, so Twitter made an exception after two weeks to retroactively apply the new policy to the Post's tweets. In hindsight, Twitter should have reinstated the Post account immediately. 35:35 Yoel Roth: In 2020, Twitter noticed activity related to the laptop that at first glance bore a lot of similarities to the 2016 Russian hack and leak operation targeting the DNC, and we had to decide what to do. And in that moment with limited information, Twitter made a mistake. 36:20 Yoel Roth: It isn't obvious what the right response is to a suspected, but not confirmed, cyber attack by another government on a Presidential Election. I believe Twitter erred in this case because we wanted to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016. 38:41 Annika Collier Navaroli: I joined Twitter in 2019 and by 2020 I was the most senior expert on Twitter's U.S. Safety Policy Team. My team's mission was to protect free speech and public safety by writing and enforcing content moderation policies around the world. These policies include things like abuse, harassment, hate speech, violence and privacy. 41:20 Annika Collier Navaroli: With January 6 and many other decisions, content moderators like me did the very best that we could. But far too often there are far too few of us and we are being asked to do the impossible. For example, in January 2020 after the US assassinated an Iranian General and the US president decided to justify it on Twitter, management literally instructed me and my team to make sure that World War III did not start on the platform. 1:08:20 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Did the US government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to censor or moderate certain Tweets, yes or no? Vijaya Gadde: We receive legal demands to remove content from the platform from the US government and governments all around the world. Those are published on a third party website. 1:12:00 Yoel Roth: The number one most influential part of the Russian active measures campaign in 2016 was the hack and leak targeting John Podesta. It would have been foolish not to consider the possibility that they would run that play again. 1:44:45 Yoel Roth: I think one of the key failures that we identified after 2016 was that there was very little information coming from the government and from intelligence services to the private sector. The private sector had the power to remove bots and to take down foreign disinformation campaigns, but we didn't always know where to look without leads supplied by the intelligence community. That was one of the failures highlighted in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report and in the Mueller investigation, and that was one of the things we set out to fix in 2017. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): On September 8 2019, at 11:11pm, Donald Trump heckled two celebrities on Twitter -- John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen -- and referred to them as "the musician John Legend and his filthy mouth wife." Ms. Teigen responded to that email [Tweet] at 12:17am. And according to notes from a conversation with you, Ms. Navaroli's, counsel, your counsel, the White House almost immediately thereafter contacted Twitter to demand the tweet be taken down. Is that accurate? Annika Collier Navaroli: Thank you for the question. In my role, I was not responsible for receiving any sort of request from the government. However, what I was privy to was my supervisors letting us know that we had received something along those lines or something of a request. And in that particular instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet, and that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement towards the President. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): They wanted it to come down. They made that request. Annika Collier Navaroli: To my recollection, yes. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): I thought that was an inappropriate action by a government official, let alone the White House. But it wasn't Joe Biden, about his son's laptop. It was Donald Trump because he didn't like what Chrissy Teigen had to say about him, is that correct? Annika Collier Navaroli: Yes, that is correct. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): My, my, my. 1:45:15 Rep. Shontel Brown (D-OH): Mr. Roth, were those communication channels useful to Twitter as they work to combat foreign influence operations? Yoel Roth: Absolutely, I would say they were one of the most essential pieces of how Twitter prepared for future elections. 2:42:35 Rep. Becca Balint (D-VA): Ms. Gadde, did anyone from the Biden campaign or the Democratic National Committee direct Twitter to remove or take action against the New York Post story? Vijaya Gadde: No. 4:15:45 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And now we forward to 2020. And earlier you had testified that you were having regular interactions with National Intelligence, Homeland Security and the FBI. Yoel Roth: Yes, I did. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And primarily to deal with foreign interference? Yoel Roth: Primarily, but I would say -- Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): But you had said earlier your contact with Agent Chang was primarily with foreign interference? Yoel Roth: Yes, that's right. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And these were emails....were there meetings? Yoel Roth: Yes, Twitter met quarterly with the FBI Foreign Interference Task Force and we had those meetings running for a number of years to share information about malign foreign interference. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Agents from Homeland Security or Intelligence, or just primarily the FBI? Yoel Roth: Our primary contacts were with the FBI and in those quarterly meetings, they were, I believe, exclusively with FBI personnel. 4:18:05 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Earlier today you testified that you were following national security experts on Twitter as a reason to take down the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop. Yoel Roth: Yes, sir, I did. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): So after 2016, you set up all these teams to deal with Russian interference, foreign interference, you're having regular meetings with the FBI, you have connections with all of these different government agencies, and you didn't reach out to them once? Yoel Roth: Is that question in reference to the day of the New York Post article? Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Yeah. Yoel Roth: That's right. We generally did not reach out to the FBI to consult on content moderation decisions, especially where they related to domestic activity. It's not that we wouldn't have liked that information, we certainly would have. It's that I don't believe it would have been appropriate for us to consult with the FBI. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): In December of 2020, you did a declaration to the Federal Election Commission that the intelligence community expected a leak and a hack operation involving Hunter Biden. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the FBI warned Meta that there was a high effort of Russian propaganda including language specific enough to fit the Hunter Biden laptop security story. You're talking to these people for weeks and months, years prior to this leaking. They have specifically told you in October, that there's going to be a leak potentially involving Hunter Biden's laptop. They legitimately and literally prophesized what happened. And you didn't contact any of them? Yoel Roth: No, sir, I did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Did they reach out to you? Yoel Roth: On and around that day, to the best of my recollection, no, they did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): After the story was taken down and you guys did it, and you personally disagreed with it Ms. Gadde, did you contact them and say is "Hey, is this what you were talking about?" Yoel Roth: If that question was directed to me. No, I did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Ms. Gadde, did you talk to anybody from the FBI? Vijaya Gadde: Not to the best of my recollection. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): So I guess my question is, what is the point of this program? You have constant communication, they're set up for foreign interference. They've legitimately warned you about this very specific thing. And then all of a sudden, everybody just walks away? 5:18:55 Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM): We are devoting an entire day to this conspiracy theory involving Twitter. Now, the mission of this committee is to root out waste, fraud and abuse and to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people. And if you need any evidence of waste, fraud and abuse, how about the use of this committee's precious time, space and resources to commit to this hearing? 5:58:25 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Back to Mr. Roth, is it true that Twitter whitelisted accounts for the Department of Defense to spread propaganda about its efforts in the Middle East? Did they give you a list of accounts that were fake accounts and asked you to whitelist those accounts? Yoel Roth: That request was made of Twitter. To be clear, when I found out about that activity, I was appalled by it. I undid the action and my team exposed activity originating from the Department of Defense's campaign publicly. We've shared that data with the world and research about it has been published. 6:07:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Mr. Roth, I want to go back to your statement in your declaration to the FEC "I learned that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden," who did you learn that from? Yoel Roth: My recollection is it was mentioned by another technology company in one of our joint meetings, but I don't recall specifically whom. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): You don't know the person's name? Yoel Roth: I don't even recall what company they worked at. No, this was a long time ago. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): And you're confident that it was from a tech company, not from someone from the government? Yoel Roth: To the best of my recollection, yes. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Did anyone from the government, in these periodic meetings you had, did they ever tell you that a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden was coming? Yoel Roth: No. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Did Hunter Biden's name come up at all these meetings? Yoel Roth: Yes, his name was raised in those meetings, but not by the government to the best of my recollection. 6:09:30 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Mr. Roth, why were you reluctant, based on what I read in the Twitter files, why were you reluctant to work with the GEC? Yoel Roth: It was my understanding that the GEC, or the Global Engagement Center of the State Department, had previously engaged in at least what some would consider offensive influence operations. Not that they were offensive as in bad, but offensive as in they targeted entities outside of the United States. And on that basis, I felt that it would be inappropriate for Twitter to engage with a part of the State Department that was engaged in active statecraft. We were dedicated to rooting out malign foreign interference no matter who it came from. And if we found that the American government was engaged in malign foreign interference, we'd be addressing that as well. 6:13:50 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Twitter is a private company, but they enjoy special liability protections, Section 230. They also, according to the Twitter files, receive millions of dollars from the FBI, which is tax dollars, I would assume. And that makes it a concern of the Oversight Committee. Does Section 230's Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior? October 28, 2020 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, [Former] CEO, Twitter Sundar Pichai, CEO, Alphabet and Google Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook [Meta] Clips 2:20:40 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. 3:15:40 Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Why did you throttle it back? Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. Emerging Trends in Online Foreign Influence Operations: Social Media, COVID-19, and Election Security June 18, 2020 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles, Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado, Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google 1:40:10 Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow, Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant: An overview of the recent meeting between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin A Chinese "seal of approval" given to Putin A preview of Newsham's upcoming book When China Attacks: A Message to America Is the People's Liberation Army capable of defeating the United States? Could China intimidate the U.S. into not defending Taiwan?
Today, on the Truth & Liberty Live Call-In Show, join host Alex McFarland and special guest Frank Gaffney, Jr. of the Center for Security Policy as explore the question: Is Joe Biden guilty of treason?? Call 719-619-2341 to ask your questions!
Reasons to be Cheerful with Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd
Hello! Every day, remarkable acts of diplomacy are happening around the world to bring us one step closer to cooperation on our biggest conflicts and challenges. But how much do we really know about what goes on behind closed doors? And what are the ingredients of a successful negotiation? We speak to climate diplomacy legend and friend of the pod, Christiana Figueres, about her leadership on one of the most extraordinary diplomatic feats: the 2015 Paris Agreement. Gabrielle Rifkind, a specialist in conflict resolution, tells us about the importance of finding the ‘human face' of conflict. Finally, the EU's former top diplomat Catherine Ashton talks to us about the highs and lows of her time on the job, and why all of us are diplomats without even knowing it.Plus: We've talked sandwiches, we've talked toasters. Have a guess at which gadget has Ed bought for himself this week...GuestsChristiana Figueres, co-founder of Global Optimism and former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC 2010-2016 (@CFigueres / @OutrageOptimism) Gabrielle Rifkind, Specialist in conflict resolution and Director of the Oxford Process (@OxfordProcess)Catherine Ashton, Former High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and author of And then what? Inside stories of 21st century diplomacy More informationBuy a copy of Catherine's bookListen to Outrage and Optimism, Christiana and Tom Rivett-Carnac's podcastLearn more about the Oxford Process'We need to rethink how we do diplomacy,' Guardian Article, Catherine AshtonLearn more about the Paris Agreement, the legally binding treaty on climate change Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
KEVIN FREEMAN, Host, Economic War Room, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Author, “Game Plan: How to Protect Yourself from the Coming Cyber-Economic Attack” and “Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Can Happen Again,” Founder, Globaleconomiwarfare.com, @SecretWeaponUSA: What is the "Great Reset"? Were the recent banking collapses planned? How "Unrestricted Warfare" threatens the United States economically DEDE LAUGESEN, Director, Save the Persecuted Christians Dede Laugesen's first-hand experience volunteering in Nigeria The mass persecution of Christians throughout Africa CHERYL CHUMLEY, Author, “Socialists Don't Sleep: Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall,” Opinion Editor, The Washington Times, Twitter: @ckchumley How the origin of COVID-19 has come to light recently The impact of face masks on crime in New York City Is there a possibility of Alejandro Mayorkas being impeached?
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #AUKUS: Sturdy ambition for the century. James Fanell, government fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and retired U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-us-uk-australia-nuclear-submarines-path-of-error-and-danger/
Col. John Mills, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Member, Committee on the Present Danger: China Is "Peace Through Strength" no longer operating in the U.S.? How the U.S. has returned to the military policy of Jimmy Carter The importance of Guam and Hawaii when it comes to the U.S. defending Taiwan ELAINE DONNELLY, Founder and President, Center for Military Readiness A shortage of military recruits across the U.S. The Army's revival of an old military slogan to entice more people to join the armed forces ROBERT SPENCER, Director, Jihad Watch, Weekly columnist, PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, Author, “Mass Migration in Europe: A Model for the U.S.?,” and “Islamophobia and the Threat to Free Speech,” @jihadwatchRS A new 'agreement' between Saudi Arabia and Iran Could the Saudis and Iran combine forces against Israel or the United States in the future?