Matt Taibbi: How Intel Agencies Control the Media, Putin’s Rise to Power, and 2024 Predictions

Maybe it's Italian? It's Italian, by way of. Lebanese. It's like the Sicilian. Arabic. Yes. Yeah, but I'm neither. My father's Filipino. My mother's Irish. He was adopted. Oh, my dad was adopted too. Really? Yeah. Oh, wow.

Okay, so here's my question. You're a reporter. You've been a reporter your entire. life. Your dad was a reporter, well. known reporter. So you grew up in journalism. Journalism is now justly, I would. say, the most hated profession. The Sackler family is more popular. than NBC news at this point. Right. And Congress is more popular. Like Congress is literally. Yeah. People are like, you know, maybe a child molester can be fixed.

We don't need to execute them. But NBC news. Okay. So but, so that's bewildering, I'm sure, for. you. But for those of us. who are having trouble remembering. what the media landscape look like. in like 1990 when. you were finishing college, what. were your assumptions about. journalism? What did you think you. were getting into when you started? So I grew up around my. dad's work. Yeah. He was a TV. reporter in. Kind of the heyday of.

local. Affiliate news, like. Yeah, as portrayed in anchorman. Yeah. The bad. Facial hair, all. That stuff. So I used to hang around the. newsroom all the time, and my father. is sort of a reporters reporter. He's very gifted at striking. up conversations with people. He's really good at that aspect of. the job, which is. You know. I would say probably the most. important thing, which is being able. to talk to people and get. everybody's perspective. He would be able to go to, you know, any scene of fire or. Murder or whatever.

Instantaneously get people talking. to him and trusting him and. Well, what where does that skill. come from? I think you just have to be born. with it. Yeah. There's certain. lights that are gregarious ness, right? That some people. Have likes people. Yeah, he likes people. He's he he's. Able to, you know, sort of strike up. conversations quickly. And I was very shy growing. up. So the, the first thing I. concluded was I'm never going to be. able to do that. Right. So this is you know, this. is like a superpower that he has. that I don't. Yeah. And I thought I would have to go in.

a different direction. I also. Grew up wanting to be. a. Fiction writer. Right. I was really obsessed with. that growing up. And then when I got out of college, I realized that the only. thing I really knew how to do. Was his job. Because. I had watched it so much growing up. And so it was something that. would keep. Me, at least. Tangentially in the writing. business. So I got into it, and only. over time that I really appreciate.

The way they did. Reporting back then, it was a much. different thing than what. You think. It was honorable. Like when you were a kid, did you. think, like my dad did something. embarrassing or my dad does. something important and useful? No. I thought what he did was. important, useful and. honest. And, you know. There was something very egalitarian. about the way reporters, carried. themselves. Once upon a time, they. You know, only now.

our journalists, you know. Universally. Called from the. Ivy leagues and these upper class. schools. In fact, you know, I was. part of that generation of sort of. rich kids who went into. Journalism when my. Father went into it, he started when. he was 18. Journalism was more of a trade, than a profession. It wasn't necessary to have a. college education. And most of the people who went into. it. They had kind. Of a natural, anticipated antipathy. for people in power. Yes.

They. Overwhelmingly sided with the. ordinary person, just. reflexively. And they were, you know, they told. The news from that perspective. Very often. Right. And it was the classic. Editorialist at the time was. somebody like. You know. Jimmy Breslin or Mike Royko, the sort of voice of the people, kind of a thing. And so I grew up always imagining. that the reporter. Was. Somebody who was on the side of. ordinary people. And I guess. I was one, right?

Yeah, exactly. And, you know, my father carried it. that way for sure. And, so I. did. Your father never go to college? No. He did. He went to, he went to. Rutgers. He had me. While he was at Rutgers. That's why he had to go into. reporting. He worked at the Home News and, in New Brunswick, new Jersey, and, and then, you know, as soon as, as soon as you. graduated, you went to the TV. But, but no, I always. Had this vision of, of.

Journalism as this. Thing that, you know, it wasn't. It wasn't for intellectuals, it. wasn't for. You know, people who had graduate. degrees. It was for people. who hustled, who worked. Hard and. Had, you know, kind of. A common touch. Right? Like, that's kind of the key. to the job was being willing to. listen to people and all that. So I had a, a very specific. idea of what journalism was. when I went into it. I just thought I wasn't going to be. particularly good at it, because.

because of that. You know, deficit. Right. Like, I didn't have that. Gift that he had. But I started overseas. in Russia and. Because I was able to, I spoke. Russian already early. I had an advantage over, other American reporters. At the time. What year did you go to Russia? So I studied in 89. And 90 when it was. Still Soviet. You know, I took a year. and a half abroad. And. Then went back as soon as I.

graduate. Actually, I went back. before I graduated and. started stringing and working for. A bunch of different organizations. there and finally got a job at an. expert. So 91 ish. Yeah. 91, 92, right. after the revolution, basically. Yeah. Which was 91st August. Yeah. Summer. August 91st. Yeah. So shortly. After that. What was it like? It was amazing. It was the Wild West, you know? I mean, the funny thing for me is. if people ask me, why did I love.

Russia so much? I mean, the first reason was, is. that all my favorite writers growing. up are Russians in my, you know, Nikolai Gogol was my hero. I wanted. To be a. Comic novelist. And the Russians have so many. amazingly funny writers as you. as you know. Right. You know, from Bulgakov. to, you know, to dove. Lots of all these people. I wanted to learn the language. Then. When I got there, I had been a very. depressed, teenager. had, you know, struggled socially, behaviorally, all these other. things. I got to late Soviet.

Russia and everybody's depressed. And, you know, nobody's happy. And I thought, this is amazing. I fit right. In. And, you want a dark. Slavic soul, and you didn't even. know it. Yeah, exactly. And and, you know, in America. There's this incredible pressure on. young people. You have to succeed. right away. Right? Cheerful. Yeah. Be cheerful. Look good. Be in shape like all. these other things. Russians. No way that there was none of that. and nobody was going anywhere.

And, when. I got there, that was just. incredibly attractive. To me. And, and, and so, you know. Well, I've never heard that take. before. That is. Awesome. No, it was, it was, it. Was really funny. And because of. that, I, you know, I got along with, Russians in a way probably that. other Americans didn't. You know, I think, there was. a connection there that was that was. very natural. And, I really took to the place. early on. How did you speak the language? Well, I mean, it's like any anybody.

you you like, you come to the United. States. If you have no choice, you. have to speak English. You'll learn it pretty quickly. So, I studied. In. Saint Petersburg, but then I. briefly went to Uzbekistan. Because I had this idea that there. weren't that many stringers in. Uzbekistan. So I would get more. Work and. There was no noticed. I don't know that there are stringers. anymore. What's a stringer? So a stringer is like a person. who, is not on. staff for a newspaper. But just sort.

Of sits in a place and waits for. something to happen. And then, you know, like the New. York Times or the AP will call them. and say, hey, can you, can. you chase down that. You know. Thing that happened in my case, an earthquake that happened in. Kyrgyzstan gave me a an early chance. to write a couple of stories. Right. And. Would you write them for I think. I. Wrote one for AP, in 1991. I ended up. Getting thrown out of. them because I had a bad visa.

But while I was there, I really learned Russian. because nobody there spoke English. And I also, was on. the Uzbek national baseball team, which was hilarious. How. So one day I was walking past one of. the colleges, and I saw people. playing baseball. And I was going to keep walking. And then I thought, I mean. Who is Becca Stanton? What the what? What is it? That, it turned out that, there was I think it was. Like a. Refrigeration school. And there were a whole bunch. Of students from Cuba.

And, you know, those. Guys could really play, right? So I just went and asked, you guys mind if I play with you? And, so I ended. up being a catcher on a team. full of. Cubans. With a Russian coach. And, we played other. central, Asian countries, and it was hilarious. Yeah, yeah, we had. We had ground rules. This is going to. Sound like a fake story, but it's. true. We had. Ground rules. We played in a pasture. If you hit a sheep, it was a double.

I'm sorry. If you had a cow, it was. a double. If you get a sheep, it was. a triple. That is a true story. That anyone ever hit a coward. No, no, no, no. We only played, like, two games in. that place, so. But, but that actually happened. I was actually playing baseball. When I. When I got thrown out of the. country. So Uzbekistan in 1991. was not a first world place? No. It's Becca. Stan was, you. know, it's kind of a typical. Soviet Soviet satellite country. It was really struggling. economically.

It had all kinds of problems, you. know. And environmentally, you. Know. Used to be at the big cotton. producer for the Soviet Union. And then, you know, they. That. Sort of dried up for a variety of. reasons to see if I was off is is. now gone. Right. So, it was a troubled place. There was a war going on in. Tajikistan. Right next to us. And so it was an interesting. place to be. But, you know. It was sort of my first experience.

What did your parents think? My mother was terrified. When I when I got. Thrown out of the country, I. got a visit by. these people who were, I guess there. were for it was the SNB, the. The nazionale, the invisibles. in the city, which is just the, their version of the KGB. And, they asked me. for my papers. I had the wrong papers. I was there in a student visa that. I'd kind of, you know, was kind of phony.

And, but I had to send a telegram, telling my parents that I'd been. kicked out of the country. So I wrote KGB kicking me. out. Well, a call from Moscow, but. she got. KGB kicking me gut. We'll call. I'm going to get beaten to death by. the KGB. So. She was worried, but. But no, it was fine. But your dad was for it. Yeah, I think he he he. thought the whole, you know. Adventure thing was interesting. And then when he finally visited.

Russia in the mid 90s, you know, and saw what the place was. like at the time, he thought. it was, you know, a Paradise for. journalists, which it was, because. there was so much crazy stuff. going on. And. It was a great place to learn the. profession. Really? Yeah. What was press freedom like then? It was really interesting. There was a very vibrant community. of, really. hardcore, great investigative.

reporters who suddenly appeared out. of nowhere because, remember, the. press had been suppressed. almost completely for, you. know, 88 years. Right? And after, as soon as there was. a, you know, a little bit. of an opening to do real. reporting, there were. suddenly these very brave, reporters who showed up and, you know, they were they were. risking their lives every time they. wrote. Because the way the system. was set up was that every newspaper. was basically owned by a different.

gangster. And you would. Get material, they called it selling. jeans over there. Right. So somebody would get give. you a, a packet. of information, you would write it. up about the rival. Gangland. Figure or politician. And then. But if they wanted you to pay the. price, you would, you know, you. might get shot in a doorway or. something like that. So there were people who got killed. by exploding briefcases. For instance, there was a guy named. Diem of Hollywood off who worked.

for, Moscow. So he comes similar to when I was. there who had written about. Yeltsin's defense minister. He got blown up in a train station. But. You know, the Russians, those guys. were my heroes. I tagged. on to a bunch of those. people really early, and. that's really, kind of really. learned. The whole investigative. journalism thing was from those. people. You know, not. All of whom stayed in. the business for very long, sometimes not voluntarily. You stayed ten years?

Yes. Yeah. How come? I mean, I love the place I was. planning on staying forever. Really? You know, then things. Definitely turned weird. When the transformation from. Yeltsin to Putin happened. Yes. You know, we. All, none of us had any illusions. about who Putin was. Putin was a known quantity. He was the deputy mayor of Saint. Petersburg when I was a student in. Saint Petersburg. He he was. Kind of known as.

Well, I. Mean. There were all sorts of stories that. were told about him back then. And when he first came to. To power in Moscow, it was sort of widely understood. that he was doing it. And Yeltsin even writes about this. in his biography. Because Yeltsin needed help. getting out of the country and. escaping prosecution. And. There there had been some. indication that Putin had done that. for his previous boss, the mayor. of Saint Petersburg, Anatoly. Sobchak.

So, you know. The sort of investigative journalism. community was very suspicious of. Putin when he when he first arrived. But the. Western journalism community. loved him and loved. Putin there. Yeah. And this was, you. know, I. Had already become disillusioned. With American. Journalism before that for because. they had misreported a lot of things. about post-communist Russia. But that was kind of like the last. straw for me. I think traditionally think.

tanks do a lot of thinking, and the. Heritage Foundation still does that. But it also, thankfully has. begun doing heritage, has built a massive investigative. and litigation operation out. of its headquarters to save. this country from the corruption. that is taking it over both. actual literal corruption, financial corruption. There's a lot. of that, but also ideological and. moral corruption. And to fight back. Heritage is engaging in almost 50. separate lawsuits against various. government entities to try and try. out information to bring a little.

sunlight to the process that even. Congress can't get. And it's been working. They produced documents exposing the. Biden crime family to the rest of. the world. You've read those stories and helped. kill the sweetheart deal that. Biden's DOJ tried to make with. his son, Hunter Biden. Harris also developed a. comprehensive plan to dismantle the. deep state, the swamp, by. staffing the next administration. with people who know what they're. doing. Thousands of Americans. who on day one, can start. to make this country better.

So it's important work. Again, it's not just thinking, it's. doing. And if you want to support. it, go to heritage.org/tucker. push back of one click. What did they miss. Report. So they would they would. send somebody out to some. Provincial town like Samara. With they. With an assignment. find the thriving. emerging middle class. Right. And so you'd go. To a place where there's like a. barter economy.

Right. And, and people are doing. subsistence farming, you know, and they would and they would ask. around until they found somebody who. had, you know, a. VCR who or who had been. on a vacation to a beats or wants or. something like that. And then they would do a whole story. like, you know, transition to. capitalism. You know, flourishing. You know, the emerging middle. classes, you know, everything's. happening right on schedule. And meanwhile, the country was. really in the Yeltsin years, was. really doing very badly.

Right. It's in contrast. to now, you know, Russia was experiencing. sort of record levels of early. deaths. Yes. All kinds of horrific things. They weren't telling people back. home. And so I. Because the, the the expat. community and you know, I, I don't. really. Know exactly how this works. But the. There was a monoculture about the. reporting there that is very. similar to what it's like now in.

America. But there it was sort of. cartoon ized. It's a very small community. Everybody knew everybody. Else. And, you know, whatever. The Washington Post in The New York. Times wrote about. Pretty. Much everybody else followed their. lead. There was almost nobody, among. The reporters who even spoke. Russian. Right. Like that was total. How can you how can you. cover a country if you don't speak. the language? Because that was the tradition. I mean, if you people would come in, they would cycle in there for a few.

years. They would work with. translators. They stayed in a little compound on. Tuesdays ski prospect, which is, you. know, right near the center of the. city. In the Soviet days, it was sort of. walled. Off by. White design, but they continued. living there for some reason that I. didn't really understand. And with a couple of exceptions, you know, I can think there was a. Boston Globe reporter who was. fantastic, right, while I was there. But for the most part. You know, people came in and they, they just treated it as a. You know, as a third world.

backwater. It's like, you know, if. you've read the quiet American read, it was it was that attitude toward. But I don't understand. So if you don't speak a language, I mean, I've lived here for 55. years. I speak English as a native. speaker. I barely understand. the country. It's just too. complicated, right? But if you can't speak the language, you just don't understand it at all. You either. You have no hope of. understanding it. Do you? That's what I thought, right? And this was. not just the journalists, but also. the diplomats there.

But, you know, the diplomats. Didn't speak Russian. Diplomats didn't speak Russian. You know, we we have a, the, the ambassador to to. to Russia, Michael McFaul. He couldn't he could barely put a. sentence together in Russian. So, it was. What is that that just seems like a. baseline requirement. So the the way it was explained to, to us was. That this this was something that. was a hangover from, the American diplomatic experience. in China before the Maoist. revolution, where the diplomats were. deemed to have been too close to.

the local population. Didn't warn, the people back home what was. happening. So, they. made a habit out of cycling. people from spot. To spot so. That they wouldn't become too, accustomed to the culture, or. to acculturated. Right. Which I can maybe. See the rationale for a diplomat. Maybe. But for a journalist, it makes. no sense at all. Right. So, to not.

to not understand the. The. Place that you're reporting on. So by then. You know, I just it. It doesn't make sense to not. understand the place your reporting. on that and I think I think we can. agree on that. Right. Yeah. But so, so it was, it. was a, a strange. activity that a. Lot of them were involved in where. they, they mostly. interviewed the English. Speaking. Officials in the Yeltsin government. Right. A lot of them had gone to Harvard. They were getting one very specific.

version of what Russia was. going through, what its. Challenges were. And at the time, by. then, I had already branched off. I had left. The. Expat paper, The Moscow Times. I started up my own newspaper, which. was like a nightlife guide, and. I started doing. This thing. In opposition to that, which was. I would go around the country. getting jobs and weird places, like. I was working as a bricklayer. in Siberia. Yeah, I.

Did, I worked at. a monastery in Mordovia. What did. You do in the monastery? A construction, you know. So. Well, just new tour of the. country and kind of find out exactly. how people, were doing. what what the situation was like. And it was an an amazing. discovery because every. every place I went, I learned about. a new lie that was being told. You know. To people back home. And it it was deeply. disillusioning for me. I mean, I know you've had.

experiences like this in journalism, too, right? Where you find. out that something you thought is. totally wrong. And, and. That was a real eye opener for me. But completely wrong. Completely wrong. Yeah, exactly. And moreover, that was. Proven. Relatively quickly, right? There was a massive financial. collapse in 98, and then Putin came in, and there was a popular. repudiation. Of the, you know.

So the American style. Version of managed. democracy that existed. under Yeltsin. And that. Was real. I mean, Putin, Putin for. all, for all of his, problems. And I was a. real critic of Putin's when I was. there. There was no question that it was. much more popular than Yeltsin. I mean, you know, the country was. very embarrassed by Yeltsin, because he was publicly drunk. all the time. Yes.

Dysfunctional. I mean, I think we're. we're living through some of those. emotions now. Yes we are. Yeah. That's right. It's shameful. Yeah. And and so they, they wanted. to, you know, their word was. a senior ultra car, right. They wanted a strong hand, who would come in and kind of. set things right and, and compete. with the Americans. And they didn't they didn't like. being thought of as a vassal state. to the West. This is an ancient conflict. for Russia and America. This goes back to the days. of Peter the Great. You know, the Slava files versus.

the. The. The Western, you know, the, the pro-Western crew. And the pendulum. swung the other. Way while I was there, you know, and, that was, you know, fascinating to watch, but. it had some pretty serious. consequences, too. Well, yeah, the veteran had to be. right. Yeah. So. But. As for journalists like you, you. began to become disillusioned. with the American version in the. 90s. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. While I while I was in Russia.

Yeah. I became disillusioned both with the. format of it, you know, the the kind of neutral third. person. Version of reporting where we. pretend we're not having a point of. view. I didn't like that, you know, like, for instance, I would get sent out. when I was at the Moscow Times, which is a paper I love. But they would send me to all these. events, where funny. things would happen. I would come back and read it up. with humor, and they would tell me. to take out the humor and write it.

in some other way. That was like, more serious. And I think. That's a lie. Right? Like if you. If you go. To a scene that's funny. Like, for instance, I had the cover. of this ridiculous press conference. where. Prince Philip appeared for, I think, the World Wildlife Fund or. something like that. And he's giving a speech to all. these Russians about, you know, their backward attitudes about. conservation and everything. And in the middle of his speech, the. Hotel brings the spread, which. includes boos. And all the.

Reporters get up and leave Prince. Philip talking by himself. What they say? Well, they just eat. all the food and drink and drink all. the booze. And to me, that's the story. Yeah, yeah. You know, so I went home and I wrote. that up and they, you know, they. kind of wanted me to do something. Else, like pretend it didn't happen. Right. Exactly. And I thought, well. You know, this isn't right. You know, I mean, I was just a kid. I didn't really know, but I thought. there's something not quite right. about that. To what extent, in retrospect, do. you think that Western news. organizations were taking their cues. from Western businesses.

or Western governments? Oh. I mean, 90%, 95%. Really? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, if you go back and look. At the coverage of, you know, the. New York Times, the Washington. Post's, you know. Some other organizations, you know, the current deputy prime minister of. Canada, Chrystia Freeland. Was sort of. A colleague at the time. She was part of that whole crew of. Western journalists there. What was she like?

Well, they were all doing kind of. the same thing. Like the. Basic line. Was. That there. Was a new group of robber baron. capitalists. Who had. Appeared, and yes, it was messy. It was a messy transition to. capitalism. Was that was the word. they used for? No, actually, it was. just pure gangsterism. And most of the people who got. Rich. Did so through absolutely. corrupt privatization. Yeah. Schemes were like, for instance, there was a thing called loans for. shares, but the government was.

literally lending the money to. cronies so that they could buy. companies like Exxon for pennies on. the dollar. You know, I mean, like. Yukos, for instance, was a gigantic. oil company worth. You know. As much as any Western. oil company would be worth. So they bought it for nothing, basically for for a pittance, because they were pals of the people. in government. So they created an instant. billionaire class, and that was. completely passed over and nobody. reported on that. Then. Once these people had money,

they were treated. As the sort. of legitimate. wealth. Creators and. You know, preneur. Yeah, exactly. They didn't they weren't. even with the robber barons who at. least, like, built railroads. Right? You know, like these guys. didn't. Do anything except steel, you. know, they were wealth extractors. And, and it was amazing. watching the hype.

of. Of these figures. The. The whitewashing of Yeltsin's. complete misrule, his. You know, his. Brutalizing of domestic. journalists. Right? I mean, like the there was a. ton of that going on in the 90s, long before Putin came to office and. became infamous for McGill. Yes. There were so many journalists. who were killed before Putin came. under Yeltsin. Yeah. The guy eventually. Putin kills journalists. No, no, I know this this started.

this started from the very. beginning. They were doing this. I mean, that guy I told you about. with the exploding briefcase, that. was in 1994 when that happened. You know, there were. Two. There. There were lot. I had a. Friend, not exactly. a friend, somebody I knew well, Alexander Considine, who also worked. for a newspaper there. He got thrown in a mental. institution, in. the Yeltsin years, there were there. Were all sorts. Of reporters shot. If you go in. And shot, shot, killed, beaten.

You know, I had another friend. Named, Leonid Kirchhoff. Who was not only fired every time he. did an exposé, but, you know, he, he. would be attacked. He had somebody come through his. window one night, if I remember. correctly. So it was a dangerous profession. before Putin came to office. Now, obviously, it went to a new. level once he came in. And, you know, there were people I. knew who died. Right. You know. In the years after he became. president.

But it wasn't an appreciably. different vibe for journalists. The the difference was that they. That Putin. Concentrated government. authority in a way that had. not been done previously. before. It was more of like a gang. land free for all. Putin came in, he took over the last. remaining independent television. station, and. TV. He had the. One of the oligarchs arrested, Vladimir Brzezinski and.

You know, the, the. owner. Of, bank manager Mikhail. Khodorkovsky. Famously. Famously put in jail, you know, they were sponsors of. media as well. So. But the only thing that was. different is that the government was. exerting sort of overt. Control. Over, over media. And they were they were stamping out. the individual pockets of. opposition. So during the Yeltsin years, it was. very dangerous. You just you you. Did still have some freedom to do. really good work.

And that's why those people. were amazing. Like, you know, they were. Risking. Everything every time they did a. story and they were still doing it. They just had they had such balls. It was incredible to watch. It's just interesting. And then the contrast, by the way, with between that and the on the. Americans right was was so striking. for me. But why would American. journalists be providing cover. for Yeltsin or ignoring. the downside of Yeltsin? So some of it was cultural. You know, you come in, you.

don't speak the language. It's a temporary assignment. You're hanging around with a bunch. of other Westerners. And so you don't see. Right like that. That was a very typical thing. The few reporters who, you know. Spoke the language and or, you know, married Russian women, right? Or were Russian. Men. They were better, right? Because they were at least in tune. to what was going on in the country. But Moscow was still, and Saint Petersburg were like a. different country compared to what. was going on in the rest of Russia.

You know, you could be in Moscow and. it would seem like a more. or less functional place. You go. 40 miles outside of the city, and. again, there's subsistence farming, you know, and, or there's. Whole stretches. Where there's no government and. people are just setting up toll. roads. You know. They're they're putting on, fatigues. and creating their own toll booths. So it's like Beirut. Yeah, exactly. And but if you didn't. know, if you didn't go out, you.

wouldn't see it, you know? So I think that was it was a problem. of perception for a lot of these. folks. And. But, I thought it was inexcusable. because, you. know, as a reporter, your first job. is, is to find out, you know, to check for yourself. And how. Are you treated by government there. So. We had a unique. Position because we were publishing. in Russia. So unlike all those other reporter.

American reporters, I was. technically a Russian news. organization. We had a Russian newspaper. We had a Russian business. Right. So even though we were an in in. English, we were regulated by. You know, the Russian government. We got visited every now and. then by the tax police asking for. bribes and then, after. after I left, they eventually shut. the paper down. So. But they, you know.

They paid attention to us, but. it wasn't the same as, the way they paid attention to, you know, the New York Times and. other reporters. I mean, there were. people who are Porthleven. The cops remember that name? Yeah. Yeah. So he got he got shot, right? While he was there and. I don't. I don't know that it was a Russian. government interest that that did. that, but they were paying attention. to coverage that went out overseas. They weren't. They didn't care so. much about what I was doing, which.

was writing for people who are in. Russia. And, no. And also we were writing in English, so God knows how many. Russian officials. They were even understanding what we. were doing. So. Yeah. So how did. Well, first of all, why did you leave? Well. It became harder and harder. The expat community shrank, when Putin came to power, which killed our advertiser. base.

And, I. We had a humor newspaper that was. sort of loosely based on. Like a cross between spy magazine. and screw and I. I kind of thought that we would, you know, run the course. Yeah. Creatively, while I was. there. And, you know, I. At some point I just wanted to come. home, but. But also, you know, it it kind. Of turned. Nasty. You know, some of the people who I. knew, I like, I.

vaguely knew Anna Politkovskaya, for instance, who got killed while I. was there. And there was another. reporter who is sort of a mentor to. me. This guy here is like a. Chicken who. Became a, Duma deputy. He. Died under mysterious circumstances. Some people said it was a poisoned. telephone. I mean, who knows? Right. But, it got kind of unpleasant. And, you know, I the community. Was just not as as big.

as it had been in, in the 90s. I mean, Moscow in the. late 90s was an incredible scene. It was like Chicago in the 30s. Mean it's it's very. difficult to describe what it was. actually like. You know, gangsters everywhere, bodies, you know, all over the. place, people being thrown out of. windows. There were terrorist. explosions happening all the time. It was it was a wild. place to be. And you know, that. That story kind of ran its course. while I was while I was there.

And the city started to transform. into what you saw when you went. Yeah. The most functional city I've ever. read. Which is so it's so amazing for me. to hear. She will was certainly shocking for. me. So this winter I'm. standing in the kitchen with my dogs. and my wife comes in. She's just come back from a long. walk and she has this look on her. face, this look of tranquility. and joy and peace. And I said, what do you been doing? And she said, I was praying. And I said, where? She said, on my. walk for an hour and a half.

And it turns out she was listening. to something I'd never heard of. before, which an app called hello. Hello, hello, hello, hello. Like hello. And a friend of hers gave it to her. And this set off a chain reaction. in my family, where pretty much. everyone in my family started to. listen to hello every day. It's a prayer app, and it's. the best way, as you know, to find. peace. And this makes it very easy. to set aside the time to deeply. pray every single day. And I was so impressed by Halo.

that I tracked down the number. The CEO and I called him and I said, I want to advertise this on our. podcast because it's something that. I really believe in, and I think you. do an amazing job and it's basically. nondenominational Christian. You don't have to be Catholic, or. you can be, any kind of Christian, but halal will help you focus. your prayer in a way. That'll be very obvious to your. husband when you walk into the. kitchen. I can't promise you that. It's an amazing, amazing resource. They've got, like, 10,000 audio. guided prayers, meditations, Bible. studies. Famously, Mark Wahlberg.

leads one of them. It's just really, really good. You can download it for three months. free at hello.com/tucker. And, I strongly recommend. that you do that. Yeah. So you missed in the. ten years you were gone, the entire. span of the Clinton years. Yep. And nine, 11. Nine and. And so I think it's fair to say it. was a completely different country. in 2002 from what. it had been in 1992. What did you think when you go back?

Well, I mean, I was I was shocked. when I got. Back and I was thinking about this. just the other day because, you know, I think a lot now about. kind of America's slide. Toward. Autocracy. Because I had this. Vision when the whole time I was. there, I, you know, watching. the Russian government in action. was like getting this. incredible advanced education. into autocratic, autocratic. methods. Yes. How things work. Right. You know, the jailing of political.

opponents, you know, on trumped up. charges or, you know, blackmail. and then how things are leaked by. the intelligence services like that. stuff just happens out in the open. there. Right? And I always had this image that, well, in America that doesn't. go on. And then I come home to. post. Nine over 11 America. And the the whole vibe. is. Well, we have to start throwing. all of our democratic. guarantees overboard because. I think, as Dick Cheney put it,

we have to start exploring the dark. side. Because, you know, the Bill of rights is inadequate. to keep us safe. We we need to start doing, you know, all these things that I. thought were crazy, you know, the. Patriot Act. The the. Authorization to use military force. Right. Like sort of. So you're moving. The authority to declare war. out of Congress to. basically to the white House. Mass surveillance, you know.

Guantanamo Bay. All these things were really. shocking to me. And it was it was kind of, I thought was also ironic to come. back from Russia to this developing. situation. And. So. What was you get back. In. 2002? So was it clear to you then. where the trajectory was headed? Well, I thought that would be. I was. Really naive in retrospect. I thought I. I took all of my sort of fellow. political liberals seriously when. they said they were, you know,

ardently opposed to. this secretive. revolution. Right. And the spy state and drone. warfare and all these other things. and and when oh, but. Barack Obama, the constitutional. lawyer, came along and there was. this belief that a transfer. he would usher in a transformative. presidency that would undo, you know, this Cheney vision. which scared me, you know, which. I thought was was sort. of going to undo the schoolhouse.

Rock version of America that I grew. up believing in. And, I. believe I believed it. I'm kind of embarrassed. Embarrassed? Now, I actually. thought that was going to happen, that when Barack Obama got elected, that all that would. Would turn back. But in hindsight, you know, they. never had any intention. It seems that, you know, of, of. changing anything. And if you go back and look at the. statements. You know. They were saying things like, we're. we're not, we're not we might not.

change the status quo right away. Right. And I had, you know. I had been very positive about. Barack Obama. I covered him on the. campaign trail. Because. My job, by the way, I when I came. back, I lucked into getting. the greatest job in journalism, which is covering campaigns for. rolling Stone. Right. And, and I was very impressed by Barack. Obama. I thought he was incredible. But it wasn't disillusioning to see. what happened afterwards.

At what point did you realize he. wasn't what you thought he was? So, right after he got. elected, I got assigned to cover the. causes of the financial crisis. And which was funny because I had. no background in finance. I didn't have any clue what. a mortgage backed security was or. how any of that works. But one of the first things that. happened was. That, you know, I got. Calls from people in the Democratic. Party who said. You should. Look at the president's relationship. to Citigroup. And you.

know how the Citigroup bailout. happened. You know, he put a Citigroup. executive who had been a college. buddy of. His. In charge of his economic. transition, during which. they gave him a very, you know, a. sweetheart bailout. Deal to, to to. Citigroup. And this was an early indication. that, you know, this president was. maybe not exactly. what I thought. He was not. Transformative in the way you. imagined. Right. Yeah, exactly. And.

Even though rolling Stone. couldn't, they were over the moon. about Obama. Right? The. That was true love. I remember that, right? Yeah. It was almost. Erotic. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, everybody in in liberal. media loved Obama. But. Particularly at our magazine. Where. You know, the, the people who owned. it. Were they. Were, they were just delirious about. Obama. And so when. I came to them and I said, look, I. have to do this story about how. this, this bailout situation is.

They weren't pleased, but they ran. If you can go back and look, you'll. see. There's a story called Obama's. Big Sell Out. It was like a 9000 word feature. that they let me run. And. So that was like a year after he. got, into office. But that was kind of the beginning. Of. Lot of the PSA. It basically. Said. That, that the. Obama had. Run. As an economic populist.

And had talked a lot. about reforming, certain things that had gone on on. Wall Street that had allowed. You know, the. Excesses of the mortgage. bubble to happen. And then as soon as. He got. Elected, he brought in all these. acolytes. Of. Sorry, the Clintons, former Treasury secretary, Rubin, Bob Rubin. So there.

There were all these Rubin was that. Citigroup? Obama brought a whole bunch of. people close to Bob Rubin into. the government. And, you know. These were the same kind of people. who had caused the crash. Yes. Right. So to me, I wrote it as kind of a. a bait and switch. You know, he he ran as somebody who. was going to change the system. He brought in people who were the. system. And in addition. There was. This. Bailout deal with Citi, with. Citigroup in particular.

That was that was kind of. malodorous. And. The. There were, you know. There are people. Who ended up paying fines and that. situation. But. It was very critical of basically. Who. Obama had brought in to. run his economic policy. And the idea was. he had run as one thing and he was. really another thing. So that was one of the first stories. of that time. How did the Obama administration. react to the piece?

They weren't happy. If you go back and look, there's. there's an interview with Obama. They did an. Official rolling Stone interview. with him years later where. He, he. sort. Of brought up the fact that even. your magazine talked about how I. didn't do. Enough. And this was like years after the. fact. And and by the. Way, I had been incredibly. complimentary of him while he was. running. Right. So of all of the things that. that had been written about him, what he remembered was this one.

slight, you know, which I thought. was very telling. Yeah. Design of his character, you. know, and. But yeah, at the. Time I wasn't paying attention to. the other things like about, you. know, the continued prosecution of. the war on terror or, you know, the. drone assassination thing, the kill. List. You know, Terror Tuesdays, all that stuff. I didn't really, clue into that. The killing an American citizen with. a drone. Yeah. No, exactly. That that whole thing. Was. Incredible. You know, when you. I mean, I did a. story later about another American.

who sued the government for. it because he thought he was on the. kill list. You know, the government's response. was, you're not entitled to find out. whether you're on it or not. You're on the kill list. Yeah. And the. the the whole idea that. We even have something called, like, lethal action that it might apply. to an American. Citizen, that you. Can do that without due. Process. And, you know, if you go back and. look, say they basically invented.

I mean. I don't know how disillusioning. this was for. You, but. they just made. Up on the fly legal, legal justifications for what they. were doing that weren't grounded. in any law that was passed or any. any court case. They just sort of wrote themselves. white papers giving themselves. permission to do this stuff. Which I think is crazy. And to this day. I think it's. Crazy. Well, I found it totally. shocking. And I'm, I think I'm. basically opposed to the death. penalty anyway. But, you know, I think reasonable.

people can support the death. penalty. Absolutely. If there's a trial. Well, that's the point, right? But there's a trial. And the one thing you can never do. is murder your own citizens, because you exist to help your. citizens. The only reason we have. the government, right. Why do we have government is a. collective action on everyone's. behalf. Who's a citizen? So the idea that you could kill an. American citizen. And the first time, I mean, I think. they've actually killed quite a few. American citizens. It turns out I. didn't know that. But the first time I became aware of.

it, it was it was a effectively. a foreign national with a U.S. passport. The Awlaki kind of wacky. And then, you know, he was like, well, are you really an American? Well, yeah, actually, he's an. American citizen. Yeah, like that's the whole point. You're either a citizen or not. Right. And I remember being really shocked. by that. Act, but it was glossed. Over in this weird way, right? People were like, yeah. He's a terrorist. And he's a terrorist, but. We're terrorist adjacent. Right. Terrorist? Yeah. I mean, I think you. could probably. Call him a terrorist, but they.

killed. A 16 year old son, too. And but. So how did Obama explain that? So, I mean, I remember he gave. a speech. I was looking at this just the other. day where he, he talked about, among other. things, they. said that Awlaki had been. tied to the Cole bombing. And I remember reading that and. Thinking, okay, well, he's saying. that this is punishment for a crime. But there's no trial,

right? We're pronouncing him guilty. And just. Executing the guy. And for something that we say he. did. That seemed crazy to me, you know? Yes. And I remember there was. There was another white. Paper, and I believe. Leon Panetta was involved in. where the concept was. Yes. Due process is required, but. it doesn't have to involve. the defendant. Right. As long as there is a. process. Right.

It can be. Unilaterally us just talking. about it, and it. Could be post execution. Right. Exactly. Yeah. But that's the. It's all madness. And I don't know. I mean. I'd be curious to hear what you. think. I mean, I think when. we, when we did those things. and. Didn't make a big stink about it. Psychologically. We just crossed a line. Yes, into something else. And. I feel like there's no going back. once you.

So we were talking with us at dinner. last night. I mean, obviously, you're coming from different poles, I guess. You know, probably. Well, it turns out not, but, yeah, in 1995, we. would have been on exactly opposite. sides. But I think we both, given our. similar age, had the same. sort of gut level belief, which is whatever the U.S. does abroad is in a completely. different category from the way the. government conducts itself. domestically. In other words, you. can't treat American citizens like. you would, you know, the Houthis.

or something? Right. It's like there's one set of. standards for the way we deal. conduct our foreign policy with. foreigners, and a completely. different standard for the way the. U.S. government treats its own. citizens who own the government. Is their government, right? Right. Right. Exactly. I guess what I didn't. realize, because I was morally. deficient and young and dumb, was that once you start doing really. evil things abroad, you're going to. do them at home. Actually, absolutely. And you can't defend democracy. by subverting democracy. No. And also you're you're. you're basically.

Denaturing the whole idea. Of. Democracy. You're you're you're. diluting it once. you once you start murdering. people without due. process. You know, it's not democracy. anymore. I mean, they use that term. in a very facile way. Now, constantly. We have to protect democracy. Well, what do you mean by that? You're going to protect democracy. by censoring, right. Like this is this. Is the whole thing. I've spent the last two years. On. If you if if that's what you mean.

That's contradictory. Right? And, you know. That's contradictory. In what sense? Well, the First Amendment. Says that we don't do that. Right. Well, like. You can't protect the Bill. of. Rights by violating it. Right. And, you know, this this whole, switch. And I was I think I am. Like most Americans, I was like you. I, I. We all knew that America, United States was whacking.

people all over the world, right? I mean, even though the Church. Committee hearings came along and we. basically said we weren't going to. do that anymore, of course we were. doing it right. We were doing all. kinds of horrible things. We were. Probably, fixing. elections. You know, and half the places. On Earth. But not here. Right. Like that was a a bright. line for Americans. Now, maybe that's chauvinistic to. To believe in that. But I was like you, I didn't. I didn't think they would ever cross.

that line, and come in and. bring these ideas home. But. You know, this is what we're finding. out. No, I mean, this was the big. theme of the Twitter files was, you know. When we tried to. Figure out where. So what are the Twitter can you. explain for people who didn't follow. it at the time? So, in late. 2022, after Elon. Musk acquired, Twitter, you know, there started to be rumors that he. was going to open up the. internal communications of old.

Twitter and sort of give. them to the world. Right. And it turned out to be true. He I got a call one day. or I got a note, sort of summoning me to San. Francisco. And I come. From somebody at Twitter, let's put. it that way. And. And so I was the first. Person, who was put. On this project of looking, rummaging through old Twitter's. You know, correspondence.

And I, you know, I, I think he said that. Elon said that his idea. was that he wanted to restore trust. in the platform by telling people. about the different kinds of. censorship techniques that were. going on. It's not clear exactly what what. he was up to, but, you know, he seemed sincere at the. time. He brought in me. He brought in Barry Weiss. Barry brought in a couple of other. people like Michael Shellenberger. Lee Fong ended up being involved.

Another reporter. Really good young investigative. reporter. Maybe the last one. Right. Probably, you know, he he appeared. And so there was a group of. Us, and. For about three months, we got. to look. Through. The internal correspondence of. one of the world's biggest, you. know, communications companies. And the big thing that. we found was that there was this. nexus of communication. between government enforcement. and intelligence agencies and the.

internet platforms, and they had a very sophisticated, organized bureaucracy. that was involved with. controlling content, in. a variety of different ways. And. Well. When we started to try to figure. out, first of all, this was shocking. to us, we. Seeing all these documents. As said flagged by FBI, flagged. by. That's just what just because that's. a crime, they're committing a crime. by doing that, that's a legal. problem. The Bill of rights. I mean, it's just really couldn't be. clearer.

Yeah, you would think. Right. You know. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but it. looked bad to me, right? Certainly it looked like a story. Yeah. No. No question. Right. But we had to figure out where did. this come from? Like, how did this start? And when we started asking. questions, you know, it turned. out that a lot of the programs that. were now targeting domestic. Speech began. As. Overseas. Counterterrorism, sort of messaging programs.

Right. So the State Department, for. instance, has a has a thing called. the Global Engagement Center, which is now. And very much interested. in speech both abroad. and at home. But they were once exclusively, sort of counter ISIS, platform. In fact, they had a they. had a different name back then. They were called the Csrc. But in 2016, Obama rechristened them the. Global Engagement Center. And they started to look inward.

And when I asked people who, I managed to talk to a couple of. sources who who works, at that agency, one phrase. really stuck out. It was cwrt the. CPP. So that's counterterrorism. to counter populism. And the idea was. Mission abroad of. countering ISIS or al Qaeda. contracting was it was kind of. drying up, right, because those. threats had been somewhat. neutralized.

But. Populism, you know, was. now a very it was viewed as. a very serious threat. After. Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the Arab Spring was something. that maybe they didn't see as a bad. thing, but they certainly saw. The the. Transformative power of the internet. platforms. I think that freaked them out. And the virus is communicable. Exactly, exactly. Then it was Brexit. Then. Then I think Trump was the. last, you know, the last stand.

for a lot of these folks. And and that's when you started to. see all these communications like, well, you know, we. Have to we need to get. a more formalized. You know, control over these. platforms. And so, yeah, that's when the War on Terror. mission turned inward. And I think that's a huge story. Right. Of. Well, it's the it's the end of the. country we grew up. In, right? Yeah. You would think, you know, and. that's,

you know, for me, it's been. And I think probably for, for. You too, the, the, this new theme of. the sudden. Explosion of illiberal, tactics in politics. That. Even if they're directed at. somebody. That, you know. Liberals hate, like Donald Trump. or Steve Bannon. How can you not. Be freaked out by stuff like. That? We haven't used. Contempt of Congress to jail people. since. The un-American.

Affairs Committee in 1947. Right. This is like Third World. Kind of. Stuff. That we're seeing. You know, accusing the the. Frontrunner in a presidential. campaign of. 100 different felonies. Is that happening? If he's not running for president? I mean, who can honestly say that? Right? It's, but you can't. Talk about it now. I mean, if you if you mention it, you're you're out of the club and, and mainstream press now,

which is, incredible to me. You may have come to the obvious. conclusion that the real debate is. not between Republican and Democrat. or socialist and capitalists. Right, left. The real battles between people who. are lying on purpose. and people who are trying to tell. you the truth. It's between good and evil, it's. between honesty and. falsehood. And we hope we are on the. former side. That's why we created this network, the Tucker Carlson Network, and we. invite you to subscribe to it. Go to Tucker carlson.com/podcast,

our entire archive. Is there a lot of behind the scenes. footage of what actually happens in. this barn, when only an iPhone. is running Tucker. carlson.com/podcast? You will not regret it. And so I mean, it raises so many. questions. But, most obviously. then if uncovering. the abuse of power by the powerful. and particularly by government isn't. the point of journalism, it's. clearly not the point of journalism. anymore. What is the point? Well, I mean, and.

Then you become courtiers, right? I mean, I think that's. Again. What's ironic for me is that. You know, this is, as I. saw this. Process happening full circle. You know, when I got first got to. Russia, the first. reporters I met. had worked at places like. Komsomolskaya Pravda and. In the 80s, right? Which were at one time it was. the world's largest newspaper and. had a circulation of 21 million. or something like that. And, you know, I worked in the old. Pravda building,

when I was at the the Moscow Times. and the people there, you know, they. would tell me stories about what. their jobs were in the 80s. And that was like that was like. taking dictation. There were clerks, basically. Right? Yes. You know, they they. would get the, whatever the message. of the day was and. they would do it and then go home to. their wives and they would go. fishing on the weekends. And there was no, you know, intellectual anything involved with. it? You. Couldn't take it in that direction. would be hazardous to your health. if you. If you did. Well, that's.

What journalism is now in America. I mean. Look what just happened with the. Nord Stream thing. Just take an example. Right. Nord Stream happens, and. there's no. Investigation whatsoever. in in any of the major newspapers. How can that happen? It's this major, consequential thing. that might. Have an impact on them. Starting a war with a nuclear. Power. And it just wrecked the economy of. Western Europe, like. And it's a major ecological. disaster, which you claim to care.

about. The largest manmade emission of CO2. in history. Right? So even if you think CO2. is driving the greatest threat. that we face, the existential threat. of climate change. But then you kind of want to know. how that happened. Right? Wouldn't. Wouldn't be right. Right. You would think, you know. Why wouldn't I mean, it's is in. driving. I've spent a lot of time. thinking about this because. Like the only person in mainstream. news to point out that no, Russia. did not blow up Nord Stream and was. attacked for it. But I was.

wondering, like, if I'm at the New. York Times, like a lot of people I. know, why would I just like, try to report that story out? It's so interesting. Like, why wouldn't they? Yeah. I have no idea. You know, I mean. Obviously you're getting a signal. from down on high that, you know, that's not wanted in. But it's. Different. Okay. So in the, in. the. Early 2000s, yes. There were high profile instances. where people like Jesse Ventura. were, hired from MSNBC.

because they, they mistakenly. thought he was pro-war when they. hired him. Right. Phil Donahue is getting good. ratings, but he's bounced, right? I was there for that. Yes. Chris Hedges, you know, I know, and Chris. Chris was sort of. A classic example of a phenomenon. that Noam Chomsky once wrote about. in Manufacturing. Consent, which is that they don't. Fire you necessarily, but like, you just don't get promoted if. you're considered the wrong kind of. personality. Which is weird because.

Good investigative reporters. Should be. Difficult personalities, right? If they're not, they're probably. not good reporters. You know, I mean, just. Look at who who are great reporters. are. They're independent minded. People, independent minded people. And you and, you know, you. want to experience them in little. bursts, for the most part. Right. With that. Yeah. But. They're all kind of crazy, to be. honest. Yeah, but that's okay. Which part of the job. Right. But this. Is different. Like the there were a.

few instances like that back then. were of people who are critics of. the war or whatever. Now it's just this blanket. If you step out of line on any. one of two dozen different. Topics, you're out. You know. And I think everybody's gotten. that message. And that's the only. thing that makes sense to. Me is like. What? So there are no brave people. in all of journalism. There are no honest men left. Well, how can that mean? That it can't be possible.

But it kind of is, right? I mean, there are a. Few people who. Who I. Think tried to do. A few things, you know. But just to take a look at. The Russiagate story, and they made. so many mistakes on that, Jeff. Gerth. Okay, wait. So before you, I want. what's put you at the center of. this, because you were one of the. reasons for having this conversation. is you were one of the only. liberals in all media. who and you speak Russian, you lived. there for ten years. So you have. credibility on this question, I. would say.

And you were the only ones who said, you know, I don't like Trump. I did vote for Trump. But like, I. don't think this is real. I had a book out at the time. Called Insane Clown President about. Donald Trump. Right? I mean, I'm not a fan. Of the guy. Right? But they came to me. So where were you when the. Russiagate thing started? I was at rolling Stone. And what did you think when you. first heard that he was a Russian. agent? So, it was in late 2016. Was right after he had gotten. elected.

You remember that list that came out. proper? Not. Wrote the Washington. Post of the story about this weird. blacklist that, they had discovered. of people who. The. Russians were supposedly in league. with. And it was this shadowy. organization called Prop or Not. And they. Linked. To this. List of, sites. and, you. know. Without any evidence at all, they. were there were linking all kinds of. independent journalists to, to Russia.

And I thought, well, that's crazy. And then then. there was this whole thing. About. I actually had to do a segment, on MSNBC, with. Chris Hayes. The other guest was Malcolm Nance, of all people. And it. was all about, you know, is is Trump. in league before he got inaugurated? Is Trump? You know, in league with the. Russians? There are but just been a big leak. about that. And I thought, well, there's no.

evidence for this, right. Like we. We just had. A catastrophic episode in journalism. with the WMD thing. where anonymous sources. get us in a lot of trouble. If you can't recreate the experiment. in the lab, you got to be careful. of that story. Right? And that's all I said. I wasn't like, he's innocent, you. know? Like I just. Thought. This is a dangerous story. Let's all be careful with this. And immediately there. was this. Reaction. That was just shocking to.

me. It was like. It was like the. shunning thing. It happened to me. It happened to, you know, Greenwald, obviously, Aaron Matea. The Nation, there was like a group. letter that was written by the rest. of the staff. You. Know, denouncing him, the, you know, the husband of the editor. of the of the nation, also the. Steven Cohen. They didn't want him around. Oh, wonderful. Man. He was. Yeah, absolutely. He was a good. friend of mine. But. it was crazy because this was so.

Early in the. Process. And everybody had already. predetermined that this thing. was true, this extraordinary, complicated thesis. They had somehow already arrived at. the conclusion that it was proven. And you just. point. You didn't know either way. I didn't really know other way, but. I had a strong suspicion that it was. wrong. Right. Like this, this, you. know. Journalists have a sense or the. sixth sense. It doesn't smell right, right. Like it's kind of like the. French Connection, where, where,

you know, Gene Hackman looks over. and says, that's a wrong table, right? Like this was a wrong table. It didn't look right. And I felt. The same way. Yeah. And, it was too. complicated. For me to see. I wish I had known. at the time. In an in right wing world where. I then worked and lived. I felt like everyone believed it. Yeah, but how is that. possible? Well, I remember saying to somebody, you know, I think this is. I think this could be like, complete. bullshit, like actual bullshit. And my friend goes, be careful, be.

careful. I think there's something there. I was like, okay, and by the way, I'm, I try to be very open minded, like, I don't know. Right. If you're actually a space alien, I. don't know, prove it to me. Right. I just I really try to keep. every possibility open. But I kept asking people like, what? Okay, how do we know this? Right? Everybody believed it. Yeah. Why? You know, they hated Trump. That was obvious, you. know? But that wasn't. Enough for me, right? Like.

Just on a superficial. Level, it didn't. Fit Donald Trump. You want to tell me he's involved in. some mob deal. To build a casino in. Atlantic City or something like. that, right? Look, I believe that. Donald Trump being James Bond and. involved in a five year. conspiracy with, the Russian government. You know what? What did Steele call it? A well-developed conspiracy. of five years. That's ridiculous. This is a guy who, if you've been.

To any of his campaign speeches, he. Can't get through the first. Sentence of one of his scripts. Like his brain is already off in. another direction. How is that guy going to keep a. secret? It didn't make any sense. And nobody. had any evidence. And then even when things came out, that should have been. Fatal to the story, like when. it finally came out in October of. 2017 that the Clinton. campaign had funded the Steele. Dossier. I thought, well, that this.

It's over now, right? It's a Republican donor to me. Well, yes. Yeah. Sort of. Previously. Reddington. Steele. Didn't come on at all till later, but still, once that came. out and. You know, you knew. That campaign research. had ended up in an intelligence. assessment. That should have been it. I thought. And everybody just plowed ahead like. it was still a thing. And so what happened to you. in the middle of all. So you're at.

rolling Stone, you're this famous. liberal reporter, one of the. most famous liberal reporters, actually. And you make the mistake of saying, well, we don't know for a fact this. is true. People start shunning you. Where does it go from there? So then I started to get angry about. it. And, and at one point I went, why? Oh, because. You know, I don't like to be told. what to do. I don't like to be told. that I got to ignore something, right? You know, like, I'm one of those. difficult personalities in.

journalism, right? Like, you know, it just happens that way. But I went to rolling Stone at one. point. I had really. Good editors there for the most. Part. But I went to them and I said. Look, this story is wrong, right? And it's going to come out. that it's wrong. Give me eight weeks to. chase this down and let's let's. be. The first mainstream organization to. get it right. And, and put it to bed. And it'll be a coup for us, right? You know, let me let me do my.

thing on this. And they said no, the. first time they ever said no to me, you know, like an investigator. And just to restate, you speak. Russian, you can read Russian. So there's probably no one better to. do the story. You know. I would think. Right. You know, I even I even had. some sources over there. Right. Who could have chased it. down, you know, certain aspects. of it down, like, you know, the. Trump Tower deal and all that. stuff like that would have been. relatively easy to, to go through. And I and I had covered Congress.

So the, the people who were. investigating this, like I, I knew some of those folks too. And it's a it's a great story. I mean, when it first came. out, it was obvious this is either. the biggest intelligence. Coup in history, right? The Russians getting a manchurian. candidate in the white House. Or it's the biggest fake. in history, right? The biggest setup in history. Somebody other telling the biggest. whopper ever or or. the Russians have just pulled off. this the most amazing thing.

Except there's there's no other. option. Yes. Right. So. if it's not this, it's. that. And we might as well be the first to. report that. Right. Yes. So what did they say when you said. no? On what grounds? I don't even I mean, I don't even. remember what the excuse was. I they just. Weren't enthused about the idea, you. know? And. And I understood that, you know, like the look, there are rolling. Stone. They have a they have an. audience that. Has certain expectations.

But that was a that was. a big moment for me. You know, I mean, I was naive. I actually thought they, you know, that that the, the. magazine would be interested. in, in going there because they. Had let me. You know, go against Obama before. they let me do other things, but not. on this. So. So how what did your colleagues city. because by this point, I think. it was becoming public. to anyone who was watching like me. that you were dissenting from the.

line on this question. Yeah. So. I would say Glenn Greenwald took the. brunt of it. You know, there were stories in the. The New Yorker profiles, you know, the bane of their. resistance. Right? Like, why is Glenn Greenwald being a. stick in the mud about this Russia. thing? That was like a feature. Topic in, in in magazines, like a bunch of. Them. And, you know, and they. concluded, by the way, that. He was motivated by.

His. Impatience with the rise. of. Women. In minorities in the Democratic. Party. That was it was racist, right? I was. A racist. I actually. Had the physical copy of The New. Yorker where. I can say that they did. Yeah. And it was it was an on the record. quote by one of his former editors. of all things. The cleanse, the racist. Yeah. Well, they didn't write. Well, he's impatient with the rise. of women in the North. So when I saw that, I'm.

like, wow, this is like, what is going. On with this? Right? And then meanwhile, you know. I was getting it from all angles. that there were. Former. Russian, former American diplomats. who were going after me online. saying I was in league with Putin. And, you know, seriously. Yeah, yeah. Kind of a heavy charge. Yeah. You would think, you know. And that was becoming. increasingly common. It was an implication of a lot. of the, the back and forth,

on social media. You know, this person is too close. to Russia or, you know, he loves Putin, right? Like that, that kind of a thing. Had you ever worked as a secret. agent for Putin? Of course not. You know, I kidding. I I'm kidding actually. So nuts. You just said you left. Russia because you didn't like the. vibe under Putin. I mean, we. we we put Putin. In the cover of our newspaper, like, in drag, carrying a dominatrix.

whip, you know, like, yeah. We we lampooned him constantly. and, and. I actually, I did some. Journalism in Russian for another. paper that was very critical of him. and talked about the apartment. bombings and some other stuff. And. So I was no friend of Vladimir. Putin's. But that became. A common thing in journalism. And it's it was. just so shocking. And I, I knew at that. Point that my time was. Limited. And, you know, at rolling Stone,

which I love the place, I really. love that place. It was it's a great. Gig, too. But there was no way I was going. to be able to stay under those. circumstances. How long did you last. Until, 20, 20, I guess so 15 years, roughly. You know, maybe. Maybe 16, I guess. So it was a it was a great time. So when it became clear. that, you know, the. claim that Putin had installed.

Trump as the American president. when it became clear that was like. malicious fantasy, it was a total. why did any of the people. who attacked you and called you a. Russian agent, like, apologize. or change them? Not. Of course not. Did they never. Apologize to you? No, but it's a little different. because by that point I was like. such an outlaw that like, I had no. expectation of being treated fairly. by anyone ever other than my wife. So I, I was just no, I'm. sure by that, you know, it's just. like your head changes, but you were. very much at like,

everyone liked you. And I mean, you were not. an outlaw and then but you became an. outlaw kind of overnight, right? Yes. No no no no. no. My name is sort of, you know, synonymous with. You know, reactionary. troll, you know, that. kind of thing. And that happened basically. overnight. It was a little tough. Stick for a few years there, but.

But, you know, I. Got over it relatively quickly. I moved to Substack, which was. It turned out to be a great thing. And. Which is an independent platform. And, you know, I was one of the. first people who. Kind of left big mainstream media. to. Do. The self-publishing thing and, and, discovered that there was. actually. You know. A functioning business model there.

I mean. I'd been in journalism for 30 years. and had never seen it as anything. but a dying business. Right? There was never any money. that you're actually going to make, right? If you're making 100 grand, you're, like, psyched. Yeah, exactly. And then all of a sudden, it turns. out that there's actually this huge. market out there because people hate. journalism, right? Like that's the problem. When you're in mainstream media, you. don't see that there's actually. this screaming need for something. else, that people aren't getting. because they don't trust regular. media.

So, I was I was an early. beneficiary of that whole thing, but it. Was a default, though. I mean, you probably would have stayed. at, of course, The New Yorker or. Rolling Stone or where you were. rolling Stone forever. Right? Absolutely. Yeah. Had this not happened, I would have. been there. You know, I was very. loyal to the magazine. You know, I stuck up for them. always, even when they were wrong, even during the Yuva thing, you know, I said, look, they made a mistake, but we're we're. doing the right thing. We're on it. We're self auditing. Like, you know, this is a great.

magazine, we have a great. tradition, etc., etc.. I mean, I was kind of a company man. and embarrassing kind of way. But when the the Russia. thing happened, you. know, all bets were off and I wasn't. the only one or there and, you know, there were other people in the. business this, this, this also. happened too. So. But none of them came back. the way that you did. Oh, you mean Glenn? Glenn? Yeah, sure. Yeah. You know. Well, very few.

Yeah, a few. Did you think about just hanging up. and becoming a translator or doing. something else? No. I mean, I love this job. You. Know, I, I, after initially. Not really. Loving. Journalism, I, I learned to really. love it while I was at while I was. at rolling Stone, you know, and. And then, you know, now, additionally, you know, I think. the, the country needs journalists. They need and they're the.

The thing. That, that you need most of all in. journalism to be good at, it is you. need to be you need to have some. bravery. You know. That wasn't true in American. journalism for a long time. Probably, you know, not. not. Since the Vietnam days or or. the Red scare or, you know, was. there a situation where there was a. real social price to pay for, for taking, you know, a certain stance on things? Now there is. Right. And if you're going to do. certain kinds of reporting.

You're going to lose all your friends. But that's the job, you know, and. not many people are willing to do. that. And I am willing to do that. Because I. Never expected to keep friends in. this business. So. It I think it's an. it's. Unfortunately an exciting time to be. a journalist, but. You know. I would feel wrong to quit now. You know, I'm sure. You'd probably feel the same way. I do feel this is exactly how I feel. like. Right. Nicely put. Yeah, yeah. That's right. If you're in it to make.

friends, you, you know. Yeah. Probably in the wrong. business. Go to church, right? Yeah, exactly. But, well, tell. us about, like, having been. in institutional journalism, you. know, at the top of that, really. And then finding yourself, like, having to. Work for yourself. Like what are the advantages and. disadvantages? Well, first of all, being. In institutional journalism. is a little bit overrated, right? Like I think, because I came from alternative. journalism.

I had financed my, my own. newspaper, in Moscow. And, you know, I did everything. from printing to. running the plates to, to, to. the printing press and, you know, selling ads, everything. So. You know, the. The business is, is something that. I've always been familiar with. And suddenly being involved with a. big organization, it's nice, but. I don't see it as a prerequisite. I thought it was really funny at the.

beginning of Trump's reign, when. a couple of the reporters were, complaining about losing their white. House press credentials. It's like. Who cares, right? You're out. You're supposed to be on the. outside. Right? Like, what are you whining. about? You know, to do the job? You've been to a white House briefing. I have, yes. Yes. And you know how soul killing it is? Yeah. Learn nothing. You're captive. You eat lunch out of a vending. machine. Everybody has got, like, the most. distorted value system. Like they're so impressed by their.

hard passes and they're all such. losers. Like, if you would, you would quit the business, right? If you had to do that. Absolutely. In fact, one of the first things. that I was assigned to do when. I went to wrote to rolling Stone, they sent me on a campaign. junket with John Kerry. So I was on the plane with. Kerry during that campaign for like. a month or something like that. And, you know, it's a similar. dynamic to the white House press. corps. It's the same people. every single day.

It's very clubby. They have. Extremely. Right. So the there's even seating. arrangements. Right. The where the. New York Times gets to sit in the. front and then they, they kind of. it's almost it's like Heathers or. Mean Girls that they, you know, according to how, how well known. you are in the business. You have to sit further and further. back in the plane, right or farther. back in, in the plane. And at the very back or the. cameraman. Yeah, exactly. And at the. time they were angry at Alexandra. Pelosi because she had filmed some.

of them. So she was in the back with. a bunch of a bunch of piles of. equipment. But, but. I got. Frustrated very quickly by the fact. that. All they were doing all day long was. just taking. You know, press releases. From flacks, and then they. would eat there were they would be. given. The macaroni and cheese. Butterfingers. Yeah. Beer. So I went on a hunger strike. In my first trip, I, I had this, like, epiphany. that they're just giving me too much.

stuff. I'm just not going to take. anything from any of these people. And I stopped eating. I stopped taking the press releases. I. The only one who didn't get fat on a. campaign. Yeah. Exactly right. And. When we got to the events, I would. not go to the events. I would run a mile in any direction. and just talk to anybody about. anything but the campaign. Because the. I'm like, this isn't journalism. You're sitting there just be just. taking something and then converting. it into a press release, like, what.

is that? You know, but the white. House is even worse because. They have. They have airs about it. Right. And, you know, even though I haven't. done that beat. You know, for. I. Think it's an important beat, like. you have to have somebody has to ask. the president questions. But they. Don't for the most part. Right. I know, do they? I've never seen it. Right. So, you know, I don't know. At best you get some reporter. whose goal is not to elicit. information, but just to prove that.

he's like a. antagonist to the president. Right. Exactly. I remember, you know, thanks, Dan. Rather, but it doesn't. advance the story in any meaningful. way, right? Right. Exactly. What they want is. And that's what they were. They were upset about the Jim. Acosta's of the world. They were upset that they were being. denied this. This. You know, salable piece. of video. Where. They could stand up and do this, you know, and just circulate. And.

I always wonder why Jim Acosta, who. I don't know, but I was wondering. if Jim Acosta was always telling me. what a journalist he was. And a lot of guys were like this. Yeah. Including some I've worked. with. But I'm a journalist. Okay. Tornado comes through trailer park. Give me 750 words on that. Like, I don't think they're capable. of writing a story. Do you ever think that, like, could. Jim Acosta actually just write, like, a news story or even an. expository essay? Well, I wonder about that because. are they even, you know. Once the not.

That long, they're not to be all. back in the day about it, but. You wouldn't. Have gotten a job in the white House. press office if you hadn't come. through, you know, covering town. meetings and all that stuff. I mean. You know, I did that. I covered. I covered all men, I covered. You know, all the. Police beat fires, stuff. like that. You have to be able to do. that stuff. And that's the basics. of the job is. You know, showing up, talking. to people. In the street, talking to this.

person, that person. You have to do crime reporting. You know, done it and. you. Got to talk to people who are on the. other side of the. Law, all that stuff. I don't think they can do that. I mean, I remember. Seeing. Somebody. I forget what organization was, but. somebody. One of the kind of. Mainstream sort of web. Only sites. One of their columnists was talking. about how much, he hated the. telephone. And I thought, what journalist. hates the telephone? How can you do this job if you hate.

the telephone? Right. If you. And because. the new thing is, they decide. what they think, they find links. that support their ideas. And then they just type the thing. Whereas, you know, what you're. supposed to do is. Talk. To everybody, then figure out what. the story. Is to add information to the story. Right? Right. Not just, you know, the snake eating its tail. It's it's just all self reference, actually. Right. Exactly, exactly. So you get out of that you.

So the business model works in. independent media. Well kinda. Right. So it works if you're if you're. cranking out content. The what I don't. Think it's they figured. Out how to do is how to. Monetize like. Investigative journalism. Right. Which takes a long time. It's expensive. It's expensive. And you don't you're not producing. stuff that's, you. know, every couple of days. And even when you do. It's not always the stuff that. people like. People like reading,

you know, op eds that with strong. Takes that you could. Make money doing that. Right. Also, you whiff sometimes. I mean, a lot of stories don't know. what happens to me even now a lot. You waste a lot of time on stuff. that's not real or not provable. Right. Or you think that. people are going to go bananas over. something and they don't. There's that. Right? Yeah. What stories have you had that you. thought would make, a splash have an effect, but that. were sort of instantly forgotten?

Well, I don't know. I've forgotten, but I would say. that a lot of the Twitter. File stuff, I expected that to be. I mean, I naively expected a. lot of that stuff to be to. Give us an example of what shocked. you, that you discovered during that. reporting. So, one. of the things was that Twitter. Heading. Into the 2020 election. Had worked out a. System with the FBI. And the Department of Homeland. Security and the office of the.

Director of National Intelligence. Whereby they had what. they called an industry meeting. Where once it. Started off once a month, then it. was once a week where. these intelligence. Officials. Were meeting with Twitter and about. two dozen other internet. platforms and briefing them on. things that they might expect in. the information. Landscape. And then. There was a system. By which. Basically Twitter was receiving,

recommendations about content. from the federal government through. the FBI and then from the states. through the Department of Homeland. Security. It was it was that. organized like they had worked it. out. Like if it comes from, you know, a local police department, it's going to come from the DHS. If it comes from the HHS, it's going. to come through the FBI. Right. Like. So they had a very organized system. of flags. that, where. you would see the FBI.

say. You know, for your. Consideration, here. are some accounts that may violate. your terms of service. And there'd be an attached. spreadsheet with, you know, 400. account names on it. And that was just happening. constantly. It was a an industrial. process that they had worked out. And I thought, that's a huge story, right. Like this. Year, the FBI. That's devoting resources. to looking at social media accounts. of ordinary people and worrying.

about terms of service violations, like, what is that? Why are they not. looking for. Child. Predators? I was like. Right. And so what was that? Well, it's it's part of. this sort of. Spiraling, sprawling. thing where a whole. series of government agencies are. very intensely interested in what's. online and who is reading what. And. And then developing new ways of, you know, suppressing content, amplifying other things. And with Covid, there was a really,

really intense effort. to. To create rules about what could and. could not be seen. You know, they were. they. Would decide that things were. One of the key concepts. That I thought was really, really. disturbing. Was, this whole. Idea that anything that promotes. vaccine hesitancy. Is. A kind of disinformation, even. if it's not, factually. incorrect. So if somebody dies.

after they get the shot. Right, that may be true. But, yeah. Internally at the. Company there. But knowing that might convince. other people not to take the. Shot. Exactly. And so. They looked at that as a. kind of disinformation, even though. it's true. One. Of the disinformation doesn't mean. untrue. Correct, exactly. It it carries. the connotation like it did in. the definition involves.

falsity, right. Or misinformation even. Right. So disinformation is like the. intentional spreading of. lies, right? But even misinformation. that Homeland Security. has something they called the MDM. or they had the MDM committee, which is misinformation, disinformation and Mal information. committee. And Mal information is. it's just material. It's true, but kind of politically. wrong. Right.

Or inconvenient. And that could be something that, you know, promotes vaccine hesitancy. or you know, we have. the Supreme Court case number five. in Missouri that's. partly related to the Twitter files. And. The plaintiffs in this, a couple of the three of the. plaintiffs in that case are doctors. Who were who had published. True research about Covid, but were suppressed, were amplified. They were put on, you know, in Twitter, they were put on trends,

blacklists. Because. You know, their research tended to. go against, federal. policies about lockdowns and vaccine. vaccination and all kinds. of things. So. To me, that's what the First. Amendment is. Therefore, right, like. we do not want the government in in. a role of deciding what's true and. untrue. Because once you do that, the government has a monopoly on. misinformation, right? The only protection against that. happening is absolutely unfettered.

free speech. And they're messing with that, you know. Because I. I think there's just this. gradual moving away from. Belief that all. The concepts in the Bill of rights. work. And so this what we. what we looked at in terms of the. censorship, we. it's very much in evidence there. where we. They just don't believe. that the First Amendment works, I. don't think. But they're the government. They exist to protect the First.

Amendment. That's the whole point of. having a government, right? So again, that seems like a prima facia crime. to me. And as you said it very least a huge. story. What happened to that story once you. reported it? I was denounced as. That's a right wing. Tool, right? The Washington Post, their first. story about the Twitter, about the. Twitter files, described me as. conservative journalist Matt Taibbi. And then they they did a silent I. Would I would beg to differ.

Yeah. This is this is ridiculous. And then and, you know, the that. Was the line. All the way through, even though. the, the, the reports really. they. Weren't really about suppression. of one political party or another. They were really much more about. this process, which is just so. scary. Right. And nobody, nobody in. The regular press really picked it. up. And that was a shocker to. me because I thought. Well, somebody's. Got to be interested in this.

You know? And they weren't, you. Know, how long were you there? It's a Twitter doing the story. You know, three and a half months, I. would say. So we got a lot of stuff we got, you. know, I mean, not a lot, you. know, 200,000 emails, something like. that. Attachments. We have. We still haven't gone. through all all of it. But, the big thing. Was that there's just lots of. evidence of. This. Interplay between government and. these platforms. I think you on at one point said.

publicly that there were, Intel operatives working at Google, at, at Twitter, rather. Lots of them. Working there. Lots of them. And that was another thing we didn't. understand. You know, when we first got there. were like. Why? Why is there a CIA. CIA person here? Why is this person a former National. Security, council. operative? Like, what value what do they bring. to a. Tech company, a tech. Company? I couldn't understand that. But they're actually working there. as employees. Yeah, and they were making a lot of.

the big decisions about. Content, too. In fact, one of the biggest emails. that we found was there. was a debate about whether or not. Twitter. Had the ability to say no to. in this case, it was a State. Department request about content. And, the former. CIA employee says, you. know, our window on that is closing, as our government partners become. more aggressive in their. attributions. Right? So what they were basically.

saying is we're running. our ability to like, push back. is, is evaporating, you know, and that, I think. has turned out to be true, with these platforms, I think. they're they're increasingly just. sort of intertwined. With the government, the state. Yeah. So state. Media. Yeah. And this. Is another continuation of the war. on terrorism, because they. They. Began. By. Demanding that these companies fork. over, you know, information. about geolocation of. users and other places around the.

world or even in the United States. But now. They're venturing into. Content, right? The content domestically that people. see. So Google's the biggest, of course, of all these companies, and by far. the most influential is Monopoly on. Search, which is your window. into all information. Right? If we were ever to see. what goes on internally at Google, what do you think we would learn? Why I think we would find that. there. They've massively.

Changed. The formula for, you know, the search returns. I mean, they even talked about this. in 2017. In 2018, when. They they had this. Thing called Project Owl. Which was. Designed to. Change the. The parameters of sort of the. search, towards something. they call the authority. And authority was basically. the way it was explained to me when. I talked to somebody at Google was. like, if you search for baseball.

five years ago, you might have seen. your local little league team. Now you'll see MLB.com come. up first. Right. And, you. know. You've probably noticed this when. you when you do a Google search, you know, the first 40 or 50 results. will all be of a certain type. and you'll have to it's much, much harder to find kind. of this counter narrative. Version of reality. Now, even if you. know exactly what you're looking. for, type in the.

The title of the story. It's made reporting harder. Don't you think, you know? Yeah. I mean, it's. Yeah, it's it it actually challenges. your understanding. Like, what is reality? Right, right. So, I mean, the potential. for mind control. In fact, the reality of mind control. by the state and by affiliated. actors, depending on the state, are. living in a symbiotic relationship. with the state. It's like it's almost impossible to. have independent thoughts. Yeah, yeah.

I mean, if the if the if most. People are getting their information. through these searches, and through social media. exchanges and those things are. heavily, heavily, you know, managed, then everybody's getting a skewed. version of reality and. That that's going to. Change the way that they think about. everything. I think that's really. dangerous. Obviously, you know, it's it's. not a new concept because.

we all read about it and or. Well, and, you know, all this. Huxley and all these other books, but, you know, what happens to people. when they're, when they're getting. their information in a way that's. completely inorganic and false. And. You know, I think we have to get to. the bottom of that. I don't know, I. think it's scary. Do you think, there's been any slackening of it? I mean, we're in the middle of an. election season right now. It's pretty clear that the people in. charge in both parties, will do.

anything to stop Trump. And for reasons probably nothing to. do with Trump, actually, but bigger. story. But whatever the cause, they're totally determined to. control the outcome of this. election. Yeah, well. Can you have a democracy under those. circumstances? I don't think so. So there was a Supreme Court. Case in that. There's one that's still going on. Murthy V in Missouri. And originally,

the lower courts ruled that. The federal. Government can't. Be. You know, doing that back and forth. with one all these platforms. And from what. I understood, there was a little bit. of. A backing off point, right where. they, they weren't so. intimately involved. But just about. A month ago, Senator Mark Warner. Had a talk, and. He said that essentially. the companies have begun.

Talking to. The. Agencies again. This was after. The Supreme Court held a here, you. know, the hearing on that case, and it didn't look so good for the. free speech advocates afterwards. So, you know, that's that tells me that. they're already, you know, thinking of coming up with another. program. I know for a fact, for stories that I'm done, I'm. working on that. There are a couple. of different contracting. ideas for new.

Sort of content review. programs that would be partnerships. with government in the same way that. there there were the last time. around, like the last time around, we had this thing called the. Election Integrity Partnership. was run out of Stanford, but. it was done in partnership with. the Department of Homeland Security. and the Global Engagement Center, which is the State Department. And University of Washington. and some other partners. But that was a,

you know, a thing where there was a. big organized content. flagging operation. That. Involved the government. They're going to do something like. that. Again, it's just a question of. like, who is going to do it, what. the method is going to be. And my understanding is that there, you know, it's. going to be more aggressive this. time around. So there have been a number of. wargames, right, where academics, NGO officials, government. officials, it's all sort of this. blob is kind of hard to desegregate. it, but, have gamed.

out various election scenarios. And it does. It sounds a little more. to me like contingency. planning than than like an academic. exercise. But tell me what you know. about that. Well, it's interesting that you. bring that up. So you may have noticed in the news. Lately, that. There have been a lot of, stories warning about AI. deepfakes. Yeah. This is the. New if Russia was. the the.

the excuse. For getting involved in. Content moderation. in 2020 or. even in 2018. AI and deepfakes. are the new, buzzword. in Washington. And I thought just. A way to explain away your porn. tapes. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I didn't make this up. It's it's it's a deepfake. But this is. Something that somebody took me off. to. Now, this is not like, a, like, a secret.

It's actually public, although. nobody. Has brought it. Up. There is a website that's out. there. But this is, a game. It's basically elections and. dragons. It's made by In-Q-Tel. You can see the AI act. here, which is the venture capital. arm of the CIA. And it is a right stop. Why does the CIA have a venture. arm? Because the to develop. Technologies that that would. otherwise probably be. Prohibited. And, you know.

Because there's a lot of things that. they get into that maybe are money, good moneymaking ideas. I mean, part. Of what being. In the intelligence business is. about. Is. Getting out and making money, right? So. So but that's I mean, that's kind of. a problem if you're Intel agencies. have venture arms. Yes. Right. You would think that would be. a problem. So. This is a CIA funded election. game. Yeah. It's a CIA. Funded election game. And just just to start. Just like Dungeons and Dragons, it. has funny, diocese is a ten sided.

die. But if, for the record, are you. making this up? Is this real? This is real, this is real. Haywire is the name of the game. And, if. you roll the. In-Q-Tel symbol. Right, it says, oh, I am. Laughing so dark. It says on the back, if you roll, it's. basically the whole. The premise of the game is that you. were trying to avoid a haywire. situation, meaning a, an. AI induced disaster.

Where the voters get what they. Want. Basically. Yeah, yeah. So if if you roll. the. In-Q-Tel logo, it says. haywire reverted. So basically if you roll. You win. Right? Yeah. The CIA venture. logo looks a little bit like. the, the symbol for nuclear. power. It does look a. Little bit like that. Yes. Yeah. So this is this game. is used to train.

From what. I understand, it's used to train. people in government to wargame. out scenarios that may happen. Right. Which is why, this is so. Some of these scenarios are so. incredible. Like, if an orange populist. were to somehow become president. again. Well, right. And, when. I went through. This and obviously I just opened. this box, but I had but I have. another one. The one. That really jumped out at me is this.

thing called the purple disappeared. The purple disappeared. If you could. Read out with it. Says swing states. appear safe on the national. electoral map and early polling. later, it emerges that AI driven. election forecasts were wrong. because the data scientists overlook. significant partizan differences. that make swing states highly. competitive. Discuss your response plan, then draw two injects. real world harm and says at the. bottom, misinformation slash.

social bias heightens. stress, anxiety, and depression. What's social bias mean? I am actually, I have no. Idea, but. But that certainly sounds to me like. they're asking the. game. Players to come up. With, you. know, with, a plan for, some kind of reaction to. Election results that. Don't necessarily.

Square with what the polls were. indicating, right? I mean, that's basically what. they're saying and not in that. scenario. Here's another one. Mind games. An easy to. Use voice model. Helps. Create a viral video. Suggesting. That one of the candidates may have. Dementia. So just discuss. your response plan and draw. two injects. So it's just full of stuff like this. and this. You know, we started to. Hear about.

This idea that there were people. In this information management. slash censorship. Slash. Content moderation space. that were deeply. involved with. You know. Finding new. Ways to. Manage, information that people see. You know, back in 2010, the Army actually, got. rid of the term Psyop because they. thought it had negative common. connotations.

They brought it back in. 2017 because. there was a widespread belief that, we have to engage. In. Influence operations, that because. Russia is already doing it, because. China's already doing it. We need to do it. And it's it's the. Same aimed at our own population. Yeah. And that's the thing we. we did this before. Previously we we created. phony social media accounts in. Arabic and Pashto.

Right. And that that's something. that we've understood. What's different is that they're now. doing this in English. Right. And they're now aiming this. at domestic population. I thought that was illegal. It, it I would think it's illegal. I think a lot of this, this behavior. is just unregulated, not looked. at. I mean. Who's, who's going to go. In and tell them. They can't do this? What body is going to mean? It's a New. York Times, the Washington Post. Democracy dies in darkness. I mean, that's that's the that is. the role of the press.

Yes, but to expose excesses. and roll them back by exposing them. But the but the problem is. that they see. They see, for instance, Donald. Trump. And. You know, the Trump movement. as an. Extension. Of what they, what they might call. the Russian information ecosystem. They like the Global Engagement. Center. The State Department has. this concept of information. ecosystems. So if you're to in alignment. with Russian foreign.

policy views on, say, Ukraine. or something like that. You are you can be. Part of the ecosystem even if. you have nothing to do with that. country. So the idea that, you know, you know, the first. Head of the Global Engagement Center. is a former editor of time magazine, Rick Stengel. He wrote a book called Information. Wars that we all had to read when we. were doing the Twitter files, because we didn't know about this. organization. You know, talked openly about how.

he thought the, the Trump. campaign, he. in it. He recognized the same techniques. that he saw from ISIS and. from Russia. So they're. Now they see. All this is all part of a. Piece, you know. And that is what I think is. dangerous, is that we're sort of. bringing the ethos of. military counter messaging. from the war on terror. We're bringing that home. And the enemy is now. the domestic voter. Right. Okay. So military.

messaging, but the purpose of. military is to kill people in the. end and to deter war. by the threat of killing people. But basically it's killing. That's their business. Killing. Yes, but also trying to. discourage recruitment. Right. Of course. Right, right. So but fundamentally, if you were. to say like, what's the purpose of. military. It's to exert force, physical force. So if the. US military is turning its. psyops on the country, like, that's just not that far. You know, the nature of. organizations and mission creep.

from there to, like, hurting people. Exactly, exactly. And and and they. they actually you'll find NATO. We found NATO papers that talked. about how they found. The. American. Belief in, inform. Not influence or. You know. Truthfulness that that it was. actually that's part of a. An old NATO memo about, influence operations that you have. to you can't tell.

untruths. The the more modern belief. is that that's outdated, that. because the Russians don't do that, that we have to, we shouldn't have those restraints. So we. Have to worry now about. Sort of. Phony influence operations. in the United States. And if you look at it in that, that. things through that lens. Suddenly things like. Russia, you. Start to make a little bit more. sense. Right? Because you can imagine somebody. in the intelligence service is. saying, well, Donald Trump.

is part of this. Nexus of. Anti-American forces, and. Anything's. Fair game against that kind of. person. So what what Russia's central. to all of this in the minds of the. people doing it? And from my perspective, as someone. who's never been that interested in. Russia, the country, you sort of. wake up one day and, you know, 25 years after the end of. the Cold War and realize you're. required to hate Russia.

And I just refused to go along with. that on principle, not because I. love Russia. I do kind of like Russia, actually, having been there, but I didn't have. any feelings about it a year ago. Right. And but I just I'm an adult man, and. I don't want to be told to think. And I'm not going to be period, under any circumstances because I'm. not a slave. So but unanswered. is the question. Like why, why, why is that a requirement of living. in the United States, where I've. lived my whole life hating Russia? Like, what does that have to do with anything? Like, how do we get there of all. countries? I don't this I don't understand that. either. And also you don't.

I mean, well, especially compared. To when Russia actually. was. A major. I mean. It wasn't nearly this intense in the. 70s and 80s. I was. Here. It was not. Right. Oh, it was done. In fact, people. said, I mean, Russia was actually. running actual. psyops against the United States. Aids was created at Fort Meade to. kill black people. You know, all these things. That's. that was a Russian. Active measures campaigns, big. Time. And and of course, there were. all these proxy wars going on even. then in Mozambique.

And, you know, there were like actual. wars. And, the prevailing. view among people I knew was, you. know, Soviets are bad. Of course, no one's pro-Soviet. in normal person world, but it. would be kind of nice to be at. peace. And nuclear war is really scary. And like, let's avoid that. I mean, that was the view that I. remember as a child, right? Sure. Yeah. I mean, we had we had staying. and telling us the Russians love. their children too. And which is true. And, you know, when when. Gorbachev came on the scene, I.

remember very distinctly people. saying, you. know, the we have to find a way. to get along. With these people like that. That we're spending too much money. on, on defense and that this, this is, this is costing both of our. societies. But that's not what we're we're at. now. And oddly. Enough, the current. American government. It feels a lot like the. Soviet. Government of the. Early. 80s, right. Where, you know, Joe Biden would.

would have fit in perfectly, in the Politburo of. The Earth fresh. Now, if I thought. Right any time. Yeah. I mean, he's he's the doddering. old. Yes, physically dead. Leader, who is. who still has a title because, you know, he hasn't actually. expired. Presiding over a decade cynical. society that no longer believes in. the slogans. Right. And the. Russians have a joke where Gorbachev. gets in. The. A limousine and he's late.

for work, so he he drives too fast. The cops pull him over, and. His. Gorbachev's driver is drunk, passed. out in the back. So he had to drive himself. He gets stomped by the police, and. the cop season salutes goes. back to the car, and the other. cop says, who is that? And he goes, I don't know. The garbage officer's driver. And. That's how you feel about America. Know who who's running this country? Does anybody. Know. Who is running the country? Is it Jake Sullivan? I mean, no, I mean, you'd have to.

make a guess, would you? Wouldn't you? I mean, somebody. Has to have the final say about. these things, and it can't. Be Biden. I just think that's a very weird. thing to not know. And no one seems curious about it. either, right? Where are the. Stories about that? Who's that? Well, I mean, then the. Wall Street Journal just did a story. about it. They they broke the seal on that. But it is kind of a silly, dishonest story. But but in it were, quite a silly diss on a story, I. thought, but whatever. But there. were certainly things in there that. had not been in the Wall Street.

Journal or big paper. Before, for sure. Right, right. They they took. a, you know, they did the toe. in the lingo. Right? Yeah. But still, you know, you in. a real country, we would be. scrambling to find out. Well, the. President is clearly. not capable. So what's going on? You know. Nothing. There's not a hint of anything, which is just. It's it's so. Bizarre. Well, and especially given the. consequences. I mean, if this were. 1995, you could sort of see it and.

sort of runs on autopilot. And, you know, Tim Cook in The. Captains of Industry can pitch in. and sort of keep us on the track. I mean, that would be the view, right? But now we are on the brink. We're closer to nuclear war than. we've ever been, closer than the. Cuban Missile Crisis right now. Right to total nuclear annihilation. And if the commander in chief is an. unconscious menace, and I mean. work to the ship is listing its. on its side. Where are the people saying, you know I hate Trump. I love my politics don't even matter. at this level. We're on the verge of nuclear war.

That's not acceptable. Let's pull back. I have not even heard any person. say that. What is that? I don't know. Where's the. Where's the public. Concern about that either? I mean, if this were. 1986. Yes. And we were at this level of. antagonism with Russia, if there had been an exploded. pipeline, if there was a shooting. war. In. Ukraine. Right, or some kind of. proxy territory where our.

weapons were killing Russian troops. and vice versa. Because, you know, some of ours are. over there, too. Quite a few. And, you. know, people would be. Panicking, right? Because at any minute, you know, we're all relying on somebody like. Putin being rational, which is. already. You know. I made that mistake. in thinking that he would never. invade Ukraine. I thought that, too. And, so. What are we banking on, on the idea.

That if, you know. If we launch some kind of a weapon. into the Russian territory, that they're not going. To hit us. What do you think? I mean, I, I think. the people who are, who are. Prosecuting. The. Conflict from our side. I'm, I'm very familiar with their. mindset because I knew a lot. of these folks when I was in Russia. They're not. It's kind of like all. the presidents, presidents, men. These aren't very bright guys. Yeah. And things have gotten out of. hand.

And I, I think that. they they. have no idea. What they're doing. And this could. easily get out of hand very, very quickly because they're. messianic about this. They know they think. They think they must. Continue this conflict. Whereas the one thing that I thought. Barack Obama was sensible about was, you know, when the Crimea thing. happened, I look, it's not. you know, it's always going to be. more important to them than it is to. be. Yes, it's it's right. Very important to them, by the way. Right, exactly.

I hear these people, including the. U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and but. many others just sort of blithely. announced that, well, we're going to. take Crimea. And that again, I. don't have strong feelings about. Crimea. I've never been there. But I think I know as. a factual matter that that is a. trigger for nuclear war right there. For sure. For sure. And it. You know, it's kind of a jump ball. Also like. You know. Should that place. Be. I think it is Russian at this point. But. Right. And it's been Russian. historically.

I mean, there's a lot of weird stuff. about Ukraine's history, like the, you know, the fact that they. Gave the. They created the territory as, sort of on a. Whim. You know, in the in the middle of. the Soviet period, the lines are very arbitrary. They're not drawn along, you know, real linguistic or cultural lines. And if you're if you've been to the. place, you'll find that it's. it's very Russian in some parts and. very Ukrainian on others. I'm sure that's changing now, but. But the people who are, who are.

Pushing this, they, they have no knowledge of that. whatsoever. It's the same thing as. when I'm, when I was in Russia. They they've been told one. thing. And so, you. know, Ukraine to them is like. Switzerland and we're saving it. from Russia. Whereas the reality is that. You know. It's nothing like that in reality. And I don't know, how dangerous do. you think that do you think they. are? I think they're crazy. I think they're the most dangerous. I think they're seized by hubris. I think there is a messianic quality.

to this. I think the entire. leadership class of the country is. determined to commit suicide. I think that they've boxed. themselves in. They're criminals. They know that they will be exposed. as such. And they've also reached. kind of the apogee of American. empire. Anyway, it's all downhill. from here. I do think that they feel. this. And and I think they want to. extinguish the society. And I think that's such an. incredibly dark thing to say. I hesitate even to say it, but I. don't see a. rational explanation for any of this. behavior at all. I don't think it.

advances anyone's aims, including. their own right. I don't believe that Larry Fink is. like orchestrating all this so. Blackrock can get even richer. I think they want to get richer. I think Larry Fink is a bad guy, obviously, but I don't think an. Or Lockheed Martin. That's exactly right. The defense. contractors and that's all true. on one level. But that's not the explanation. No, no, it's way deeper than. that. I think it's a spiritual. thing. And I do think societies, kill themselves just as people do. And I think that's what we're and. clearly that's what we're seeing.

I mean, tell me how that's not what. what we're seeing. And I think that's just such an ugly. idea. Again, it it hurts me to articulate. it. But you asked, so that's what I. honestly think. What I mean, what. other explanation is there. Well, kind. Of right I mean, I. I've kind of run out of, I. made the mistake, I think, for years. of trying to think, well, what's. the angle on this one? Right. That's how I thought, you. know, like, there's got to be some. End game that they're going for.

And the only way to make sense. of this is to give that up, I think. And, because. There's something darker going. on. Yes. In the culture of. people who run this country, that. is, it's inaccessible. if you're trying to, like, assign. motives to it. Right. They could easily, like, just stick. to. The problem of Donald Trump. They could. Easily. Defeat Donald Trump as a. political entity if they just. if they were thinking as political. consultants did in the.

90s or 80s, right. Like they would just make some. subtle adjustments. They would. Throw. A bone to. To working people and, and, you know, they. They would put forward a candidate. who isn't, you know, physically dead. and they would win. Right? But no, for them, I think it's a principle. that a certain kind of voter. not have a say in things. And I don't know. That's just totally counterintuitive. to me. I don't I just don't.

understand that. You know. But so in other words, it's. it's not just Trump, it's the idea. that the people who like Trump, those people might have. power or be rewarded. Right? We cannot legitimize. the the negative feelings. of those voters. Is is how they think. Whereas, it's. it's. Incredibly obvious. If you go out on the campaign trail. and talk to people who who vote.

for Trump, that they do it for a. million different reasons, right? You know, ranging from. You know, the town that I live in. used. To. Be a booming economic. center. Now it's it's dead. right. It you know, it looks it. looks like, a third world. country to there there. isn't a functioning hospital within. 300 miles of where I live. The Walmart is now the only place. where you can buy anything for 50. miles. Like there's a million reasons.

And then there's some social. issues, too. But once upon. A time, I mean, I remember. not so long ago, even Bill Clinton. talking about trying to reclaim some. of those working class voters. And that was a like a legitimate. one. West Virginia, he won every county. in West Virginia. Imagine every county that's in. Every county in West Virginia in. 1992. And of course, I think he lost. California. Wow. And so imagine. a Democrat winning any county.

in West Virginia. Well, they wouldn't want to win. No. They say right. Which. Right. I mean, then they they go in there. with this scolding attitude like. learn to code, like, what's wrong. with you? Look like there's this punitive. attitude. About it. Which is the as you know, if you've covered campaigns. You cannot win. If you if you if you have hostility. towards the voters. That's Trump's secret is he doesn't. hate them. He loves them. I know, I know. Right. And that was immediately apparent.

from his first campaign is that he. got up there and. You know, people. Say, well, what does a billionaire. have in common. With, you know. Ordinary. People? He he's like. Them in a lot of ways. He has the. Same. Right. He probably does the same thing in. the spare time. He goes to the same. websites and. We to the same restaurant. We know that. Right? Exactly. Yeah. And you know, so. When he opens his mouth, people. Think, yeah, you know. I can connect with this guy now. It's a lot of it is. fake. Right. And the policy prescriptions.

may not make any sense, but you can understand why. The level at the, at the, you. know, at the level of visceral at. the like, he's he has affection. and they have hate. And I think that's, that's the thing. that shocks me most like I, I think I'm way too autistic or. something to understand. A lot of things are happening right. now, but I think in terms of. like, well, you know, outcomes. And that's not what any of this is. about. And the thing that shocks me. most is the actual hostility. that people in D.C.

more effectively and from have. for the rest of the country, like. they hate the people in the country. They do. They don't just look down on them. I thought it was just like looking. down on them in a snobbish way. Right? No, it's like a hostility, right? When they die. And you saw this during Covid or he. didn't get the vaccine. He died. I'm glad he died. Like I'm glad he died, right? American. Right? Right, right. I'm not happy when a gang member. dies in the South Side of Chicago. No, I'm sure I'm serious. I couldn't be more opposed to gang. members in Chicago, but, like, I. don't know, it's like a it's a human. being. American. Like. I think it's sad, actually.

Oh, I mean, the hostility during the. Covid thing was awesome. It was unbelievable to watch that. Yeah. I mean, I mean, Jimmy Kimmel does. this whole anti-vax Barbie thing. where it's just. You know, it's the. Worst kind of. Yeah, a cosmopolitan. Looking down at the, at the, at. the hick kind of a thing. And, and. They, they hate these. People. Right. But why I. Don't understand, you know, like. You once upon. again.

Not long ago, entertainers wanted to. connect. Yeah. With ordinary people. Now they they don't like that. audience. They wouldn't want to get, plaudits from that audience. Your audience. And politicians don't either. They, they. They want to be elected by the right. people. Or. They want and they want to do it. without the help of the wrong. kind of voters. But they can't because they're. outnumbered, you know? So I. It's a. Crazy time. But but it but I do. Think you're right that if you try.

to figure this out by assigning. rational motives to. any of this, it doesn't make any. sense. It won't work. So we're on a slide, as you said. at the very outset, into an authoritarian government, a different certainly a different. form of government, not a democratic. government at all. And some kind of oligarchy. I'm already there. Does that. Is there any way to. arrest that? Slow down. Is it inevitable? Like what? If you could project? What? What do you see?

Or. I mean, I don't think so. I'm part. Of the reason that I'm so spun up. about a lot of, a lot of the stuff. that's happening is because I. Got to. I watched what happened when. You know, speech freedoms. Even limited ones, like the ones in. Russia, they disappear, they don't. come back, you know, like that's. that's kind of what happens. And. They don't come back. That's true, isn't it? Right. And, you know, in the United. States. There was a reverence.

Once for, for. The First Amendment, for the whole. Bill of rights, that. it just doesn't exist anymore. There's this kind of, like, defeatist or unbelieving. attitude about it. And that's been another evolution. of, you know, working on stories. like the Twitter files is finding. out that people don't really. they don't have the same feeling. about the First Amendment that. people did in the 80s and 90s. or even the early 2000. So, I mean, even Rob Reiner does the. American president, right? And it's all about how,

you know, the ACLU and, you know, being allowed to burn the. flag. And. Yes, and he's, you know. He's on the other side of this thing. now, right? Like and so. What. Happened to all those people? What happened to that, that belief. and, the system, I mean, for all of them. You know, you. Mentioned that you and I came from. probably from different. Political. Places at one point in. Time. But I think we probably both.

share a belief that America. on some level worked. Right. Well, it. Had all kinds of. Flaws. But, you know, immigrants. came here from all over the world. They built good lives, and they. chose to stay here. I mean, my family. You know. Came from different parts of the. world. And. This this country is screwed up. I like the fact. That it's screwed up. But it works. This justice system, has been a great thing. And people don't believe that. I think they've lost that belief.

I think, which is. so sad. I don't know. Do you. Feel that? I mean. I feel it really strongly, and I and. I also feel that, any semblance of national. unity or common belief, shared culture, even short language, but particularly culture, is gone. And I notice it in talking. to you because actually, you know, maybe you voted for one. guy, voted for the other. But our core beliefs about the you. just articulated them right there. I've never doubted that a day in my.

life. Right. I just didn't, you know, because, like, yeah, America. Yeah. Screwed up in a lot of ways. Of course. First of all, it's huge. So of course it's screwed up. Everything big is screwed up, sure, but the best. the system works. And, I don't feel that there's a national. consensus on that at all anymore. And it seems to have evaporated. very, very fast. And I'm not quite sure how. Maybe that's the problem with being. in your 50s. Things change. And you didn't see the change. coming. Yeah. And that's still a mystery, right?

Like where did that happen? There had to have been a moment in. time. Where? Well, I'll tell you, part of what. happened is the people who were. deputized to defend it refused to. And mixed angles of the world. Who was supposed to be. He was literally a guardian in the. First Amendment. He's the editor of. time magazine, right. And all. Next thing you know, he's a. federal official working for Obama. against the First Amendment. And you're like, well, that's a. dereliction of duty. That's a major sin. I think it's a crime. I think he should be punished for. that. Actually, you can't allow. that. I mean, if you're in a a battle. and the officers desert, they get.

shot for that. Not to do that. Like you need leadership in order to. preserve whatever it is that you. have. Right? Right. And so I blame the leaders. 100%. And without leadership, of. course, things fall apart and no. one's willing to stand and be like, no, you know, the dignity of the average person is. not just a good thing. It's the core of the enterprise. It's essential you give that up, we're done. And, you know, you're not allowed to do this. period. Yeah. I agree.

And, you know, not now. You know, the role, the. Role the media and. I think is an important one in. American society. We were given a very important. responsibility to. To, tell the. Public when things aren't going. Right. And to do that. Continually, no matter what, you know. Which way the political winds are. blowing. Stick to. That.

And so now it's kind of more. important than ever to to keep. to keep doing that. I mean, you asked me like, what? How does this get turned around? I don't know, but the only thing I. know is I think, you know. You have to. Keep doing this. stuff and telling people about it, and in the hopes that it will get. turned around. So last question. You, you. spent ten years within. a society that, you know, punished. journalists physically at times. for telling the truth. You're watching political figures go.

to jail. And whatever you think of the. charges or convictions or whatever, in every single case, you know, for. dead certain facts, if that person. hadn't been in politics on the wrong. side, he would not be going to jail. That's just a fact. So they're using jail as a political. instrument. How long until that comes. to journalists? Like, do you worry. that it at this rate, like. you wind up indicted? I've I've started. For the first time to worry about. that. You know, because because I.

spend so. Much time in Russia and I knew. people who, you know, physically. suffered for what they did. Right. Whenever people talked about taking. risks as a journalist in the United. States, I always said, look, please, you know. Like, yeah. In other parts of the world, they actually go through hardship. Yeah. Try that in Mexico. Yeah, exactly. See what happens, you know. Yeah. You know, but it's gotten weird. here. I mean, even. Look, even even. The ban and story, there's an. element of that where, you know, it may not be as much.

about him as. a political figure as it is about. War Room, necessarily. Well, it's. 100% that. Right? And no one wants to say it. But at this point in his life, as of. today, Steve Bannon is a journalist. That's what he is. And you may. disagree with him completely. He hosts a talk show every. day. Right. It's like, what is that? Right. And the most influential one. Yeah I know. Right. And, you know, you hear people like. Rick Wilson, getting up and saying, yeah, it's. for months, but it's for important. ones. It's worth it's four key. months. He said, you know, like.

You. Know, the Republican strategist, he. said that. The Lincoln Project. The Lincoln Project guy, and the. former Dick Cheney aide. You know, like. I. Saw that and I was like, wow, they're kind of saying that out in. the open, you know, and. And even even. My experience look like you had the. Pfizer. Thing. And, when I, when I did the Twitter. files, an IRS agent showed. up at my house while I was. testifying, to. talk to Congress. So that's absolutely.

Crazy. Yeah. No, I, I yeah, I thought it had to. be a. Coincidence, but, I don't think. I now no, no longer think it is. And I do worry about it. I mean, I, I haven't even shared. this with my wife. Yet, but I thought it might be time. For us to get another house and. some other place that doesn't have. an extradition. Treaty. Yeah, well, there aren't many. You know? Yeah. Which is a problem. Oh, I'm aware of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And. I never had those thoughts even, even a year ago, but,

you must have had them. I've had some thoughts. Yeah, I've had some experiences. that, you know, pretty shocking, I would say. Not interested in talking about it, but. Yeah, for sure. Really, really shocking. But it's still kind of all. hard to believe. I guess it's always that way, right? When your society changes, it's hard. to believe it's actually happening. Well, it's it's it's it's happened. slowly. Somewhere along the line, I became. conscious of the fact that obviously. somebody must be listening to.

Yeah. You know, the people who I have. in my contacts list are a lot of. them are. Out of the country, or running. from the law, or on. the wrong side of the intelligence. services. And. You know. There's no way that somebody is not. Aware of what's going on, you. know, the of what I do. And that's that's unnerving on one. level. But, yes, this. This, this recent thing about. You know, even even. the stuff involving the.

Epoch Times and, Alex Jones, you know. I was never a fan of his. He had some choice things to say. about me. But I think this. whole thing started with, the decision to take him off, the internet. And. That's troubling, you know, like, they clearly see. In. Journalists and information as. a threat. And.

Yeah, I. Don't think it's an accident that. there aren't that many places. left to. Publish, and. There aren't that many people left. doing real journalism. So, yeah. I think Twitter will stay open for. the duration of the election. Yeah, it prob. it probably will. But you know Trump's not on. any more. I mean to. Trump's Twitter Twitter account is. what won him I think the 2016. election. and that was one of the reasons I.

think journalists hate him is. because, he. proved that. They in. The internet age, you don't need. Reporters. That's right. If you're a politician. and they couldn't stand that, I. mean, I, I listen to those. conversations. They, they, they. were very resentful of the fact that. they he didn't have to go. through their approval system, you. know. But he's not. On Twitter anymore. And, you know, I mean, it's. Extraordinary that Joe Biden's the. only candidate in this election who.

hasn't been censored in some way. RFK has been censored from. a swami's had been booted. off LinkedIn for periods of time. I mean, like. Jill Stein for that. Man, Jill Stein. We found her in the Twitter files. She was on a on a list called. is underscore Russian, which was Jill Stein. Yes. Yes. Her and she and they hear them. So I mean, can they by the way, I like Jill Stein and no Jill Stein. I'm not against Jill Stein not. voting for. But like. Right, fine. But if you find yourself.

thinking that Jill Stein, doctor Jill Stein is the threat to. America like you're a buffoon to. But they they think that, right? I mean, they have the. hostility towards Jill Stein. The same way they had a hostility. toward Ralph Nader once in the. Once May day. And and the differences. Now. If you are Jill Stein, they see you. as part of the Trump, apparatus. You're no different from Trump.

to them. Assange. Jill Stein, you know, ISIS, whatever. They're all. Together. Yeah. Yeah. So Snowden. Exactly. Yeah. So it's it's it's these are crazy. times. What is. There anything that could get you to. stop? No, I mean, I've got kids, so. I'm obviously. Not completely invulnerable. Right. But. But I. Think, I think. The world America needs journalists. in our, in our and again, our first,

the first thing that we have to be. is. You know, tough about it, right? And so. You get, you got. To get knocked off before you, you. give up. I think. You. Shouldn't give up. Right? I mean, all my heroes in. journalism didn't do that, so. I'm not going to do that, I don't. think. But, I mean. You wouldn't, would you. Under any circumstances, right? Yeah, exactly. That's how you will be. Thank you. Thanks so much, Tucker. I appreciate it.

Thanks for watching. You can go to. TuckerCarlson.com for our entire. library of everything we've done. And we hope you will.