Saturday 30th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

have they all gone mad?......

BEFORE ANYONE COMPLAINS, I ADMIT I IMPLIED MORE THAN WHAT MATT SAID, IN MY CARTOON (MADE OF BORROWED BITS FROM AROUND THE TRAP).

SINCE THE DEMOCRATS CHOSE BILL CLINTON, OBAMA AND NOW JOE BIDEN TO RULE OVER THEIR BUCKET OF SLOP (NOTE: THE REPUBLICANS ARE PERFUMED WITH ESTABLISHMENT PIG SHIT AS WELL) ONE CAN HONESTLY ASK ABOUT THEIR STATE OF MIND...

 

SO I REMOVED THE WORD "HOUSE" FROM WHAT MATT SAID — AND IN RELATION TO CORRUPTION, WE HAVE BEEN HARPONGING (HE PONGS) ABOUT JOE BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME — CULMINATING IN THE HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP STORY, WHICH THE DEMOCRATS AND JOE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC.

 

SO HERE'S MATT TAIBBI:

 

House Democrats Have Lost Their Minds

 

Representative Stacey Plaskett, who called Michael Shellenberger and me "direct threats to people who oppose them," is now threatening me with prison - over Mehdi Hasan's uncorrected error.

Wow. When I think this iteration of the Democratic Party can’t sink any lower, it does.

I learned yesterday Virgin Islands Delegate and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government Stacey Plaskett is threatening me with prison, over her own error. Just after I ran a piece called “The Press is Now Also the Police” about the New York Times and Washington Post boasting of roles in delivering a leak suspect to the FBI, MSNBC’s new attack-caster, Mehdi Hasan, got his wish, inspiring first Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and then Plaskett to trumpet his incredibly vicious and mistaken claim that I lied to Congress.

The threatened penalty is five years...

It would be one thing if I really made the mistake. In that case, Plaskett’s letter would merely be an outrageous attempt to intimidate a witness by threatening a charge of intentional lying over a miscue. But that’s not the case. I did of course make an error, but what Plaskett is referencing is actually a mistake by Hasan, one she’s now repeating. I’m not sure what to do but explain and show this as clearly as possible.

 

I did in a tweet conflate the Center for Internet Security (CIS) with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), saying that CISA was so close to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project (EIP) that Twitter staffers didn’t really distinguish between them. This happened precisely because the agencies were hand-in-glove partners, and I’d seen so many communications about their cooperation that I lost track of some acronyms. I even tweeted months before, in TwitterFiles #6, that the agencies CIS and CISA were easily confused, because both worked with the EIP and CIS was a DHS contractor:

Before the 2020 election, a system had been set up under which reports of election misinformation could be through a CIS address (misinformation@cisecurity.org) to the Election Infrastructure Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), and in turn sent to “our partners”: the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Stanford’s Election Integrity Project (EIP).

Form letters acknowledging receipt of such complaints would be signed, “Center for Internet Security.” Individual reports of misinformation that came out of this system generated letters or “escalations” internally at Twitter, and in the first weeks of the #TwitterFiles project, when we were looking at piles of 2020 election moderation decisions, I saw so many variations on these communications that my eyes crossed at times.

Lee Fang wrote a detailed article rebutting Hasan that included links to other previously unpublished #TwitterFiles emails, showing how the system worked. As noted, many different types of complaints reached Twitter via this arrangement. Sometimes they originated with a state official — remember Twitter had been reassured that DHS would “know what’s going on in each state,” while the FBI offered to be the “belly button” for requests from the federal government — and sometimes they originated with EIP itself.

These groups openly acknowledged, even celebrated their relationships. In the montage below, you’ll see a notice from EIP’s website saying it partnered with CISA in 2020, a headline in a CIS news release about CIS and CISA working together, and just for good measure, a copy of an award showing that CIS received $38 million in federal funds beginning in September of 2020, with 99% of that money coming from… the Department of Homeland Security.

If that’s not enough evidence of intermingling, Matt Masterson, CISA’s former head of election security, stepped down from the DHS to accept a fellowship at Stanford’s Internet Observatory right after the conclusion of the 2020 election.

This means that when Plaskett writes it was “misinformation” for me to be “alleging that CISA — a government entity — was working with the EIP to have posts removed from social media,” she herself is engaging in misinformation. It may be an unintentional mistake, as she certainly seems capable of not knowing or caring to know underlying reality, but it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Only a person totally unfamiliar with the issue could believe that CISA/DHS were not closely involved with content moderation at Twitter, to say nothing of other companies. Both she and Mehdi are wrong about this, and make their accusation in defiance of a lot of obvious documentary evidence.

I’m not going to lie, it frightens me a little that I even have to offer this defense. I’ve had a long career, writing about some of the most litigious people and companies in America, and I’ve only been sued once and never successfully, and also never over a factual issue (the complaint was about the propriety of an undercover stunt). Nor have I ever had to issue a retraction. If you’ve read books like The Divide you know a lot of the things I’ve covered are arcane legal or financial stories, like the chronology of a long argument between very attentive lawyers over billions of dollars that allegedly went missing in the Lehman bankruptcy. I nearly grew a tumor worrying before that was published.

That came out okay, but I’ve of course made mistakes. It’s not supposed to happen, but it does, inevitably, which is why the New York Times has a “Corrections” section. What the Times still does is one of the last relics of the old honor system, under which journalists implicitly promise to try their hardest not to screw up, and readers agree to trust them, so long as they can see editors and their charges admitting their errors.

Unfortunately there’s a new model, in which news organizations don’t address errors or audience complaints at all. It’s from just such a media institution that Plaskett — while herself making an easily checkable mistake — got the idea to threaten prison for the kind of blunder we once would have consigned to the corrections page without a thought.

At the moment I still can’t quite wrap my head around this, and hope others will be able to make more sense of it. I’d laugh, but I have three kids, and these people might be serious. It’s like waking up in a H.U.A.C. hearing. Have they all gone mad?

 

Matt Taibbi
Matt Taibbi, author of the New York Times bestsellers The Divide, Griftopia, and The Great Derangement, was a contributing editor for Rolling Stone and winner of the 2007 National Magazine Award for Columns and Commentary.

 

READ MORE:

https://scheerpost.com/2023/04/19/house-democrats-have-lost-their-minds/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

whack-a-mole....

 

BY Henry Kamens

 

It is as if the president-elect, Joe Biden, who promised to bring together instead of divide, has not missed many opportunities to divide an already polarized country even more.  Now The US government under the guise of National Security is threatening to go all-out communist-fascist boot-stomping dictatorship—not in words but deeds.

The much-touted RESTRICT ACT  is not limited to just TikTok, but affects average Americans, with the threat of jail sentences, 20 years in prison, hefty fines, upwards of 1,000,000 USD, and the forfeiture of everything you own, and that is just for starters. Even VPN users can risk long jail sentences in the US under the newly-proposed RESTRICT Act.

As Geoffrey M. Young, a Democratic candidate running for governor in the US State of Kentucky recently shared, “The Restrict Act should be called, “The Put the CIA in Control of the Internet Act.” As far as I can tell, it eliminates the First Amendment.”

This Act, at least officially, may be cited as the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”.  The pending legislation gives the US government almost unlimited authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad. It also grants powers to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to national security now and in any “potential future transaction”.

 

Whatever does that mean?

The act also grants unlimited hiring power to positions of enforcement, unlimited funds with little or no review, and immunity to FOIA. At first impression, even based on the lame news coverage, this legislation is more likely intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, if passed.

It should come as no surprise that without hesitation, the White House backs the bipartisan bill that could be used to ban TikTok–calling it “a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans.”

However, it is becoming obvious, even to casual observers, that the real intentions of the pending are to restrict and hold back Americans from freely accessing technology and information that is not supportive of the status quo and efforts to limit basic American liberties, such as the 1st and 4th Amendment, Free Speech and Being Secure in one’s Papers and Communications.   Critics worry it may have much wider implications for the First Amendment, as the ‘Insanely Broad’ RESTRICT Act could ban much more than just TikTok!”

 

So WTF is going on?

In short, under the guise of controlling Chinese and foreign governments, the US government can arbitrarily classify anyone it supposedly deems is a security threat, even US citizens as foreign individuals, and you can have your profession and life destroyed. This makes the US Patriot Act and other means of government censorship, restriction of free speech, and free trade look like child’s play.

RESTRICT renders the US government as totalitarian as the CCP, and its language and potential reach fly into the face of everything that it means to be an American. It will not only be interesting to know what the ACLU and all those so-called Watchdog organizations of free speech and human rights are going to say and do about it.

I suspect it will be passed, hands down, as was the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 under fueling fear of what has turned out to be “most likely” self-inflicted fears, and a false flag to boot.  They’re also claiming it’s to protect US citizens from the CCP. But then those giving us such laws turn around and the US becomes the CCP.

It’s like how Germany and Italy became fascist constructs, and how Ceausescu rose to power in Romania, stole everything from everyone, and tortured everyone with impunity. Nowadays how many under the age of 40 even know who the dictator Ceausescu was and his plight?

To stand to the side and not take notice, is in fact like being one of Hitler’s Willing Executioners; the greatest sins are those of omission.  This is about what is to come for Americans, not like what is going on in former Nazi regimes, as even now in Germany you can be prosecuted for speaking out for free speech and the provision of aid to IDPs in Ukraine, if the money was raised using social media in the West.

The whole discourse around the Restrict Act is very interesting—it is something like a Trojan Horse. However, I think it should be addressed from a wider perspective. Many governments are dealing with similar issues, but they differ a lot in terms of approach. It might be interesting to compare their examples at a later date, at least in theory, to a more virtuous one, the contrasts between the differing laws and implementation should benefit the reader greatly—and the motives are far from one another.

 

Any Action as Necessary!

As the National Law Review describes, the proposed RESTRICT Act grants the secretary of commerce broad authority to take “any . . . action as necessary” to carry out its responsibilities. Such authority explicitly includes establishing “rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary deems appropriate,” issuing guidance and advisory opinions and conducting “investigations of violations of any authorization, order, mitigation measure, regulation, or prohibition issued” under it.

Considers or deems appropriate is especially concerning, as that appears something closer to the 1917 Espionage Act in intent so that the enforces can use it as they “dam-well-please”, and it is not just targeted against adversarial relationships but ordinary folk who will be subjected to police state like procedures to control them, as in an Orwellian or Brave New World scenario.

Even protected individual and collective free speech can be interpreted without limitations as  being connected to “coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that is designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission.”

Those who do not agree with the foreign policy and methods of the United States can come under such a blanket enforcing dragnet, and all they need to do to run afoul of the legislation is to use mechanisms, electronic or share in some partnership with public and private entities are can have collective or individual assists seized amongst other threatening and punitive measures.

This includes but is not limited to cutting off money access, i.e., the use of Bitcoin since it applies to any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data in the United States at any point for the year preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review.

Or if the Secretary initiates a review of the covered transaction, including— internet hosting services; cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party to utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; managed services; and content delivery services, etc.

So it is a catch-all piece of legislation that can knot up not only foreign governments, and various entities, but individuals – who may get caught up under the swoop of this legislation simply for communicating or dealing with targeted entities, and using electronic, devices and online means to interface, transferring of things of value electronically.  So that covers so many of us, and without thinking of what we are getting ourselves into.

 

Covers too much territory 

It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad and grants powers to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to national security now and in any “potential future transaction.” So this bill that claims to protect US interests from foreign entities: allows the feds to classify anyone they deem is a security threat, even US citizens as foreign individuals.

But the RESTRICT Act is going to be imposed upon US citizens as a being a concerted repose to the ills of TikTok and those SNEAKY Chinese, so clever, and for the public good; it might be wise to ban not only TikTok but the wide range of social media, as it is far more insidious than anything Made in China, including Facebook at the top of the heap.

Even the ACLU understands that the Congressional efforts to ban TikTok in the U.S. threaten the basic rights of free speech this legislation would silence 150 million Americans who use the platform daily. The American Civil Liberties Union said that blocking access to entire platforms would violate the First Amendment rights of the millions and millions of Americans who use the platform daily.

There is also another pending legislative, HR 1153, DATA Act.  It  has similar intentions—and if one piece of legislation will not be approved  then the other might.

The ACLU has confirmed in its recent press releases and correspondence that should various bills move to a vote that the “purported attempt to protect the data of U.S. persons from Chinese government acquisition, this legislation will instead limit Americans’ political discussion, artistic expression, free exchange of ideas — and even prevent people from posting cute animal videos and memes.”

It does not stop there: such legislation opens a floodgate of human rights violating activities, restricting data, and fundamental Constitutional rights, on behalf of BIG Brother and the discretion that its long list of enforcement agencies have in interpreting and enforcing enacting enabling legislation.

Collectively the shifting mindset and paradigm shift in Washington and other Capitols may take us into territory where there is no way back from the deep and dark abyss.  Under the flimsy veil “guise” of protecting us they are abusing us … and to “say otherwise: is very un-American.

It will target you for a wide range of problems: retribution as if they are not allowing tolerance, and what they claim they are doing on a limited scale under legislation to protect us from terrorists and ourselves is a far cry from the reality on the ground.

Already American journalists are targeted, with little opportunity to defend themselves, and sanctioned for exciting basic freedom of speech, under the Obama era US Treasury Sanctions, and not based on enabling legislation, but executive authority, not having access to wire transfers through Western Union and facing harassment, attacks, sudden job loses, and overt blacklisting. They have even threats to change one’s profession when arriving and departing from US airports.

All for the mere allegation of submitting articles to a foreign-funded media site, as it was a crime—and not a US Constitutionally protected right. With such legislation making its way through Congress, it is not hard to fathom what can come next, and it will make Georgia Orwell 1984 just a sample of hell.

The RESTRICT Act can be best summed up, even by think tanks that deal with digital globalization as: “No transparency, No due process, No accountability, and the designations of undue risk are made in secret. The Secretary of Commerce is not required to publish an explanation for the designation. The Administrative Procedures Act is waived – there is no due process.  The Freedom of Information Act is also waived – so there is no transparency!

“The only good thing about this law is that for once, the cute acronym attached to the bill, RESTRICT is an honest one. This law is all about restricting – if not choking off entirely –trade in information and communications technology.”

To add insult to injury, US Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) wants the United States armed with the ability to take swift action against technology companies suspected of cavorting with foreign governments and spies, to effectively make their products disappear from shelves and app stores when the threat they pose gets too BIG to ignore

Mark Warner, officially the bill’s sponsor, describes in a recent interview with the internet outlet WIRED how “we’ve seen challenges coming from foreign-based technology. He describes how it was as originally was Kaspersky, a Russian software company, then [the next target] was Huawei, a Chinese telecom provider, and more recently, the discussion has been about this Chinese-owned social media app, TikTok.

“We seem to have a whack-a-mole approach to foreign-based technology, and I think instead we need a comprehensive rules-based approach that recognizes national security is no longer simply tanks and guns, but a question about technology and technology competition.”

But the threat is not those being targeted but from a government that is getting too BIG and intrusive for its people–it is much too preoccupied with devising new schemes to further restrict our already restricted liberties, even to speak out at school board meetings and voice concerns over issues of public concern.  Warner also thinks that “the onus is on the FBI to ensure privacy is protected, and I do have concerns about some of the American-based companies, the Facebooks and Googles of the world.”

And if anyone in their good mind wants to trust such agencies, CIA and FBI to protect basic human rights then they need to move to China or North Korea and lend their support from there, as history has taught Americans–and much of the world that such entities are not in the business of protecting rights but their “claim-to-fame” is to blatantly violent them–and with almost total impunity or legal recourse.

As much as I personally dislike Tik-Tok, no government should have that sort of power… Tik-Tok is just a lame excuse to put into law highly-suspect mechanisms to further restrict guaranteed freedoms of speech and basic human rights.

 

Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2023/04/18/us-restrict-act-all-out-communist-fascist-boot-stomping-dictatorship-legislation/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

stateless media.....

 

Just after midnight on April 21st, Twitter’s new ownership capped off a momentous day which saw thousands of celebrities’ verified check marks suddenly disappear from their profiles by reversing one of the social media giant’s most widely-criticized decisions and eliminating ‘state-affiliated media’ labels altogether.

Social media behemoth Twitter is being both celebrated and vilified after reversing course on a controversial decision which saw outlets which receive money from governments get publicly labeled "state-affiliated media."

The labels have existed for several years, but were applied exclusively to publications like Sputnik and RT which receive funding from countries the US is targeting for regime change – including Russia, Iran, Cuba, and more.

After Twitter was purchased by billionaire Elon Musk, similar labels were affixed to Western government-sponsored outlets as well, including NPR, PBS, and Canada’s CBC – a decision which led the outraged North American publications to abandon the platform altogether.

But, strangely, none of those publications seemed terribly enthused by the decision.

"Twitter once muzzled Russian and Chinese state propaganda. That's over now," read a particularly morose headline from US government-funded NPR. A spokesman for CBC reportedly said the outlet still has no plans to return at this time, and is "reviewing this latest development and will leave [its] Twitter accounts on pause before taking any next steps.”

Meanwhile, a former Twitter executive interviewed by NPR complained bitterly that "it's disheartening to see labels that were built to inform people be used as a tactic to mislead."

More independent voices, however, tended to welcome the decision.

 

As Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone noted, "I’ve been very critical of Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and generally dismissive of claims that his ownership is a marked improvement over the previous owners, but if this is for real I’ll have to eat a big steaming pile of crow, because Twitter functioning less as a US propaganda organ is indisputably a significant improvement."

 

In February, following Russia’s intervention in the civil war that had been plaguing Ukraine since 2014, Twitter extended the labels to a number of individual journalists employed by these outlets, including this reporter.

Last April, Twitter announced it was taking steps to "drastically" reduce the chance that users would come across content made by those the platform declared "state-affiliated – a category that includes numerous American journalists. Even after numerous ‘Twitter Files’ disclosures, it remains unclear what role the Biden administration may have played in the effort to stifle those users’ speech, but any government-directed censorship of US citizens would almost certainly constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

As of Friday, however, it may be a moot question.

 

READ MORE:

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230422/twitter-scraps-all-state-affiliated-media-labels-sparking-media-meltdown-1109752829.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

GUSNOTE: I WAS AWAITING FOR THIS DECISION TO COME.... LOOK, DESPITE WHAT MANY JOURNALISTS SAY ABOUT ELON MUSK, HE IS WAY SMARTER THAN THEM. HERE, WE SAW A BIG PUSH TO LABEL ALL MEDIA SPONSORED BY STATES WITH A MONIKER... THIS WAS DESIGNED TO CREATE KERKEFULLIC "INDIGNATION".... SUCCESS! THE NEXT PART OF THE PLAN WAS TO ELIMINATE THE LABELS ALTOGETHER... WE GUESSED THIS MUCH, BUT WE DID OT KNOW IT WOULD COME SO SOON....

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

gone....

Episode 99 LIVE: Team Tucker – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nym5j_2RonY

 

REWIND TO THE BEGINNING....

 

SEE ALSO: 

parting ways....

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

grievances....

Fox News has said that it is parting ways with prime-time host Tucker Carlson, whose grievances and political theories about Russia and the January 6 insurrection had grown to define the network in recent years and influence GOP politics.

Key points:
  • The break comes less than a week after Fox agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems
  • Carlson was also named in another lawsuit by a former Fox producer
  • An expert says that the sudden ouster will have profound consequences for Fox News, TV news and the Republican Party
 

Fox offered no explanation for the stunning move, saying that the last broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight aired last Friday.

Shares of Fox slid 4 per cent within seconds of the announcement of Carlson's departure.

The break comes less than a week after Fox agreed to pay $US787 million ($1.2 billion) to settle a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the network's airing of false claims following the 2020 presidential election.

Carlson was also recently named in a lawsuit by a former Fox producer who said the show had a cruel and misogynistic workplace.

Meanwhile, CNN axed its own controversial anchor, Don Lemon, part of a one-day bloodletting in cable television news.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-25/tucker-carlson-fox-news-most-popular-host-out-at-network/102262758

 

HERE WE SHOULD KNOW THAT TUCKER WAS FIERCELY ANTI-PROXY US WAR IN UKRAINE and was defender of free speech, (grievances and political theories about Russia???? WHAT AMBIGUOUS CRAP IS THIS, ABC????) SO WE AMAZINGLY SHOULD TURN TO :

How the Left Tried to Ruin Tucker Carlson Before his Fox Exit, with Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OavoQfEi1PQ

 

Why Tucker Carlson's Unique Policy Positions Made Him a Target, with Glenn Greenwald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN1bp7jSBY0

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

spilling the truth....

 

MOST INDEPENDENT PUNDITS AND JOURNALISTS ARE IN SHOCK ABOUT TUCKER CARLSON LEAVING FOX — AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES... BUT, WHEN I SAW THIS VIDEO BELOW (WHICH WE POSTED A WEEK OR SO BACK ON THIS SITE), I THOUGH "HOW LONG IS TUCKER CARLSON GOING TO LAST AT FOX?"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtMiXdc37og

 

ONE FRIEND, I SENT THE LINK TO, RESPONDED: "AMAZING ADMISSION…..".....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

the bill show.....

Talking Points Memo: Bill breaks down the news that Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News, and that CNN has fired Don Lemon

Donald Trump Jr. joins the No Spin News and reacts to the Tucker Carlson news and President Biden's likely campaign launch

Susan Rice steps down as Biden's domestic policy advisor

The ad executive behind the controversial Dylan Mulvany campaign is on leave while Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch change course

This Day in History: Annie Oakley hired by Buffalo Bill's Wild West

Show Final Thought: Ray Epps' eventual lawsuit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAfNEqChWs

 

MAKE YOUR OWN OPINION(!!!!).... GUS IS ONLY A DRUNKEN PUPPET.....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

the left lost its mind.....

Matt Taibbi: How the Left lost its mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfyw3xA2hv0

Before Matt Taibbi was sparring with Democratic members of Congress on Capitol Hill earlier this year over the Twitter Files, he was a darling of the progressive left, appearing regularly on shows like Democracy Now! and others hosted by Bill Moyers and Rachel Maddow.

Though he was always a fierce critic of the Democratic establishment, the rise of Donald Trump suddenly meant that anyone nominally left of center—including progressive journalists like Taibbi—was expected to support Hillary Clinton unconditionally. So when he attacked her as a sellout, argued that the Russiagate narrative was mostly bullshit, and equated the manipulative tactics of right and left media personalities, progressives gave him the cold shoulder. Elected Democrats started treating him like a puppet of the right.

In 2020, Taibbi started publishing his work on Substack and quickly became one of the platform's most popular writers, earning far more than he ever did at Rolling Stone, where he had been chief political reporter. He became even more of a pariah by publishing exhaustive reports that documented how the government sought to control what was said on Twitter about COVID-19 and efforts by Russia to influence U.S. elections. Congressional Democrats unconvincingly pilloried him as a fake journalist, an apologist for Vladimir Putin, and a stooge for Elon Musk.

I caught up with Taibbi at FreedomFest, an annual gathering held this year in Memphis, to talk about the new challenges to free speech, why legacy media is dying, and how identity politics are poisoning political discourse.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....