Would you like me to give the direct quote?
>> Yeah.
>> Please excuse my language, this is a direct quote, but
Chrissy Tegan referred to Donald Trump as a gas bitch.
>> Okay, free speech.
>> [LAUGH] >> This hearing by
Republicans to cry about how there's such victims of
social media platforms is not going so well for them.
It just isn't, because it turns out that after all we heard about
the Twitter files, all we heard about the Biden campaign trying to
censor tweets on Twitter turns out wow.
Trump, when he was president, meaning government official executive branch,
he tried to get stuff taken down from Twitter,
that hurt his feelings including the tweet from Chrissy Teigen.
>> [LAUGH] >> Lol, what a P word ass bitch tagged
everyone but me an honor Mr President.
>> She called him Mr President.
She's being polite.
>> I mean, very respectful.
>> Come on.
>> So apparently, that offended him enough to get
his team to try to get that tweet taken down.
I mean look, if you wanna take down all the tweets of people calling you a PSB,
you're gonna need to hire some more people, that's a jobs creation program I
can get behind [LAUGH] cuz it's come and it's not restricted to Chrissy Teigen.
>> So apparently when this happened, it was from 2019,
John Legend Chrissy Teigen's husband got into some sort of Twitter beef with Trump.
And that led to the Chrissy Teigen tweet.
I just, can we just, can everyone just stop.
>> Stop what?
Calling him a PSB.
>> No, no, no >> Cuz I won't.
>> Guys, >> You can't make me.
>> Can you imagine being that powerful >> To take down a tweet like that,
>> Like to care and
be like [SOUND] >> You mean be that powerful and yet so
amy and weak, I can't imagine [CROSSTALK] >> Saying mean things about you, right?
>> Yeah, I have been and will continue to in this very segment,
take us down, take us down.
>> So the woman that we heard from is a former Twitter employee, right?
So this hearing brought in some Twitter employees including Annika Navaroli.
That is the woman that we heard from.
We should hear a little more from her testimony.
Let's watch.
>> According to notes from a conversation with you Ms Navaroli counsel,
your counsel.
The White House almost immediately thereafter contacted Twitter to
demand the tweet be taken down.
Is that accurate?
>> In my role, I was not responsible for
receiving any sort of request from the government.
However, what I was privy to was my supervisors letting us know that we had
received something along those lines or something of a request.
In that particular instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request
from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet and
that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement directed
towards the President.
>> They wanted it to come down, they made that request.
>> To my recollection- >> I thought that was an inappropriate
action by a government official, let alone the White House.
But it wasn't Joe Biden about his son's laptop,
it was Donald Trump because he didn't like what Chrissy Teigen had to say about him.
Is that correct?
>> Yes, that is correct.
>> My, my, my.
And by the way, I shouldn't minimize what her role was at Twitter,
she was a Twitter executive.
So again, Republicans brought her on along with other former
employees of Twitter specifically to make their case that there's
such victims of the previously censorious Twitter platform.
>> Yeah, >> But look, it turns out that when it
comes to free speech, everyone's full of crap, everyone, okay?
Everyone from every party tries to censor speech in some way when they get offended,
it's just, it is what it is.
It's the truth.
>> I've never seen Bernie do it.
>> Well, that's true, but Bernie is very lovable.
>> So look, it's obviously hilarious that he wanted to take this down.
It is funny and so on that shallow level, I can enjoy it.
But we do have to acknowledge that there are differences.
Obviously, these are not the exact same thing.
So they came in wanting to focus on Biden doing this and as you point out,
they think that the Biden campaign did some of this and now appears Trump did,
so you're right when it comes to a generalized lower f lower s free speech,
there is some similarity there.
When it comes to the First Amendment, these are very different things because
Joe Biden was a private citizen and he was the sitting president of United States.
So if there's any there there, it's there what you just saw,
it's the actual government doing it.
And it's so weird that after months of journalists having access to all these
Twitter files, they didn't come across this, they were I guess so
busy finding private citizens requesting things get taken down without any
of the power of the government behind it or anything like that.
And it's weird because not only did you have the very serious journalist, but you
had the CEO himself, a man who at his core is just a commitment to free speech and
like an opposition of censorship giving them access.
It's so weird that it took this long to find out about it.
>> I think this is the most important issue in the country.
Sometimes I do feel a little bit of concern about the tens of
millions of Americans who don't have health care and
often will go bankrupt when they need medical treatment.
But I mean that really pales in comparison to the incredibly
critical issue at hand here which is a platform that really
has no impact on your life if you decide not to be on it.
This is all just a massive elite circle jerk.
That's all this is, right?
Like I wanna make sure I'm not being shadow manned, I mean I'm not doing
anything to legislate or govern this country, I don't care about any of that.
But me, me, me, me me, am I being censored, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me,
that's all it is all day long, that's why I'm so bored with my job.
That's why I'm bored with my job, because all day long, everyone's constantly
talking about the hurt feelings of the elites in this country.
I don't care about your hurt feelings.
Okay, Twitter is not the most important platform of all time.
It's not, I don't find it important at all, okay?
>> Yeah, I get the general idea.
My issue isn't about the FVEY of the elites, I really don't care about them.
It's that this is actually the government using its power to shut down voices and
sure the voice that it might be shutting down briefly could be Chrissy Teigen and
maybe we don't care too much about that.
That was a funny tweet.
She's had her missteps or whatever, but if Trump gets back into office and
now he has an even more friendly executive in charge of Twitter,
I don't think they're just gonna be coming for the Chrissy Teigen's,
they're gonna be coming for progressive candidates.
People who advocate for a wealth tax, labor organizers, those sorts of things.
And again, regular people debating or
a company debating these things might be fine.
The protection we're supposed to have is against the government mandating this sort
of censorship and that is constantly lost on the people who dominate
the conversation about free speech.
But we finally have a case in which it is actually the government, and
I guarantee they're not gonna have anything to say about this.
Glenn Greenwald is not gonna be freaking out about this.
Dave Rubin's gonna suddenly have something else to do.
So weird that when it's the actual government doing the censorship,
that they're gonna be real quiet all of a sudden,
they're not gonna write any books about that.
>> Are you saying that Glenn Greenwald is not an honest actor?
>> I couldn't tell you, I don't watch his stuff.
My impression based on what I've heard is that not necessarily, but anyway, I mean,
the movement at large, the quote unquote free speech warriors who care about
criticism and claim that that censorship but don't care about censorship.
>> The government is currently banning books in schools in places
like Florida for instance, I don't hear a peep from the so
called free speech absolutists who take up all the freaking
oxygen in the room with their faux outrage over nonsense.
>> Wait, what about the ones who focus explicitly on book banning?
>> Like which ones?
>> Like Dave Rubin.
He must have a problem with this, right?
And he made a whole book about it.
He wrote that book.
>> No book,
man's only matter when it impacts him, >> Or
when he desperately wants it to impact him, when he's desperately begging for
people to ban his book and nobody cared.
>> Right, 100%.
Few other things to note from this hearing.
At one point, AOC was able to engage in a line of questioning with knave Rowley and
here's what happened.
So AOC asked her about the company's response
to a 2019 Trump tweet where he called for AOC and
three other Democratic congresswoman of color to quote, go back and
help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.
>> So New York, where does he think that they came from?
>> So Navaroli responded to that by saying that her team reviewed the tweet and
found that it was in fact a violation of Twitter's policies against abuse
of immigrants which explicitly barred the phrase,
go back to where you came from, okay?
But guess what happened, guess what Twitter did?
Instead of, I don't know, taking down Trump's tweet I guess,
they changed the policy to accommodate Trump's tweet.
So let me give you that exchange, Navaroli said her assessment was overridden and
AOC asked if the policy was changed a day or two later,
she responded yes, that trope go back to where you came from
was removed from the content moderation guidance as an example.
And AOC responded.
So Twitter changed their own policy after the president violated it in order to
essentially accommodate his tweet.
And at that point, Navaroli said yes.
>> That's good.
That's good, I mean it's terrible.
I mean the line of questioning is good.
See that's why I like AOC in these meetings and people like Raskin and
Porter, they ask insightful questions,
they've done the research to know what to ask about and they reveal truth.
Whereas Marjorie Greene just barks at a person who has no
idea what she's saying because she's spouting off stuff that she read on 4chan,
that is not the same thing actually.
And again, like I've generally said for years, if Twitter wants to have or
not have the phrase go back to your country on the list of banned phrases.
That's up to them, they're private company, the fact that they're removing it
directly to protect an elite who has already shown that he's perfectly willing
to pressure that company to change their policies, then that's not as good and
potential users of Twitter going forward should bear that in mind.
>> They should definitely bear that in mind.
And I haven't seen any of Marjorie Greene's participation in this hearing,
but I have seen what Lauren Boebert wanted to ask about.
You wanna know what Lauren Boebert is concerned about?
Lauren Boebert, was eye shadow banned, no one cares Lauren, let's move on.