Jen Psaki’s the Best Evidence for Trump’s Lawsuit


BUCK: Here is Jen Psaki, who’s out there to just remind you: Oh, don’t worry. They’re not going after individual Facebook users from the White House level — yet. That’s what she’s saying.

PSAKI: First of all, we’ve not asked Facebook to block, uh, any individual posts. Uhhh, the way this works is that there is trending… There are trends that are out there on social media platforms. Uhhh, you’re aware of them. Uh, we’re aware of them. Anyone in the public can be aware of them. There’s also, um, uhh, data that we uhhh, umm… We look at that many media platforms like many of you also look at data in terms of trends, and you report on it.

Which is not (sic) to be expected, given the number of people who get their information from social media. It’s up to social media platforms to determine, uhhh, what their application, uh, is of their own rules and regulations. Uhhh, and so we just certainly raise, uh, where we have concerns about information that’s inaccurate, that is traveling out there, uhhh, in whatever platform it’s traveling on.

BUCK: Oh, yeah, the White House, Clay, says, “Nice free speech you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

CLAY: Well, this is, to me, the best thing that could happen for Donald Trump’s lawsuit. Because I don’t know if Jen Psaki is so drunk on her own power that she didn’t even realize what she’s been saying, which is crazy, because the job of a spokesperson is to be completely on top of what she is saying on a day-to-day basis.

But, Buck, she said that the White House, even by that attempted cleanup, is monitoring what is being said on Facebook and telling them what can, in their opinion, and should not be said on Facebook. And, frankly, Biden took it even a step further when he said, “They’re murdering people,” which is a stupid, kind of old man, buffoonish thing to say. Which we’re getting used to with Joe Biden in the White House.

But then Jen Psaki also said, “Hey, if you’re banned on one tech platform, you should have to be banned on other tech platforms as well,” which effectively encourages — directly from the White House — all of these Big Tech companies to collude in banning people. And why does that matter? Some of you out there say, “Well, it doesn’t sound right, but why does it matter?”

Well, the First Amendment argument as it pertains to the collusion that I believe is going on between Big Tech and the Democratic Party in terms of restricting content, you need to show a form of state action. And if Facebook is afraid of consequences from the White House and if other tech companies are as well, what we’re having is a default — a default — First Amendment violation occurring because of the state action of Big Tech companies.

And I think we’re getting closer and closer to the right judge examining all this evidence — and I say the right judge ’cause different judges have different opinions. You need someone who values the First Amendment in this country and is an absolutist. If that happens, we may get some ruling, Buck, which would be wild. I’d love to see the reaction on the blue checks, where suddenly there is a ruling that we need to have Trump having access to these platforms once more.

BUCK: Right, ’cause that would be a decision. A part of the problem with all these conservative efforts to fight back against Big Tech is, “Okay, what’s the remedy? What do we want?” And some people say, “Break them up. Say they’re a monopoly.” Others say other we need to treat them like a public utility. Others say we just need to remove Section 240.

I mean, there’s all these different things that people bring up as how we get Big Tech — which controls the public square, effectively, now — to stop being so partisan. But with the Trump situation, just him having his account, should he run again, is going to be quite a thing. ‘Cause remember, in Citizens United, the Democrats pretend like this is not the case.

The Obama administration’s lawyers argued in Citizens United — and of course they lost, and now they act like it’s endless foreign money in elections. (It’s not true.” They argue that banning of books, Clay, before an election should be allowable because of the unfair campaign activity of publishing a book within 90 days or 60 days of an election. That was the position of the Democrats in the Obama administration in Citizens United, which they lost.

CLAY: Remember the positions of Democrats when it came to whether Donald Trump should be able to block people from his Twitter account. They argued that was impermissible. Now, it ended up becoming a moot point because he doesn’t have the accounts anymore. But that precedent and that argument could come back to bite them because if you don’t believe that a president should be able to block someone on Twitter, how should you will be able to believe that Big Tech should be able to block a president?

BUCK: But also, isn’t it just so creepy just how comfortable Psaki Bomb and the rest of the handlers around Bide nare with shutting down free speech?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: They are not in favor of it.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: This White House does not support free speech, period. I mean, it’s obvious.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Those kind particular people off not just one, but all platforms for violations. They want the social media censors to step in on matters of tremendous public importance — like the lab leak theory, like vaccine efficacy or whatever — and say, “There’s only one allowable position.” These people are authoritarians. The Democrat Party has embraced authoritarianism when it comes to speech.

CLAY: Yeah. And it would be different, I think, Buck, if there were certainty here in some way. It would certainly be inappropriate for the government to be involved. But we’re talking about robust debate surrounding issues that have not yet been resolved. They’re blocking the truth as often as they are blocking fiction.

And, as we always say, one important lesson here is: You always have to remember, when there is a fact-checker, who is checking the fact checker? Because when you are attempting to determine truth, the biases of the fact-checkers come in in a massive way, and I think that’s significant.


Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content