Daniel Penny's Arraignment Will Make You Sick





Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg indicted former Marine veteran Daniel Penny on charges of second-degree manslaughter involving Jordan Neely in the NYC “subway chokehold” incident. If convicted, Daniel Penny could face up to 15 years in prison.

Liz Wheeler reacts to the video of Daniel Penny’s arraignment, telling viewers it will “make you sick to your stomach.” She shows an excerpt of Penny walking out of the courthouse in handcuffs, and mentions that this is a man who was defending himself and his community.

Liz then talks about how the government neglected their duty of enforcing a civil society by allowing Jordan Neely, who had been convicted multiple times of criminal offenses, to roam freely. As a result of this negligence, Daniel Penny had to take matters into his own hands to protect himself and those around him.

Liz goes on to criticize the indictment of Daniel Penny as a political move by the Left to spark racial divide between white and black people.

In other news, Liz talks about Elon Musk hiring former NBC Universal executive Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO of Twitter. Liz argues that this decision is a mistake because she has openly challenged Musk’s commitment to preserving free speech, and also because she is involved in Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.

Liz adds that Yaccarino is a proponent of woke corporate initiatives like ESG, DEI, and stakeholder capitalism. She references video footage and multiple tweets in which Yaccarino openly encourages these ideas.

Liz concludes by saying that Linda Yaccarino is not the right fit for Twitter, and that conservatives should speak out against Elon Musk’s decision to appoint her as CEO of Twitter.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Happy Monday. Welcome to the Liz Wheeler Show. So Daniel Penny is the US Marine who saved the lives of both himself and the people around him on the F train in New York City. After a violent criminal by the name of Jordan Neely was threatening to kill people on the train. You’re familiar with his story? We’ve seen this unfold over the last couple weeks. Black Lives Matter is portraying this as a murderer. They’re blaming police even though police had nothing to do with this. Jordan Neely, as you know, was arrested over 40 times in the years leading up to this altercation. So when he was making threats to kill people, saying he didn’t, he didn’t care if he goes to jail, he didn’t care if he dies. Daniel Penny, a former US Marine, who’s now a student in New York City who’s riding on that train when he sees this happening, he sits still watches this take place until he feels threatened, until he feels that Neely is threatening other people, at which time he restrains Neely with the help of some other passengers. 

Jordan Neely, unfortunately, tragically, it’s fine to say that it’s a tragedy, died during this interaction. Wasn’t the intention. It doesn’t seem like for Daniel Penny to kill the guy, but he held him at a choke hold and Jordan Neely died. Well, Jordan Neely has, or not Jordan Neely, Daniel Penny, has been indicted and arraigned for the charges second degree manslaughter, Manhattan da Alvin Bragg. Yes, the same. Alvin Bragg has indicted him on this charge. He could face up to 15 years in prison if he is convicted of this offense. The video of Daniel Penn’s arraignment will actually make you sick to your stomach. I don’t say this lightly, but there are, there are very few times in our nation when I look at something that’s unfolding something on the news, and I think this is a pivotal moment for our nation. I mean, we’re all pretty used to, I’d almost say we’re almost desensitized to very serious occurrences because we have social media that delivers us, you know, these, these clickbait-y headlines and this bad news 24/7. 

But there are not too many things that happen where I look at it and I say, okay, well, this is a turning point in our nation. If our nation decides to go in option A, we will be a very different country than if our country, if we decide to go on path B. Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about so that this isn’t vague. The Kavanaugh hearings, when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, before he was a Supreme Court justice, when he was falsely accused by Christine Blasi Ford of sexual assault and rape, that was a pivotal moment for our nation. Were we going to decide that due process was still a bedrock value of our nation? Or were we going to embrace this me too sit not even situation, this environment, the Me Too movement wanted in our nation where just an allegation from an unstable woman against a man meant automatic conviction meant that his reputation was ruined, that he shouldn’t be hired for any job. 

And this was like a very pivotal moment for our nation where we’re looking at this situation thinking, well, if we destroyed due process in our nation, it’s over. It’s not just over for men. It’s over for anybody falsely accused of anything. We’re seeing another such pivotal moment when it comes to transgender surgeries for children. Are we going to allow our country to turn into a society that allows the mutilation of children’s bodies in the name of a political ideology? Or are we gonna draw that line in the sand and say, no, no, that, not just science is science, but we are going to make sure we acknowledge the dignity of a human life and a child. And we don’t allow doctors and surgeons to perform these atrocities on children who have been groomed by most of the time ideologue teachers and maybe children’s entertainment like Disney, who wants to groom them into these trans ideologies. 

These are just a few of these pivotal moments in our nation, and it doesn’t happen on a daily basis. It doesn’t happen on a weekly basis. Sometimes it only happens once every couple of years where you just stop and a situation gives you the chills and you think, you know what? This is a situation that if Daniel Penny is convicted of second degree manslaughter, if he is imprisoned for 15 years because he defended himself against a psychotic man with a rap sheet till kingdom come, who is threatened to threatening to kill him and his fellow passengers, then the fabric of our nation will be fundamentally changed. So I wanna watch that arraignment video with you today and break down the ramifications of this case. We’re also gonna talk about the new Twitter, CEO Linda Yaccarino. I know it’s pretty popular among some conservatives to give Elon Musk the benefit of the doubt. 

Say, well, this lady has some red flags, like she’s associated with a world economic forum. Just a little bit of a red flag there, guys, just a teeny tiny red flag. I don’t think we should give her the benefit of the doubt. I think that this is an obviously bad choice, and you can support what Elon Musk is doing on Twitter. You can trust that he’s committed to free speech and you can acknowledge that he has made a mistake with choosing Linda Yaccarino. And I’m gonna talk about what the proper recourse for conservatives is when we see someone like Elon Musk, who is doing incredible work for not just the conservative movement, but for our country in the name of free speech, what we do to hold him accountable when he makes a decision that is clearly not in the best interest of free speech. 

Also, also, also, I cannot tell you how long I’ve been waiting to tell you guys about this. We’ve been working super hard on a new project, and I’m delighted to finally be able to share with you what it is. We are launching a brand new website, liz wheeler.com, and please go check it out right now. Super excited about it. you will find articles on this website, and I’m talking from news to important medical studies expositions on the Marxist infiltration of our institutions. Everything we talk about on this show reported on this website, you’ll find all of my episodes, of course, completely uncensored. And if I have important show notes, I know you guys asked me for this, they will be the website. If I see a must-read article online, it will be there as well. I’m so excited to put all of this content together in one place, designed specifically for you. 

Also, please sign up for my newsletter. We’re gonna send them out multiple times per week. It is the best way that I can notify you of, like I said, important studies, articles, episodes that I don’t want you to miss. And of course, we all know it’s coming. When YouTube gives me the boot, I can make sure that we never lose touch. This is designed just for you. I’ve put so much blood, sweat, and tears into this, so I wanna know truly what you think. Go check it out, Liz wheeler.com. Liz wheeler.com. Guys, we have a big show today, so let’s get to it. 

Okay? I gotta tell you guys, I felt sick to my stomach when I first watched this video of Daniel Penny being arraigned. I saw the video. It went, it went pretty viral on Twitter. There was a lot of media. There was a lot of independent journalists who were interested in covering this. And this young Marine, he’s what, 23, 24 years old, very clean cuts, surrenders himself to Manhattan District attorney Alvin Bragg, the same Alvin Bragg that we all know and loathe from indicting Trump and refusing to indict actual violent criminals. Daniel Penny walks into the courthouse only to reemerge sometime later in handcuffs. He’s then put into a car and we can, we can show this on the screen. I think you’ll probably have a similar reaction here. This is a man who was defending himself, a man who was defending his community, a man who did not act recklessly or in anger, certainly without any racial animosity that the Left is falsely accusing him of by all witness accounts. 

He acted in a very moderated way. He didn’t, he didn’t engage with Jordan Neely when Jordan was just agitating and threatening and being hostile. He didn’t engage until he felt that Jordan Neely was posing a threat to the lives of the people around him. And in, at which time he restrained Jordan Neely in a chokehold and tragically Jordan Neely died. Now, I think that this is one of the things that conservatives need to be totally fine with saying, yeah, it’s not ideal that Jordan Neely died. No one’s saying that it’s no one’s. We, we shouldn’t be dismissive about this. No one’s saying it’s no big deal. But this is what happens when our system breaks down. And what I mean by that is our system, the entire structure of our government, right, is a social contract between us individuals and this intangible institution called the government. 

And what we do is we, we willingly surrender some of our liberties, right? If we, if we exist without government in a state of what’s, I guess, anarchy. But if we exist in a state of absolute liberty in our society and we decide to engage in what’s almost a business-like contract, a social contract with the government, we willingly surrender some of our absolute liberty in exchange for an ordered society that is not anarchy, right? This is, this is very, very fundamental for any kind of free society. But one of the things that government promises in exchange for us, surrendering some of our liberties, is that they will actually enforce an ordered society. They will enforce a civil society. And in a case like this, the government’s neglecting their duty. The government has actually failed their part of the pact. We have exchanged some of our liberty. 

And our liberty in this case would be vigilante justice, right? In our society, we’re not big on vigilante justice. We say, Nope, we have a criminal justice system. We have police to deal with criminals. We don’t take law enforcement into our own hands, typically, unless it’s a matter of self-defense, where law enforcement can’t respond as quickly as we must respond to protect our own lives or our own family’s lives or our own property. But vigilante justice, this idea that we want to be the ones that enact justice on others, those who wrong us. This is something that we have surrendered to the government in exchange for the government saying, we’re gonna have a professional force. We’re gonna have not only our court system, our judiciary, but also trained law enforcement professionals, police officers, and you know, the FBI state troopers, the entire law enforcement apparatus that’s going to react to these situations. 

And so we sit here and we, we more or less willingly say, okay, well, we’re, we won’t engage in vigilante justice if you promise to take care of the problem. But in this situation, what happened in this situation, the government did not hold up their end of the bargain. This man, Jordan Neely wasn’t just a homeless man who performed Michael Jackson dances on the subway. That’s what the Left’s trying to portray him as. But that’s not the reality of the case. This man was a convicted, convicted of kidnapping. A seven-year-old child, Jordan Neely had broken the nose and the orbital bone of a 67 year old lady. He had attempted to push someone onto tracks, live tracks where they could have died, being run over by a train. This is the, those three examples that I gave, those are just three of the 40 times that he had been arrested on the subway, 40 times that he’d been arrested on the subway. 

And what did our criminal justice system do? What did our government, this vague institution, what did it do? Well, let him go. It released him back into the streets. It didn’t take care of the problem. It didn’t hold up its end of the bargain to create and enforce a civil society and ordered society. And so what recourse does that leave private citizens? Are we just supposed to say, well, law enforcement didn’t show up. They’re not doing what they said, I guess I’m just gonna die today. No, that’s not only immoral, it’s not realistic. Everyone has a survivalist instinct. If we are threatened, the rights and proper course of action is to defend ourselves. And so that’s what Daniel Penny did. This is clear to anybody who took the time to read about this story. Anybody who watched the multiple videos that have come out from people who were also on that train, including an independent journalist. 

We watched a video last week. I’m not gonna replay it now, but anybody who didn’t see it go back to, I think it was Thursday’s episode. Go back to Thursday’s episode and watch the video where all of the people who were in the train with Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely watched this interaction, watched Daniel Penny restrain Jordan Neely. And how did these people act? They acted grateful, they acted supportive. They did not act like they were witnessing a murder. They did not act like they were witnessing something wrong because they weren’t, they weren’t witnessing something wrong. They were witnessing an unfortunate situation that was begot of government betraying its citizens. And so watching this video of Daniel Penny, I literally feel sick to my stomach because we are on the brink of a massive change in our nation. If the government is not only going to fail to uphold their part of the bargain, but if they are going to do away with self-defense, a new witness, another witness, one of these, one of these other people that were on the train with Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely, who watched What happened? 

They watched the threats unfold. They watched Daniel Penny be restrained and then watched him restrain Jordan Neely, this new witness said, confirmed what we already knew that Penny did not engage with Jordan Neely. When Jordan Neely was being hostile and yelling and saying that he wanted to die and that he wanted to go to jail. He did not engage. Penny did not engage with the Vagrant Neely until Neely began to threaten to kill people. This is my question for everyone tonight. This is my question for people on the Left who see this and think, well, this doesn’t seem right. But aren’t I supposed to take the side of leftists? My question is, at what point does it become proper for a private citizen to defend himself if it’s not proper to defend oneself when someone directly in front of you is threatening to kill you? 

It’s an absurd question, right? Because this is, this should be the most obvious answer under the sun, of course, the standard. Of course, this is the standard. This is it, this is what makes it appropriate. It obviously is, and this witness, by the way, said that I think she, the name was withheld just for, because she fears political retaliation, which may be wise at this point. The witness went back to thank Daniel Penny for protecting everyone else on that car. Again, this is not how people act when they think that they witnessed a murder. The lawyers for Jordan Neely’s family are saying that Daniel Penny should face murder charges. Right now, he’s charged with second degree manslaughter. He could face up to 15 years in prison, which is horrific if he’s convicted, but they say he should face murder charges. 

Not only does this, obviously a targeted prosecution, we know this is, let me show you exactly how even the Left should be unable to deny that this is a targeted prosecution in the situation where someone commits a murder, okay? Someone commits a murder and other people around them are assisting them. Maybe they’re not the one that pulled the trigger. If it was a murder that was committed using a firearm, maybe they’re not the one that pulled the trigger. But if it’s a robbery and there’s three or four men and they all break in, and only one man pulls the trigger and The the victim dies, all four of those men can be charged with murder, right? This is how our criminal justice system works. This is the deterrence effect of of homicide statutes. And we actually, by the way, had a recent very public racially charged murder where this played out exactly this case. 

It was Ahmad Arbery, right? There was, there was one person who was involved in actually pulling the trigger that led to the death of this man. But other men who were, what, 50 feet away, not even like within touching distance of the man who was killed, were charged and convicted of murder. So now we come back to Daniel Penny. We come back to that train car. We come back to the fact, and you can see this in some of the video that’s been released. Daniel Penny was not the only passenger involved in restraining Jordan Neely. So my question is, well, where are the other charges? Where are the charges for everyone in the car who either helped, supported or didn’t intervene where well, not, didn’t intervene, but helped or supported? Well, there aren’t any charges. There aren’t any charges because this wasn’t a murder. The prosecutor, the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, knows that this wasn’t a murder, and he’s just prosecuting, he indicted Daniel Penny because of politics, because Daniel Penny is a white man. And Jordan Neely is a black man. And the Left wants nothing more than to not just spark racial divide, but to completely destroy our country by pitting black people against white people. They want to start a racial war. They wanna start a racialized Marxist revolution. 

The interesting question here, the interesting question will be, okay, but what’s gonna happen if you, once Daniel Penny gets in front of a jury, is he going to be convicted? And at first glance, when I first think about this question, I think, well, I don’t have a lot of faith in a jury pool in Manhattan. It’s kind of like a jury pool in Washington dc It’s going to be very hardcore liberals. He, I hope Daniel Penny stands a chance, but it doesn’t seem to me that it’s to be a jury of his peers. It seems to me it’s going to be a jury of his political opponents, which isn’t a real good sign. However, there’s indications that even those on the Left don’t think that this is the proper. Don’t think this indictment is proper, think that it’s unjust. I wanna bring up, this is from the New York Times comment section. 

Now, typically on the New York Times, under almost any article, if you look at the comment section, it’s like a, it’s like a, a coffee clutch of like bananas, leftists, right? Like the worst leftist takes are in the New York Times comment section. But if you look at one of these articles about Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely, even these leftists are opposing what Alvin Bragg is doing to Daniel Penny, let me read you this one, it was posted on May 12th by someone whose username is anxious anonymous. This is what it says, Jordan Neely should not have died. But for the vulnerable among us, we have no way of knowing whether behavior that makes us uncomfortable will escalate into actual violence. Many New York Times writers are completely out of touch with the realities of encountering a belligerent, potentially violent person on the subway, especially if you’re a woman elderly or with young kids In tow. 

People at this paper have euphemistically referred to Neely’s behavior as making people uncomfortable that so badly understates the problem as to completely undermine journalistic integrity or credibility. Earlier in the pandemic, some Asian women encountered men behaving much like this before, getting shoved into the path of an incoming train or stalked and stabbed to death. Ditto for elderly Asian Americans just minding their own business. So yeah, we are wary of volatile people getting up in our faces. Of course, left-wing media did its best to downplay this wave of attacks on Asians, especially because the perpetrators were mostly black men. When we can’t even look the problem in the face without resorting to some canned line from the progressive orthodoxy, were really in trouble. This comment on the New York Times was recommended 1,647 times. I’d say that’s pretty significant. Pretty significant. And what’s really interesting is if you journey back just what, three years now? 

It’s 2023. This was, this was 2020 when Bill de Blassio was the mayor of New York City. His wife, Charlaine McCrae, actually advocated that individual citizens, just like Daniel Penny intervene when violent people threaten the safety of other people on the subway. This is her tweet. You will not believe this until you read this. She says, as attacks on Asian-American communities, continue, we’re asking New Yorkers to show up for their neighbors and intervene and intervene when witnessing hateful violence or harassment. I know that can be frightening when you aren’t sure what to do or say, but you can learn, show up for your neighbors and intervene when witnessing hateful violence or harassment. And so what exactly did Daniel Penny do? He did what? The former First Lady of New York City, the wife of one of the most leftist mayors the city has ever seen, asked him to do, and now he’s being prosecuted for it. 

It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me sick to my stomach. And by the way, by the way, this is a point a friend of mine made to me when we were talking about this and this, this friend of mine served an entire career in the United States Navy. and he said, listen, Daniel Penny is a former US Marine. If a Marine had intended to kill Jordan Neely, he would have killed him. And he would not have just killed him successfully. He would’ve done so, I’m sorry that this is graphic, but I think that this is a really valuable point to make. He would have twisted his neck because marines, when they are taught, Marines are taught to be killers, right? When Marines are taught how to kill in a one-on-one situation, they are taught to twist somebody’s neck to kill them. 

That’s how, that’s how it happens. That’s how it works. That’s how they are taught, that’s how they are trained, and that is how they would execute such a killing. But that’s not what happened in this situation. That’s not what happened. What happened is Jordan Neely unintentionally died while Daniel Penny was restraining him. But if Daniel Penny had intended to kill Jordan Neely, he would not have killed him using a choke hold. He would’ve twisted his neck. And I know it’s really graphic, very graphic, but I thought it was an excellent point because from the perspective of when you’re looking at intent, what was the intention here? Intent is pivotal in the conviction of a crime. Let’s be real here. A US Marine is not a US Marine’s training would’ve kicked in if he intended to kill this person. And this is not the way that he would’ve done it. 

But let’s talk about the self-defense aspect here, right? Let’s talk about what it means for our society if we’re no longer allowed to defend ourselves and one another. Okay? So self-defense is a bedrock principle of our society. If we do not have the right to defend ourselves against harm, then all of our other rights become obsolete. This is not something that is just discussed in a political science classroom. This is not something that is just said on the debate stage at at, at presidential debates. Self-defense is so pivotal that if we do not have the right to defend ourselves against harm, we’re not going to be a free society. We’re not going to be a free society. We will be the victims of crimes. It will be immediate anarchy because criminals will victimize people, anybody the strong criminal will victimize the weaker victim every day of the week because law enforcement is a reactionary force. 

Law enforcement can’t prevent every crime. Law enforcement can serve as a deterrent knowing. If a criminal knows there’s consequences for his actions, he might choose not to commit a crime. Law enforcement cannot always prevent a crime from being committed. That’s oftentimes left to us. That’s why so many of us exercise our second amendment right, because we know that ultimately our safety comes down to us. So think about this. If Daniel Penny is convicted of second degree manslaughter, if he’s imprisoned for over a decade for defending himself, where does that leave all of us? And where does this leave the good Samaritans in our society? Right? If a good Samaritan defending or good Samaritan intervening during the commission of a crime is worried that he will be indicted and imprisoned for intervening, he’s not gonna intervene unless his own personal safety is threatened. So think about if some horrendous criminal is sexually assaulting a teenage girl and she’s screaming for help, do you think that men around her are going to rush to her aid if they know that they’re gonna be sent to prison for over a decade for helping her? 

It’s a horrendous th th this is why I say that we’re at this pivotal moment in our society, because if we allow this to happen, if we don’t speak out against this, then our country’s not gonna be the same. We’re not going to actually have a social fabric because part of a social fabric is citizens being interconnected is as, as a woman, when I walk down the street, I’m not just confidence in my safety if I’m by myself, for example, because maybe I can still carry, I’m confident because I know that if someone tries to commit a crime against me, and I’m within earshot of other people, I can call for help and people will respond to my call. But if Daniel Penny is convicted of a crime for defending himself and others that are we still gonna be able to be confident that when we call for help, someone’s going to answer? 

I think not. This is why watching this video made me sick to my stomach. It’s also, if you can, why I’m gonna share with you the Legal Defense Fund of Daniel Penny. It has, and this is a, this is good, this is proper. This give, send, go for Daniel Penny’s defense fund has already collected 1.8 billion. If you can donate, if you can’t share it, send up your prayers. This is a pivotal moment for our society one that we should not downplay or ignore. We’re going to choose one way or we’re going to choose the other. And our country is not going to be the same for it. Okay? Let’s talk about the new Twitter. CEO Linda Yaccarino. She comes from NBC Universal. And I gotta tell you guys, I really, really, really wanted to give Elon Musk the benefit of the doubt here. 

I know there’s a lot of conservatives who were saying, listen, Elon Musk would not have spent 44 billion on Twitter in the name of free speech if he wasn’t committed to free speech. Maybe he knows what he’s doing. You don’t know what the behind the scenes conversations with this new CEO Linda, were like, so don’t judge too quickly. Give her the benefit of the doubt. I really, really wanted to do that. I wish I could. I even for a second thought, okay, maybe there’s something to this. Because if you look at Linda Yaccarino’s Twitter account, like the day that this was announced before Elon even officially announced it, when reporters were just saying, Hey, Elon’s in talks with, with Linda Yaccarino, she’s the most likely candidate to be named as Twitter, CEO, if you looked at Linda Yaccarino’s Twitter account and we have a story on liz wheeler.com that shows this list. 

She actually follows a lot of anti woke Twitter accounts, some of our favorite Twitter accounts. I’m talking like she follows Cat Turd. I’m talking, she follows Libs of TikTok. She follows Ron DeSantis. The Babylon Bee follows, Elon Musk’s mother all kinds of really anti woke popular Twitter accounts. She follows them. And I thought, okay, well maybe she worked in a very liberal corporate setting, but maybe she’s one of those secret conservatives, right? I wanted to give the benefit of doubt, but I gotta tell ya, I just can’t. I can’t. And here’s why. She is not only from NBC Universal, she’s also a chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Task Force on the future of work. I repeat, she is part of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum, which is a weird conundrum, right? Why would you follow Cat Turd on Twitter and also be a part of Klaus Schwab’s creepy World Economic Forum? 

Two things don’t really match. so you do a little bit more digging here. And you find that just a couple months ago, Linda Yaccarino interviewed publicly interviewed Elon Musk. And the things that she was saying in this interview are insanely troubling. She completely disagrees with Elon Musk’s commitment to free speech. She wants actually to give advertisers what’s known as the heckler’s veto over content moderation. So what that means is if an advertiser is a woke corporation and they don’t want anything but woke content to be allowed on Twitter, Linda Yaccarino was advocating to Elon Musk in person to his face that he give advertisers the power of the heckler’s veto, which obviously is the antithesis of free speech. Take a look at this. 

So you’ve got a massive platform. You have a vision. Yeah. That is a spectrum of just daily open sourced conversation and they can conduct their lives, their business, their commerce, whatever they can do on your platform. That’s a pretty big vision. But in the middle should be advertising opportunity. That sounds like a great opportunity. I can talk about my brand, I can get my customers to communicate, and then they could also buy stuff that sounds pretty good, right? You’ll be able 

To buy things just directly on Twitter, one click, boom, done. 

But they need to feel that there is an opportunity for them to influence what you’re building, that vision, what we’re doing here. Whether it’s me trying to push and prod you on your tweets. for example, you’ve said you probably shouldn’t tweet after 3:00 AM 

Well, I’ve… 

Probably good advice for all of us. 

I’ve gotten myself into trouble a few times. 

I’m very aware of those. So after 3:00 AM you travel all over the world, Lord knows how you handle time zones in space. Will you commit to be a little more specific and not tweet after 3:00 AM? People in this room would like to see that they’ll make ’em feel more close. 

I will aspire to tweet to less after 3:00 AM. But I mean, it is important that, you know, I mean, if I were to say, yes, you can influence me, that would be wrong. That would be very wrong. Let me, because that would be a diminishment of freedom of speech. 

But I wanna be specific about influencing. It’s more of an open feedback loop for the advertising experts in this room to help develop Twitter into a place where they will be excited about investing more money, product development. Yeah. Add safety. Sure. Content moderation. That’s what the influence is. 

Yeah. I think it’s totally cool to say that you want to have your advertising appear in certain places and Twitter and not in other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do. And if that means losing advertising dollars, we lose it. Okay? But freedom of speech is paramount. 

So Twitter 1.0 had a very well populated, much loved influence council. I know I don’t, I think we need to change the name. Elon does not want to be influenced. But it was really a recurring… 

That’s so condescending 

From your key stakeholders, your advertisers, where they had recurring access or would have recurring access to you. Would you commit from this stage today to reinstate that council to be named later? 

Well, I don’t think it should be influence council. That, and you have to say, I would be wary of that creating a backlash among the public. Cuz if the public thinks that, you know, their views are being determined by, you know, a small number of CMOs in America, they’ll be like, I think upset about that. but feedback, I think it’s appropriate. 

So from a strictly analytical sense, right? Like we’re just sitting here and we’re looking at this video, we’re thinking, okay, what do we, what’s the takeaway from this video? My biggest takeaway is I don’t understand how this conversation happened. And then Elon Musk hired her to be CEO of Twitter because everything she says in this video is challenging. The reason why Elon Musk bought Twitter, she’s challenging free speech. She’s challenging whether or not advertisers should have a heckler’s veto. She’s challenging him personally, taking part in Twitter, tweeting after 3:00 AM which is just a backhanded way of challenging his politics because that’s what he tweets after 3:00 AM he tweets about politics. I don’t understand, as I said, from a per, from a an analytical standpoint, I don’t understand how you have this conversation and then you hire her to be in charge of this product, this business, Twitter, when you’ve bought the business specifically to protect free speech from big tech censorship, it boggles the mind. Boggles the mind. So not only does she not understand, appreciate, embrace Elon’s vision on free speech, she is in and of herself a proponent of of ESG, of Klaus Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism. Listen to this. 

If you think about, I think it was the CEO of BlackRock three years ago. So, so before, before the pandemic, before the awful social crisis that he talked about, calling CEOs to attention, right? All over the world, that companies in the private sector had a bigger responsibility to both their employees and their customers to fulfill a gap in society that it was once assumed that the government would provide for people. So it was a call. You used the word to service, I would say it was also called to purpose, right? So we had a responsibility to impact culture for the good. And the bottom line is when you have those priorities and values as a company, it’s good for business. Mm-hmm, it inspires your employee population to wanna be proud. They’re proud to work at your company. They bring other good people to your company. But it’s also good for the bottom line. 

If you cite Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock as your resident expert, or your inspiration for an idea, sorry, I’m not sorry that you have completely lost me. Completely lost me. She just preached the ESG gospel. That’s what that was in a nutshell. It was one minute and eight seconds. That’s how long the video was. That is ESG. That is ESG I don’t think so. ESG is so dangerous. It’s a social credit score system. It is a social credit score system intended to enforce a, a civilization created along the tenants of Klaus Schwab’s political ideology, far leftism. Klaus Schwab has a bust of Vladimir Lennon in his office. This is so crazy to me. Linda Yaccarino also, she tweeted this on August 18th, 2021. She said, so grateful to his holiness the Pope for joining the ad council and our teams at Telemundo and Universo. 

Together we can make sure communities get the most vital information about the Covid-19 vaccines from sources they trust. So she coordinated with the Pope to try to force the covid jab on people. Every single thing, more and more of a turnoff. And she’s a proponent of DEI. This perhaps is not a surprise given that she’s a proponent of ESG and ESG is the enforcement mechanism of DEI. But this is what she said. She said, we need to do more as a marketing community to address deep-seated legacy problems, especially within our industry. Now is the time for marketers to prioritize equity and inclusion while also committing to a new open marketplace built on trust, radical transparency, and meaningful collaboration. So this woman is a radical leftist, right? She’s a radical leftist. And when Elon Musk announced that she was going to be the CEO of Twitter, he also said, when Linda is ready, we will do a spaces, which is a live broadcast on Twitter, a spaces, and she will answer your questions. 

She responded to that publicly on Twitter, and this is what she said. She said, thank you Elon Musk. I’ve long been inspired by your vision to create a brighter future. I’m excited to help bring this vision to Twitter and transform this business together. I see I have some new followers, wave. I’m not as prolific as Elon Musk yet, but I’m just as committed to the future of this platform. Your feedback is vital to that future. I’m here for all of it. Let’s keep the conversation going and build Twitter 2.0 together. You notice what phrase she doesn’t say once in either of these tweets? She doesn’t say the phrase free speech. Not even once, even though Elon Musk bought Twitter on the basis of wanting to protect free speech, even though that’s what he means when he says the future of this, of Twitter, Twitter 2.0, the thesis, two words, free speech. 

She doesn’t say it at all. I find that to be very troubling because if if, unless she’s so completely out of touch, which I doubt it, she’s probably just ideologically misaligned here, unless she’s so completely out of touch that she didn’t read any of the feedback, any of the articles, see any of the tweets, any of the questions from all of us on Twitter about the fact that she was, she was given the job of CEO. I just don’t believe, I can’t even continue with this what if, because I just don’t believe that she’s unaware of people’s questions and skepticism that she’s committed to free speech. And if she were committed to free speech, the first thing she would do is say, guys, don’t worry. I am committed to free speech. But she didn’t. And she didn’t because it was a calculated move because she’s not actually committed to free speech. 

So all of this, all of this to say, Elon responded to our criticisms on Twitter, and this is what he said. Let me bring up this tweet cause I wanna res I wanna read it to you directly. He was responding to Billboard, Chris, and he said, I hear your concerns, but don’t judge too early. I am adamant about defunding free speech, even if it means losing money. So a couple things here. First of all, I believe Elon, I do believe that he is committed to defending free speech. I don’t think that he would’ve dropped 44 billion to buy Twitter. just to give it back to the radical leftist antis speech communists that ran it before. I believe him when he says that he is that that free speech is paramount. I believe him. But this does not mean that we should give the benefit of the doubt to Linda Yaccarino. 

And the reason why is because Elon commitment to free speech accepted and accepted. I’m saying a c accepted like we accept his commitment to free speech. We don’t question that. We’re not skeptical about that. We, we, we acknowledge it, we believe it, but he still made mistakes in pursuit of this commitment to free speech. He has still done things that were the wrong decisions. And one of the things I respect the most about Elon Musks out of everything that he’s done, is his ability to be self-aware and to recognize when he has made a mistake. And course correct. This is almost an unheard of characteristic. And this is a sorry commentary on society, on our society that it is such a rare characteristic that people make mistakes and are willing to be like, oh yeah, I made a mistake. I’m going to course correct. I hired someone. 

It didn’t work out. Like Yoel Roth, I’m talking very specifically about Y Roth. Think about that situation. Y Roth was the crazy chief sensor at Twitter. The chief sensor at Twitter was Y Roth. And we all knew this. We all, we, we all knew this. We had seen Yu Roth’s tweets, we had seen his fingerprints on almost all of the censorship during Twitter 1.0. And when Elon Musk bought Twitter, we said, Hey, listen, Elon, the first thing you gotta do is you gotta get rid of this guy. You gotta fire him. You gotta get him outta there. He’s toxic. He’s the chief censor. And Elon at first came to his defense. He said, Nope, Yu Roth is great. Doesn’t matter what his personal political views are, but if he does his job, I’m gonna keep him. And we were all like, Elon, this is a mistake. 

Well, later when the Twitter files were coming out, Elon found proof, more evidence that Yu Roth was in fact, the crazy cen that we said he was. And so what did Elon do? Yoel Roth and Elon parted ways at Twitter. I respect this. I respect the fact that Elon Musk is able to look at a situation, make a decision. If it’s a wrong decision, he’s willing to come back, revisit it, and maybe change his mind. All this being said, conservatives should not give Linda Yaccarino the benefit of the doubt simply because we believe that Elon Musk is committed to free speech. In fact, we should be louder than ever warning Elon Musk that he is making a mistake with this woman. That this is not someone you hire. If you are truly committed to free speech, that this is someone who seemingly would be happy to preside over an apparatus that operates like Twitter 1.0. 

That is a mistake. That is a huge mistake. She’s a member of the World Economic Forum. She preaches ESG, she pushes DEI, she coordinated covid vax campaigns. This is not the right fit. Might be a mistake to hire her, but it’s not a mistake that can’t be rectified. Conservatives should speak up loudly. If you haven’t already, and I hope you already have, check out my new website, LizWheeler.com. It has everything that you guys have been asking me for. It has all the articles that I’ve been reading. It has, it’ll have notes from my show, transcripts from my show, research from my show. We have a newsletter where all of this will be delivered to you on a daily basis. Super excited about it. Go to LizWheeler.com, check it out, let me know what you think. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show. 


Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top