Liz Wheeler talks about many subjects during this podcast episode. The first topic is her recent home decor project. She shares how she has an average skill level when it comes to home improvement projects, and how she is proud of herself for building a new piece of furniture in her kitchen. She encourages others to try DIY projects, even if they don’t have a lot of experience, as it can be fun and rewarding.
Next, Liz talks about the recent Netflix documentary covering Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. She expresses her thoughts on the couple, stating that she finds Meghan Markle to be disrespectful and embarrassing to Prince Harry. Liz goes on to suggest that Meghan is manipulative, while Harry is weak and not well-adjusted. She questions why Harry would choose Meghan as his wife and suggests that Meghan lied to Harry about not knowing anything about the British Royal family. Liz also discusses the invasion of privacy that Harry experienced growing up as a royal and his desire to be known for who he is as a person.
The show then moves on to discuss the “Twitter Files,” which have revealed significant levels of censorship on Twitter, especially towards conservatives. Liz gives her two major takeaways from the information dump about Twitter’s handling of the situation. She believes that the documents provide evidence of criminality, with the government colluding with Twitter to censor free speech. Liz argues that this is an example of what happens when society doesn’t demand objective truth and instead allows for “your truth” and “my truth.” She asserts that Twitter’s actions are an attempt to silence not only Trump but also his supporters and prevent accountability and self-governance. Liz praises Twitter CEO Elon Musk and independent journalists like Barry Weiss and Matt Taibbi for uncovering corruption and states that the mainstream media is not as influential. She suggests that if this issue is not exposed, then conservatives will continue to be targeted.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
Hey guys, welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. I’m Liz Wheeler. Before we get started on anything related to politics or culture and all the normal stuff that we talk about, let me ask you a question. And this is not an ad, by the way. I know I lead in a lot of ads like that, but this is actually a, a, a, a question that is organically be got. Do you ever have a talent or a skill or something that you wish that you were really good at, but you’re basically mediocre at? I do. And that is home improvement projects. I wish I was as good as all of these people on Instagram with taking like an old kitchen and renovating it or taking a blank wall and making it look totally designer. I’m not good at that. I’m not bad at it, but I’m very, very average at this.
But I did a home improvement project in my house, or I guess it’s more of a home decor project because there wasn’t any like construction that went into it. And when I say I did a home improvement project or a decor project, what it means, or what I mean is that I went to Home Depot and I bought some supplies, and my husband did it for me. But do you wanna see it? I put this really cool shelf in my kitchen. We’re gonna bring this up on the screen there. There we go. Isn’t this cool? This is so cool. So the actual shelf that, that piece of wood, I know you can’t see it exactly, but it’s a live edge piece of wood. And my husband actually found this at a, I don’t know, where do men go? Wood shops and stuff.
I don’t know. Some, some old wood store, antique store that men frequent and he revitalized it. He refurbished it, put stain on it and it’s just this beautiful, vibrant piece of piece of wood. So I put the shelf in my kitchen. I actually, so full disclosure, I did not come up with this idea myself. This is a, well, it’s either a knockoff or I took inspiration, whichever, whichever you’d prefer to say it. I, my inspiration was an instagramer called Vox Clara Family. So this is a major knockoff of her shelf on her wall, which I think is about twice as long as mine with twice as many photos. She is wildly more talented than I am. I just copy things to the best of my ability. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?
I hope so in this case. But yeah, I shamelessly copied this off of Insta, but isn’t it so cool? I like it. I think it adds a lot to, it adds a lot to my kitchen And what I don’t like decoration-wise is I don’t like getting stuff that’s the same as everybody else’s stuff or stuff that’s impersonal. But at the same time, I don’t wanna just hang pictures of myself all over my house. So this is, I thought this is, keeps me centered into exactly what our family and our home should be, but I thought you might wanna see it because it’s pretty cool and I’m pretty proud of my husband for building that shelf. So if you haven’t subscribed to the show already, please do so. Go to wherever you listen to your pod, Spotify, apple Podcast, hit that subscribe button if you like to watch them, the video version, go to YouTube or Rumble and click subscribe. Over on Rumble,
there’s a red button next to the subscribe button that allows you to join the Liz Wheeler Show Community on Locals. Highly recommend that you do that and appreciate it if you do. But what are we going to talk about today? So the actual politics of the thing, the culture of the thing. Today, I watched the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Netflix documentary. Well, let me be perfectly accurate here. I watched the first couple of episodes, it’s not entirely out yet, just the first, the first few episodes are I have so many thoughts about Prince Harry, about Meghan Markle, about their marriage, about the royal family, about the fact that they made this documentary. So many thoughts that I wanna discuss with you today. Also, Barry Weiss revealed Twitter files number five, which detailed the behind the scenes of exactly what happened at Twitter the day that Twitter banned Donald Trump, who at the time was still the sitting President of the United States.
You can read that entire thread yourself. We’re not gonna go through the entire thread. However, I have two major takeaways that are not included in just this information dump. Barry Weiss is not a commentator, she is a journalist. I have two major takeaways that I wanna share with you because I don’t want us to miss the larger point of what’s happening here with all of this information from Twitter. I don’t know, are you guys following this story? I know I did an Instagram poll and I also posted this on locals and ask people, are you following the Twitter files revelations? Yes. And my options were, yes, I’m following every word. I wouldn’t miss this. No, I’m not following it all, or it’s really important. I want to be following this, but I haven’t been able to keep up. And it seemed that the majority of people, the vast majority of people are very interested in this, but about half of you haven’t been able to keep up. So I wanna share with you my two major takeaways about what we’ve learned so far with all of this information, coming from the bowels of the Twitter data files. So without further ado, let’s get to it.
Okay. When I saw the trailer for the Meghan Markle Prince Harry documentary, that in and of itself made headlines because there was just the teeny tiniest glimpse into what this was going to be. And everyone was just waiting to hate it. But I thought, you know what? I actually am kind of interested in this. I’m not just gonna take one for the team. There’s something weirdly fascinating about watching the British Royals. I myself, if I were a British citizen, thank God I’m not, if I were, I would not like the British Royals at all. Not because Queen Elizabeth wasn’t, I don’t know. She inspired sort of a reverence. She inspired admiration. She dedicated her life to service. She was so poised, she was so classy. All of that is fine. But if I were a British subject, actually, are they even citizens? I don’t know.
I would not want to fund the lifestyle of these royals. I would not want King Charles to be taking money out of my paycheck. I would not wanna pay for their security. I don’t, I mean, I’m very American, right? I don’t like the idea of a monarchy. Even if it’s interesting from afar as an American citizen to watch the British monarchy and the British Royals, I would not want to be part of a nation that has a monarchy. But we the American people are probably more obsessed with this institution. Then the British people are, maybe because we are not under their thumb. But I decided to sit down and watch this documentary, which I did. And it’s funny because Meghan Markle, at the very beginning, they started the documentary by answering the question, why. Why did you make this? Because they, they knew from the get-go, they’d have to address that because there was, there’s this, there’s this accurate perception of Harry and Meghan that they’re constantly acting as victims because people are taking pictures of them and reporting about their lives and talking about them.
And yet they’re asking for privacy, but they’re always doing these public events. They’re always in the media. They’re always, you know, releasing a Netflix documentary. And so there’s, there’s a little bit of a contradiction, to say the least, between someone asking for privacy while going on television and giving you an inside look into their home life. So they claim that they’re doing this, not because they seek publicity, but because they’ve been so maligned, so mistreated by the British media, and I guess the American media too, that they wanted to set the records straight. They said they’d been introduced to the world with misinformation. I don’t think they used the word misinformation, but that’s what they meant. They’d been introduced to the world with misinformation, and this was their story. This is how they wanted themselves presented. So I thought, okay, this is interesting.
Well, maybe we’re gonna be exposed to a side of Meghan Markle that’s a little more likable because I don’t know if you’re anything like me, you find this woman to be the height of unlikability. So I started watching this with an unopened mind. But no, the answer is she’s incredibly unlikable. It’s actually painful to watch. And I have a couple of takeaways. First of all from just looking at Meghan Markle, like put aside the British Royals for a second, put aside Prince Harry put aside their marriage, put aside all of that drama for a second. Meghan Markle herself is actually very unlikeable. She is not charismatic. She is not warm. She does not look into the camera as if she’s looking in your eyes and make that connection. And it’s not just her. She’s actually a perfect outgrowth of our culture, our American culture.
And what I mean by that is in our culture, we’ve glorified for the past, like 50 years, 60 years, 70 years now, maybe since the 1950s, we’ve glorified this idea of being a teenager. We’ve created this circumstance in our country. Bear with me on this because I think you’ll see as soon as I finish describing this, you’ll be like, yes, that’s Meghan Markle. We’ve created this prolonged adolescence for young adults, where instead of encouraging young people to take responsibility and to delay gratification until they have accepted responsibility, basically that responsibility comes with privileges. But you can’t have privileges without the responsibility. We’ve created the society where people are seeking constant gratification, but at the same time, they’re never actually happy. And we’ve degraded the idea of poise, of having social consciousness, which sometimes means boundaries. And instead, we’ve embraced this false idea of authenticity, which is interpreted by popular culture as being essentially emotionally in incontinent and sometimes that emotional incontinence being manifested through oversharing.
Oversharing. Like you’ve, you’ve all, you’ve been in a conversation with someone where they just use you as their emotional garbage disposal, right? That is Meghan Markle. She, she reminds me, she’s a 40 year old woman. She’s a middle-aged woman, and yet she reminds me of a teenager. She’s very silly, like silly mean girl, high school, kind of manipulative, kind of liar. But at the end of the day, this silly giggle, that is not how a middle-aged woman should be acting. That is a result of this prolonged adolescence that we have idolized in our country. And let me tell you, it is not so cute once you’re not 16, 17, or 18 anymore. It is really unattractive in a grown woman. She does not have social grace. She does not have self-awareness. And this is what my producers and I were discussing before this show is the one clip that has been, that has just gone wildly viral all around the world, is this clip of Meghan describing the first time that she met the Queen, and how she curtsied and she, let me just show you the clip and then we’ll discuss it.
Like, I curtsied this, though. I was like, pleasure to meet you, Your Majesty. Like, was that okay?
Does that just make you prickle with discomfort? That is the most painful thing. Look at Harry’s face. Matt, Matt’s my producer in the control room. Can we run that again? Can you run that again? Watch Harry’s face at the very end of this clip.
Like I, curtsied as though I was like, pleasure to meet you. Your Majesty. Like, was that okay?
Did you see his face? He’s looking at her and he has this pinged smile on his face. And at the end, he looks away from her and looks down. Let me tell you what that is. That is a face of a man who is mortified for his wife, whose wife is mortifying him. There is nothing men interpret as being disrespectful as much as being embarrassed by their wives. Meghan Markle is embarrassing Prince Harry, and she should, that’s the teenage behavior that I’m talking about. What is she doing? Is she mocking Queen Elizabeth? Is she mocking the fact that she had to curtsy? Does she have no poise and class and grace? No, she doesn’t. She doesn’t at all. So I don’t know if their marriage is healthy. I don’t think it’s a good dynamic in a marriage for a husband to be embarrassed by his wife.
That’s certainly the case here. But just an example of what I’m talking about when I say this prolonged adolescence. Prince Harry, I gotta tell you, I feel that Meghan Markle is very manipulative and very unlikeable. I don’t feel the same way about Prince Harry. I actually, I mean, he’s kind of weak, right? He’s obviously being controlled by his wife. She wears the pants. She tore him away from his family. She tore him away from his country. She tore him away from everything that he knew, everything that he loved, and made him a pawn in her social, climbing her fortune, hunting, whatever it is, her political ideology. He strikes me as very weak, but it actually makes me feel quite sad for him because he is a troubled individual. Hear me out here. The question that I kept having while watching this show is, okay, Harry is not that well-adjusted of a person.
He’s kind of weak. He’s not that much of a catch except the fact that he’s a prince, right? So why would he pick her? He’s Prince Harry. He could have almost any woman the world over. Why would he pick her? And the answer to that, I believe he answered in this documentary. The answer to that is because she told him a lie. The, and I say it’s a lie because it is the most patently unbelievable scenario. She’s repeated it many times and it’s so implausible. But she claims, Meghan Markle claims that she didn’t know much about the British royal family. She didn’t know the difference between Prince William and Prince Harry. She didn’t know even who he was, right? Yeah, right. I mean, this is at the time that they met, she’s like 40 now, so she was maybe 35 when they met a 35 year old socialite.
She is a, a successful Hollywood actress who actually met Prince Harry or saw Prince Harry for the first time. I guess they didn’t meet at that time, but saw him at Wimbledon because she was there to hobnob not just with American celebrities, but celebrities and rich folks from all around the world. Please, I find it to be absolutely, patently unbelievable that she didn’t know who Prince Harry is. You don’t have to be a royal watcher. You don’t have to follow, read People Magazine, or follow any kind of Hollywood stuff. You know who the British Royals are. Everyone knows who the British Royals are. But here’s the thing. Harry believes this, not because it’s believable. He believes this because he wants to believe it. Isn’t this the same old trope? You’ll see it if you watch a Hallmark movie, really.
You know, all the cheesy Hallmark movies about princes marrying regular common girls? Well, what is always the defining characteristic? It’s the same story where the prince is just dying to be known for who he is, not for what he is like in the public or his family’s power or their wealth. He just wants someone to know his heart, which maybe that’s a natural human inclination, right? I’m not blaming him, I’m just saying in every Hallmark movie, the girl somehow doesn’t know who the prince is and just gets to know him for who he is. And falls in love with him. And that’s the crux of the love story. That’s what Meghan Markle is staging right now. Yet just like a Hallmark movie, it’s very, very implausible. It’s unbelievable. There’s, there’s, there’s no way. Again, I don’t blame Prince Harry especially because he talks about in the documentary how even from the time he was a small child, his earliest memories are paparazzi surrounding him, following him, taking pictures of him.
How as children, they were staged for these groups of photographers to take pictures of the royal children. Like they had a scene where they were skiing when he was probably eight years old, and he had to pose for all of these photographers. That’s really invasive, right? That’s, that’s a huge violation of privacy. He didn’t like that. I don’t blame him. No child would. So he grows up in the public eye being forced to be in the public eye. He wants people to want him not for his family’s power, not for his royalty, not for his crown, not for his money, but for who he is. I totally get that. But girl, I do not believe you when you say you didn’t know who the British Royals are. So in addition to the fact that maybe it’s human nature, maybe it was begot of the fact that Prince Harry was brought up in the public sphere, and then not just was he brought up in the public eye against, like he didn’t give consent, right?
He was a child. He didn’t choose for that to be his career. He was born into it. The royals also don’t correct slander against them. They don’t engage with the media. So there can be false reports and accusations, and they just turn a blind eye. And I have to imagine that that would be infuriating, especially as a young person who hasn’t chosen that career. Then of course, Prince Harry, perhaps rightfully, feels that his mother was killed due to public scrutiny. There’s certainly an a valid argument to be made that that’s why she was killed. She was killed when paparazzi, her car was speeding when paparazzi was, were chasing her. She, she wanted to escape public scrutiny. I know that she also chose to live a public life even after her divorce from Prince Charles. So that choice was her choice, and she chose to marry Prince Charles.
All of those things, that was her agency to make that choice. She wasn’t a child, but Prince Harry certainly feels that his mother was killed due to public scrutiny. So what does he want more than for some woman to say, I’ve never heard of you. I don’t know who you are. I just like you for who you are? Because that’s what everybody dreams of. But the point of all of that is I find it just beyond implausible to believe that. She’s an actress, but it’s not even very good acting in this documentary when she tells him, oh, I didn’t even know who you were. And he goes, oh, she didn’t even know who I am. Just like, are you serious? Did no one in your life, Harry, tell you that this woman comes off with all these red flags, very implausible?
That is why he picked her. Of all the people in the world that he could have had, that is why he picked her. The other part of this, so the falling out that they had with the royal family, she blames this on institutional racism. Her father’s white, her mother’s black. She claims that she’s been the victim of this widespread racism, and she is not the victim of institutional racism in the US or the UK. First of all, she, there’s a difference between institutional racism and individual racism. Institutional racism means that our legal system or our cultural systems are structured in a way that discriminate or disadvantage people with a certain color of skin compared to people of another color of skin based on their skin color. We don’t have that in the United States anymore. Neither does the United Kingdom. We do have individual racism, just like we have individual sexism and individual homophobia and individual every kind of sin.
But that does not materially impact the trajectory of your life unless you let it. There are always going to be people who say mean and hateful and hurtful things to you based on any kind of characteristic on Twitter right now, for example, I said I wasn’t going to ever wear a face mask ever again, and the left is calling me the C word. Why? Because I’m a woman and because I’m conservative. This doesn’t impact my life at all. It doesn’t affect my decisions, it doesn’t affect my emotions. There will always be terrible people who call you terrible things, and they will choose some immutable characteristic to focus on in their insult. And you just shrug. If you’re a good person, you say a prayer for them, you forgive them and you move along. That is very different than institutional racism. Meghan Markle has not experienced institutional racism because institutional racism in modern America does not exist.
She’s living proof of this. She’s a black actress, or her mother is black and her father was white. She’s a millionaire. She, she went from Deal or No Deal to starring on Suits. She’s in a sense living the American dream like before, before Harry living the American dream, living the life of a celebrity traveling. It’s funny that a country so steeped an institutional racism would allow a black girl to succeed to that point. But that’s the thing, of course, is there’s not this cabal of people picking and choosing who are successful based on the color of their skin, discriminating against Meghan Markle because she’s black. No, no, no. The only cabal of people who are picking and choosing who gets to win and who gets to lose based on the color of their skin are the DEI folks. And they discriminate against mostly white, straight men.
That’s a topic for a different day. And then this is in the United States. Then you go across the pond to the United Kingdom, and Meghan Markle married into the most powerful white family in the United Kingdom who accepted her? You don’t accept the black bride of your Prince’s son or grandson if you are a racist, if you are a family of racist, if you are a racist institution, if you’re a racist nation. Meghan Markle was actually widely liked in the UK before she, you know, opened her mouth, before she started treating her staff at the palace poorly before she started feuding with William and Kate, who are almost universally liked in the United Kingdom. She now lives a life of wealth and influence that she could never have imagined. She is in a position of incredible privilege, and yet she claims that she’s a victim, that she’s facing discrimination.
My answer to that is no, she is not a victim. The only thing that she is a victim of is she’s a victim of radical leftist ideology. She’s a victim of cultural Marxism telling her that she is a victim based on the color of her skin. That is patently not true. The trip to Africa. The trip to Africa was actually mentioned. I was surprised they mentioned this in the documentary because evidently Harry and Meghan met in London when she was there to attend, or in the UK I should say. When she was there to attend Wimbledon, they met one evening for an hour to get drinks. The next night they had dinner. So that’s within, within one day period, they met twice. The third time they met because she left the United Kingdom after that and came back to the US. The third time they met, prince Harry invited her, just her to go with him for like a week, 10 days, two weeks, something in that range to Africa to live with him in a tent.
Just the two of them, on the third date, when your other two interactions with him were an hour for drinks, and then at one dinner? Very desperate. This is something a fortune hunter does. This is something a social climber does. This is something a gold digger does. This is something a desperate woman, someone desperate to marry Prince Harry does because of what she wants Prince Harry for. Here’s the thing, if I’m William and Kate in the United Kingdom, if I’m Prince Charles in the United Kingdom, I disinvite Meghan from the king’s coronation. Harry, that’s fine. He’s family. You don’t cut out family. He can be invited. He is, after all, part of this institution, whether or not he wants to participate, but keep Meghan Markle as far away from the family as possible. The one thing that I will say, the one thing that I will say for Meghan Markle, is I think she did accomplish with her documentary, the goal that she stated at the outset.
She said, we are telling who we are. And she certainly did that. She, she told us that she is a manipulative, unlikeable narcissist, and she perfectly illustrated that. We know that now from the first three episodes, and the rest of them haven’t even dropped. The approval rating of the royal family in the United Kingdom is somewhere between 60 and 80%. And yet Meghan Markle, though she came in with this preemptive approval rating, essentially has managed to become one of the most disliked figures in the entire United Kingdom. It’ll be interesting to see if this documentary changes those polls, but I gotta tell you, I don’t think it will. So let’s talk about the Twitter files briefly. We are now on the fifth batch of Twitter files that have been revealed. These are reports from the internal documents at Twitter, published exclusively on Twitter.
Elon Musk gave access to several journalists, Barry Weiss, Matt Taibbi, who are going through these documents and sharing with us, with the world what happened to corrupt Twitter to the point where conservatives are blacklisted, you’re banned if you say a woman is a woman and can’t be a man, where if you say masks are BS, you’re kicked off where the Babylon Bee was censored for, for making a joke about Rachel Levine, pretty funny joke that I will say that led to the President of the United States being a sitting president being permanently banned from Twitter. So what we’ve learned so far in these dumps, just a, a brief overview here. First of all, we’ve learned that Yoel Roth, who was the former Head of Trust and Safety, he’s basically the chief sensor at Twitter. We’ve learned that he’s a very bad person.
Now, this does not come as a surprise for those of us who followed Yoel Roth tweets in the past where he called all Trump supporters literal Nazis, completely dismissed what we, in a very, in a very nice way, call the flyover states, that’s an endearing name when you’re from the Midwest or from the South. But Yoel Roth says there’s a reason we fly over the flyover states. He targeted conservatives. He used his power to manipulate the terms of service in order to silence viewpoints that he didn’t agree with, and he was very radically left. So we learned that for a fact. We’ve learned that conservatives such as Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk and others to be revealed, were subject to blacklists and shadow bans. Their tweets were deliberately stifled, and they were put on search block lists, which means you couldn’t find them.
And if you’re looking for them, so that the stuff that they were saying so that you could not hear the stuff that they were saying. We found out that the former FBI council James Baker, isn’t it funny how corrupt people in government don’t go away? They become corrupt people doing the government’s work in the private sector. James Baker, former FBI council, who played an integral role in the Russiagate stuff, he worked for Twitter as the deputy chief council. He tried to hide documents relating to Twitter’s censorship, but Elon Musk found out and fired him. This to me, by the way, indicates that there will be criminal activity that is unfolded. Why else would James Baker try to hide this if he weren’t trying to cover the tracks of someone who would perhaps face prosecution? We learned that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden’s story when Twitter censored this didn’t let us post, it, didn’t even let us DM the link that the story actually didn’t violate any terms of service at Twitter.
That behind the scenes, they made up justification for this because they, the liberals that ran Twitter, didn’t want you to hear about it. They thought that this would materially impact the outcome of the 2020 election. So Twitter interfered in the 2020 presidential election. And Twitter behind the scenes knew all along what they were doing. They knew that it didn’t violate any terms of service. They knew they were interfering. We found out that Twitter is colluding, or was colluding with the FBI and the Department of Justice, that the chief censor Yoel Roth met on a weekly basis with the feds, with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security over so-called misinformation and disinformation. To me, this is the best evidence we have so far of criminality. The government is not allowed to violate our First Amendment right to free speech by censoring us, nor is the government allowed to coerce or use a private business, and use that business to violate our first amendment, where the government isn’t allowed.
It’s essentially just using the, the private entity as a tool to do what the government’s not allowed to do directly. It’s still illegal. Supreme Court has set that precedent. There’s adequate evidence that that happened, that that has happened at Twitter. We also learned that Twitter censored and banned conservatives based on this, what I would call fungible terms of service. So the terms of service would be written and then the people on the inside of Twitter would twist and manipulate and change the definition and the interpretation of words and phrases in the terms of service to justify banning people they just wanted banned. This is one of the most important things I think that we’ve learned. This is actually how they got Trump. They applied these double standards to Trump’s account that they weren’t applying to other public figures. These Twitter employees ignored Twitter’s public interest policy, which is for public figures, obviously, that says that even if they violate a terms of service, it’s important for the public to be able to see what this politician is saying in order to participate in our self-governance, hold this politician accountable.
So politicians actually were allowed for the most part to violate terms of service. But Twitter, the employees at Twitter didn’t want Trump to be tweeting. So they found a way to justify banning the leader of the free world. One of the pivotal things that Barry Weiss revealed in this Twitter files number five, is that Twitter employees never thought that Trump violated terms of service. They actually analyzed it and found that his tweets on the day that they banned him did not violate the terms of service. But this phrase that we’re going to find here, we’re going to read here, coded incitement. This is how Twitter employees justified it to themselves. They said, even though we’re not interpreting what Trump said literally, or within the context of who it was that was speaking or what he was speaking about, but they pretended or they deceived themselves into believing that there might be someone out there who might interpret it in a way that might incite them into violence.
Which is so many ifs, so many assumptions about perceptions that it’s simply, it’s simply unbelievable that they were able to convince themselves into doing this. But I wanna read a couple of these tweets. So on January 8th is the day that Trump was banned from Twitter, and this is what Barry Weiss tweeted. She said, she quotes the two tweets that Trump set out that morning. She said the 75 million great American Patriots, this is the Trump Tweet. By the way, the 75 million Great American Patriots who voted for me America first and make America great again, will have a giant voice long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form. That was the Tweet he sent at 6:46 AM on January 8th. At 7:44 AM He tweeted to all those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.
That’s the context for Trump’s permanent suspension from Twitter. So Barry says, she tweets about how Twitter views their forum, right? And she quotes from a 2019 terms of service on Twitter that says, our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. Twitter’s aim Weiss rights was to protect the public’s rights to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account. Now this is the public figures policy that I was talking about. Then Barry says, in the early afternoon of January 8th, the Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to c e o Jack Dorsey demanding Trump’s ban. We must examine Trump’s complicity in what President-elect. Biden has rightly termed insurrection, but the Twitter staff assigned to evaluate tweets quickly concluded that Trump had not violated Twitter’s policies.
I think we’d have a hard time saying this is in this is incitement wrote one staffer. It’s pretty clear he’s saying the American Patriots are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists. We can call them that right from Wednesday. Another staffer agreed, don’t see the incitement angle. Here I am also not seeing clear or coded incitement in the Donald J. Trump tweet wrote an Anika Navar Navarro, a Twitter policy official. I’ll respond in the Elections Channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vis abbreviation for violations for the Donald Trump won. She does just that. As an FYI, safety has assessed the Donald Trump tweet above and determine that there is no violation of our policies at this time. Then Barry tweets next Twitter safety team decides that Trump’s 7:44 AM tweet is also not in violation. They are unequivocal, unequivocal. It is clear, no violation.
It’s just to say he’s not attending the inauguration. Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy. Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head of Legal Policy and Trust, asked whether it could, in fact, be quote unquote coded incitement to further violence. A few minutes later, Twitter’s employees on the Scaled Enforcement team suggests that Trump’s tweet may have violated Twitter’s glorification of violence policy. If you interpreted the phrase American patriots to refer to the rioters. Things escalate from there. Barry Weiss tweets, members of that team came to quote, view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence and deaths comparable to the Christchurch shooter or Hitler. And on that basis and on the totality of his tweets, he should be de platformed. So this is, this is the point that I wanna make. This is one of my biggest takeaways from these entire Twitter files.
Most of what’s being revealed on these Twitter files, we know it’s wonderful to have proof. It’s courageous of Elon Musk to expose this, but this is one of the most important takeaways. What you just read, that Twitter employees compared Trump to the Christchurch domestic terrorist, that shooter, and to Hitler, and that on this basis, they decided his words would be used to incite. I don’t know what, killers, mass killers? This is exactly what happens when we don’t demand reality from our society. When we bend a knee to quote unquote your truth and quote unquote my truth, instead of acknowledging the truth, this is what happens. People make crazy stuff up and pretend it’s real, and their twisted, warped perception. They weaponize this against us, but in this case, to ban the President of the United States. And that’s my second point here. They hate Trump. Of course they do. They really viscerally, viscerally hate Trump. But it’s not just Trump that they hate. They also hate us. They’re weaponizing their warped perception against us. Because it’s not just that they’re wanting to put Trump in time out because they know it’ll make him mad. It’s because they don’t want us to be able to hear what Trump is saying. They wanna prevent us from seeing what Trump is doing. They don’t want any debate. They don’t want us to be able to hold Trump accountable.
They’re actually creating a secret government by silencing him. Because how are people supposed to know and dialogue and debate and hold him accountable, participate in our self-governance, if we have no access and no transparency? It’s one of the hallmarks of our self-governance is this transparency and the debate and the dissent and the accountability. And Twitter has done more to damage that in our modern day than almost anyone else that I can think of. And it all starts with this cultural, well, it’s cultural Marxism, isn’t it? With a cultural Marxism that rejects objective truth that allows people to rewrite history and redefine words to mean different things. In a rational world, everyone will look at Trump’s tweets and be like, no, that’s, that’s not a threat. That’s not inciting violence, that’s not glorification of violence. It’s literally nothing. He just said he wasn’t going to a a government event, who cares?
But in a world where we accept your truth and my truth, it gets twisted into Trump is Hitler. And therefore him saying he’s not gonna go to the inauguration is incitement to violence, to the point that he should be permanently banned from the largest platform for political speech in the world. That, my friends, is chilling. It’s incredibly chilling. This is why I’m so proud of what Elon Musk is doing. I’m so proud of what Barry Weiss is doing, what Matt Taby is doing. Elon said at the very beginning of all this, that one of the reasons that he wanted to restore Twitter to this digital form of public speech or a free speech, is because he wanted independent journalists to thrive. And that’s what’s happening right now. And what’s being reported by these independent journalists on Twitter is more significant, will have more influence, and will uncover more corruption than anything the mainstream media has done. And my entire, almost my entire lifetime on Twitter, the bird app, who would’ve thought? If this isn’t exposed the way that Elon is exposing it, then we will continue to be the targets because the Left hates us. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.