ex the government s explanation didn tpln didn t seem entirely . some tpln didn t seem entirely . and some people started asking obvious question s about it. it was at that point, as americans started to doubt the officialstarted to story, tt the term conspiracy theory entered our lexicon. as professor lance david smith points out in his book on the subject, the term conspiracy theory did not exist as a phrase in everyday americanpiracy conversation befe nineteen sixty four inbefore 19. year warreixty four inbefore 19. nineteen sixty for the year, the warren commission issued its report. the new york times issued publi five stories in which conspiracy theory appeared. now, today, of course, the termp conspiracy theory appears in pretty much every s new york times story about american politics. it s wielded an now as then as a weapon against anyone who asks questions.ks the government doesn t feel like answering. but despite sixty years oswef name calling, those questions o have n
by another lone gunman. i what are the odds of that? it s one thing if you get struck by lightning, rare but possible. but if ever tning, ry member of your family also gets struckf yr by lightning all on different days, you might begin to suspect these are not entirely natural events. suspec these are not naturants. suspec but, oh, replied the u.s. government, they are this bizarre chain of killings was all entirely natural. so less than a year after the jfk assassination, the johnson white house released something called the warrenk assassinatio commis. and the report concluded that while their motives remainedncar, both lee ac alone. no one helped them. there was no conspiracy of any kind. casesed. closed. time to move on . and many, many americans didat e move on .ea at the time. they had no idea how shoddy and corrupt the warren commission was. it would be nearly 50 years before the cia admitted under duress that in fact it withheld information from investigators about its
some old, very old media old, old owners of twitter. they wanted to create this illusion of consensus about the science. that s right. that s right. they they wanted to fool peope into thinking that we were following the science when, in fact, there was a robust debate among scientists about what the right thing to do was. and the consequence is schools closed, businesses closed,unvacn unvaccinated people lost their jobs. osbecause of mandates, even mandcause of mandates, even actually not none of the persuasive science actually supported any of those positions. peoplepported suffered as a a consequence of this censorship. and of course, it s an abstract violation of my civil rights, my first amendment rights. latin bu ot that s not the important ican the important thing is that people, american people were denied a debate, an honest debate. and i believe that had that honest debate taking place, none of those policies would have been put in place. and all of that suffering could have
disinformation, the more the less impressive they look. h these people are in the shadows for a reason, because if yourean actually saw who they were, look at john brennan, would you, knowing what we know now about him, would you really entrust him to run the country s premier spy agency? spto have such power to run around the world, intervene in other countries elections?s elen no. sos? i , i , i just don t know what good it does us to have those kind of malevolent people having so much power i and using it in our name and causing us all great harm. because we don t know whatt they re doing. that s right. transparency can fix it. ri the only thing they can. and i appreciate. your assessment team. miranda devine of the new york post. thank yoranda neu. you. thanks. so the same people who aree peoe withholding this information lying to us about the pivot point in modern american history, sitting on the fact thatca the u.s. agency is complicit in the murder ofnt
on winning elections inning, whichections e so a singer, a famous performer, and also an rns c donor. he saw this and we are comin interested in his reaction. john o much for coming on . o so i think like a lot of, yo our viewers, like a lot of people in america, you know, you sent money party to the paru vote for and you thought it wasg going to the right places. r rep what waons your responseis to this story? well, it s bad enough how they e spent the money, as you re outlining, butmone here s where i really, really got upset, tucker. and that s whe n i realized that the rnc right after thisn trum election, when when trump lost the election, they were running commercials on tv that saidcommr we re fighting for trump. so donate to theci figh rnc bee we re fighting for trump. and they knew that thate cons the conservative base out therer was fired up and would send in s a lot of money. matter of fact, and closee to to two hundred million dollars to the rnc. meanwhile, i fink d ou