ingraham angle" from new york city tonight. x going to give it to you. that's the focus of tonight's angle. ♪ all right. if you think democrats are truly worried about election interference, you're not paying attention, people if you think they believe democracy is at risk if trump wins the white house? you are not listening. these same people trashed the credibility of our doj and our fbi. they have destroyed our once secure border. they have done enormous damage to the public's faith in these democratic institutions. they don't care about democracy. if you think liberals still cared about free speech, i think you're stuck in a late 1960's time warp. liberals now embrace government censorship innocent measures if those americans are political opponents. the former free speech crowd are filled with totalitarians. new totalitarians they believe people like trump and desantis need to be stopped by any means necessary. they have civil rights? not really. and, of course, elon musk, he falls into that same category persona non grata. yesterday he was pressed on the exodus of sponsors from x over a media matters campaign against him for allegedly anti-semitic content on twitter. well, he was the f bomb heard around the world. >> there was all of the criticism. there was advertisers leaving. we talked to bob iger. >> i hope they stop. >> you. >> don't advertise. >> you don't want them to advertise. >> no. >> what do you mean? >> if somebody is going to try to blake mail me with advertising. blackmail me money. go [bleep] yourself. >> but -- >> go [bleep] yourself. is that clear? that's how i feel. don't advertise. >> laura: now to many his response was crass. we got it on the first f bomb. i really thought about this in many ways, musk is voicing the same frustration that millions and millions of americans feel about what they see happening to this country. they are not multi billionaires. they see what is happening. freedoms that we once took for granted are under assault. and none are more important than the f freedom of speech. >> freedom of speech you have to say when is it relevant? it's only relevant when someone you don't like can say something you don't like or it has no meaning. and as soon as you sort of -- you know, throw in the towel and concede to censorship, it is only a matter of time before someone censors you. >> laura: you cannot back down. he is 100 percent correct. but then again, as musk himself concealed in the quick response all the social media, he gave the corporate overlords who want to destroy him an easy opening and, of course, they took it. already ibm, apple, disney, warner brothers and others have pulled all their ads from x. and the media, of all groups, they gleefulfully celebrated the threat to musk's # $4 billion investment. >> advertisers have been really fleeing x, left, right and center over growing concerns that musk has amplified anti-semitism and racism. >> this is not an enlightened super ego. this is a guy in a lot of trouble on stage. i think just dissembling a bit. >> some men just want to watch the world burn. and i think that completely applies to this scenario. >> laura: none of them concerned about free speech at all. none of them. now, at this point i think most everyone understands that the business establishment, august those advertisers it's aligned with government power brokers here and abroad who want to restrict free speech as much as possible. at some point they have all come to the conclusion that regular work aday people have too much freedom. and that a free flow of information doesn't really work any longer. absorbing too much freedom, too much speech, no, that's not a good thing. and mainly about how the establishment has been failing them for decades, they're learning that information. so that information must be tightly controlled. now, to that end, most media outoutlets are becoming more and more closely aligned with establishment political figures. now, in the united states for example, most of our press is simply an extension of the biden campaign. that's why they report uncritically about any and every investigation into donald trump. no matter how tainted by politics. this is the third arraignment for mr. trump in four months. the most serious of the indictments he faces trump now faces serious. the indictment of president trump. facing the most serious threat of his life. >> now, just like trump, elon musk is a threat to these folks because he owns x. and exallows normal people to access information that's impossible to find in much of the mainstream press. that means both the political establishment and the business establishment are trying to put x out of business. now, that's the real reason for any boycott. none of these corporate chiefs actually care about what musk believes or even what musk and x are doing. and this certainly isn't about curbing anti-semitism. look at how the media covers the pro-hamas madness in our streets and in our universities. that's all you need to look at, see how much they care about anti-semitism. there is plenty of anti-semitism out there that the media pretends just doesn't exist because, of course, it comes from their own political bed fellows. [chanting] >> israel go to hell. >> israelis and the zionists pigs finally got what was coming to them. >> wouldn't you love her at a party? now, are all these companies pulling out of the universities? all their sponsorship of universities where true hate is allowed to fester? of course not they never do that the truth is they just want to shut x down to make it harder for voters to have access to information that would make the establishment uncomfortable. everyone knows this, including musk. and is he trying to tell them that they will not intimidate them into silence. now, we will have to see if they try to use the legal process to shut them down given that they're using the legal process against trump. i don't think any of us are going to be surprised if they do the same thing in some way against x or musk. and then, against the rest of us. and that's the angle. now related story. today at house weapons committee hearing. independent journalist michael shellenberger and matt taibbi worked overtime in an effort to explain to skeptic democrats how coordinated censorship between u.s. government officials and social media companies is aflation grant constitutional violation. now, the democrats' chief cynic was new york's dan goldman who tried out a neat new trick. he tried to redefine the first amendment. >> part of the operation was to change the terms of service so you see them constantly trying to change the terms of service. 35 urls, labeled removed or soft blocked. that's all forms of censorship. censorship is not just removal. but 65% were not. so how can the government be so coercive. >> does the first amendment par for the course can censor. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> he they're not censors and they are flagging. >> coercion. >> 35% of the first amendment? >> it's not the first amendment. it's the terms of service as you said and they are flagging it for the social media companies to make their own decisions. that is not the first amendment that is the terms of service. >> congressman, you are an attorney, you know that the four federal judges have already ruled. >> and i know it's on appeal in front of the supreme court right now. ha ha ha ha. >> that debate was very constructive. >> that was very fun. >> that got to the heart of the issue. >> joining me now ohio congressman jim jordan chairs the house committee on weaponization. matt taibbi a witness and dare i say law professor for mr. goldman today. matt, you mentioned something interesting in the hearing which was fascinating to watch. now, the fact that free speech used to be just something we agreed upon as an american ideal, but that's out the window. can you explain that? >> i can't explain it. i mean, i grew up a traditional kind of liberal. i donated to the aclu my whole life. and i got most of my ideas about speech from democrats, supreme like frank church and paul well stone and russ feingold. and there is no element of that left in the democratic party. in fact, today was kind of an epiphany for me. i have kind of given up trying to convince people in this party to care about this issue. they just do not anymore. it's not a value that they treasure at all. >> laura: congressman, to this point and i also wanted to get your reaction to something else that dan goldman said when the hunter biden laptop issue came up. check this out. >> you have no idea. you know hard drives can be manipulated. >> are you suggesting the "new york post" participated in a conspiracy to construct the contents of the hunter biden laptop? >> no, sir. the problem is that hard drives can be manipulated by rudy giuliani or russia. >> what's the evidence that that happens? >> well, there is actual evidence of it, but the point is. >> there is no evidence. so you are engaging in the conspiracy. >> laura: okay. the fact that this man is in congress is a shock. now, russia manipulated the contents of the hard drive of hunter biden? you have to give him credit, congressman, for actually covering every base here. >> yeah. shocking. >> yeah, very true. we actually had witnesses come testify that said the fbi knew that the laptop was real. they just didn't want to tell us. everyone knows it's real for goodness sakes. we have seen the documents, emails and stuff that have come from it. so that was ridiculous. this is scary because of we had one of our other witness made a great point today as well. she said when you get rid of the first amendment and the fourth amendment, those are foundational to the western civilization. you don't have liberty if you don't have that. and they were trying to censor election information. they were trying to censor covid information. it was scary where they went. where they want to go. where the left wants to take this. but three big things today. we released a report that said youtube was being pressured by the biden administration to take down content just like they pressured twitter. just like they pressured facebook. the two guys who were responsible. second thing, andy slavic and rob flaherty we subpoenaed them. two guys at the biden administration. of course the big take away is the one you played first. 35% taken down posts and stuff. 35% censorship is still censorship. and frankly the other 65% is the chilling effect you have on all speech when there's government saying you might want to take these posts down. that's how frightening this whole thing is. >> laura: i keep thinking had trump done xy or z they would be containing themselves to the white house fence tonight. matt, you had fascinating exchange with one of our favorite congresswomen debby wasserman schultz today. >> social media companies allow rape and murder to be live streamed by terrorists on platforms in order to create fear and incite violence. >> i believe that would violate their terms of service would it not. >> so your answer is no, they should not be allowed to do that? >> livestream rape and murder? >> right. >> no, i think that would count as speech that would be prohibited under their terms of service. >> good, good. do you have salutist policies. >> i do have not absolutist. >> please don't interrupt me. the homeland security official echoed your opinion. you would call it censorship? >> laura: so, matt, she is trying to equate live streaming a murder and a rape to political or scientific speech about the issues of the day. i mean, again, i keep saying these are people who are actually elected to important positions of power in our federal government. and they are just stupid people. i'm sorry, they are stupid, stupid people. and i don't see t i don't say tt as a former law clerk. i say this as an american. it's stupid and it's terrifying how stupid they are. the dan goldman exchange was incredible to me. he is an attorney. i wondered if he ever did defense law if he went into court and said your honor, my client only is 35% guilty. was that -- was that the tactic? he was essentially conceding the crime but saying it was only a percentage crime. and debbie wasserman schultz said -- accused me of saying the exact opposite of what i have said on record probably more than a dozen times. and but that's been their tactic as the chairman knows throughout these hearings. they are not interested in the subject matter. they just say answer "yes" or "no" to this ridiculous question and that's their entire contribution to the debate about. >> laura: again, everyone watching tonight, i want everyone to understand that matt taibbi and i probably don't agree on much. right? you are a liberal. i'm a conservative. but we both believe in the cherished, time-honored tradition of free exchange of ideas, free speech in the united states. we agree -- that's what makes us special as americans. >> yep. >> laura: that's what it is all about. have a great debate, disagree, go have a beer or whatever. they don't want that. they do not want that to happen. that is terrifying for conservatives, liberal whos who are true liberals. congressman, today "the washington post" reported that the federal government has stopped warning some social networks about foreign disinformation exabs. the shift in communication signals how ongoing litigation and republican probes in congress are unwinding efforts once viewed as critical to protecting u.s. national security interest. congressman, it seems like this is a win for you all because all of this was bogus from the outset. >> right. they are now saying they are the victims. they have been involved in censoring american free speech. americans' first amendment liberties. they are not claiming we are the victims because we are exposing that? give me a break. understand, laura, under the first amendment, you can say things that aren't accurate. buff what. >> not popular. >> and unpopular. what they were taking down was true stuff. relative to covid. you called this, i remember. you were would you having me in april of 2020, and you said you watch, they will be taking down they are coming after our liberties. and they were doing. and so what matt taibbi and michael shellenberger and others who first exposed the twitter files some day in the future they will look back these guys what they have done for our country when they look back in history and say this was a great thing. this is great that they are not conservative republicans that they are from the left. first amendment. they love the first amendment. >> laura: this is not about left or right. they should win the pulitzer prize for weigh that did. both of them. they are real journalists. >> i agree. >> laura: not sucking up to you. you are an actual journalist and phenomenal writer my old friend don imus loved you as well. gentlemen, great to see you tonight. up next the big united nations con fab just began. up next, we will tell you how kamala and kerry are going to help sell america out. newt gingrich has reaction to that plus, he will weigh in on tonight's desantis-newsom face off so stay with us. >> we decide to admit a new energy system if we do not signal the terminal decline of the fossil fuel era as we know it, we welcome our own terminal decline. >> laura: another climate change conference, another global shakedown. yeah, there are a lot of obnoxious emissions emerging from the first day of the cop 28 conference in dubai. >> key structure across climate agenda is final. let this be the year that climate finance meets the magnitude of the moment. >> laura: let me translate this for you. the elites who flew in on gulf stream 550s are commanding that affluent nations pony up big to the nations that are supposedly struggling to deal with the effects of global warming. do we still call it that? let's call this what it is. green extortion or climate reparations. yes, that's a thing. and who better to lead the charge than a guy who flies private after he married the widow of the heinz fortune. >> we are very much committed now to work with our congress to provide 17 and a half million dollars specifically towards the fund for climate impacts response an additional $4.5 million for the pacific resilience facility. another 2.5 million for the san diego network. >> laura: why doesn't theresa pay it? they have the money. the big polluters with massive populations, india and china any have no intention of closing out oil or gas they are happy fat cats gather annually to make each other feel better by throwing some money into the climate pot. joining me now is newt gingrich, former speaker of the house and fox news contributor. newt, it's just a thing to behold seems to happen annually for me every week. biden is sending kamala to rep the green agenda in this case. she gets all the fun assignments, doesn't she, newt? >> well, look, think the left is deeply committed to taking your money. think about the irony, you go to the middle east of producing you shouldn't produce oil and gas and good enough that they say it with a straight face. this is an amazing broadway show which goes all over the world playing from place to place. john kerry flying in to the next gold star hotel in order to be deeply worried at which point he has to go back, get on his plane to go to the next five star hotel to the next gourmet restaurant to be even more worried. will many argentine in and a holiday and italy across the planet a move toward the right people realize they are the ones paying. when john kerry talks about giving more money, guess what? that's your money. john kerry is cheerful about taking money from you to give to these people he has never met who will then by the way mostly scscawn squander it. how could they have been so stupid for so long. >> laura: the u.n.'s climate change secretary, newt, i think revealed what is really going on here. watch. if this transition isn't just, we won't transition at all that means justice within and between countries sharing benefits across society ensuring that everyone in all their diversity have equal opportunities to benefit from these transitions. >> he was inflexion just particular could you labor relation of any random dictator. simon they want to skim off the top to take care of their friends. if we had a list of evergreen energy project the u.s. government has funded which has failed totally and said where did the money go? >> laura: solyndra. >> you will find virtually all the donors to the democratic party. >> laura: they are all buddies. >> this whole thing is a rigged game. it's remarkable. sean. >> laura: sean hannity is going to moderate this debate between newsom and desantis. >> going to watch in newsom's case he wants to be the available candidate in case anything happens to biden. he can't be too aggressive. he can't say anything negative. but he wants to be the number one person if anything happens to biden and the democrats become desperate for a candidate. in desantis' case he wants to restart a campaign which didn't do very well for the first nine months. i think the choice here and i have talked to sean about this, you have two profoundly different philosophies with two amazingly different results. people moving into florida in a wild level. you have people leaving california. to just say to each of them, explain why you think people are coming to your state and in the case of newsom explain why people are leaving your state. remember, san francisco is such a disaster they created a entire pro tem can village of fakery so xi jinping could arrive without being embarrassed. the day he left they took it all down. the whole system in california is collapsing so badly that it's kind of astonishing. but the democrats have so much power the media is so irrelevant the state toward disaster.