Speaker 1: We have two major stories that we're going to talk about,
Speaker 1: and one of them, obviously is with those that are
Speaker 1: testifying about the Biden crime family and a public hearing
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. And the no show of Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get to that in a minute. But
Speaker 1: also something else I want to put on your radar screen,
Speaker 1: and that is this Google is now being accused of
Speaker 1: interfering influence, pedaling election interference. In fact, they're being accused
Speaker 1: of interfering with elections forty one times over the last
Speaker 1: sixteen years. Google now on defense as they're being accused
Speaker 1: with data to back it up that they were purposely
Speaker 1: tipping the scales towards candidates that they chose. Guess who
Speaker 1: those candidates were, hardcore liberals. We're talking about Obama, Clinton, Biden,
Speaker 1: and others that they are supporting. They also were interfering
Speaker 1: in elections at the state level, people running for Congress, Senate,
Speaker 1: and the governor's mansion in many different states. Google executives
Speaker 1: having to go on defense. I'm going to have an
Speaker 1: exclusive interview with the people that uncovered this coming up
Speaker 1: in a moment. Before I do that, though, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about my friends over at AMMO Squared.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you, AMO Squared is amazing because
Speaker 1: it helps you stay stocked up on ammunition automatically. AMMO
Speaker 1: is delivered on demand or automatically when you need it,
Speaker 1: and stored for free when you don't. It's really a
Speaker 1: unique it's really a unique way to invest in ammunition.
Speaker 1: You can buy low and dollar cost average out over time,
Speaker 1: and then you can cash out when prices rise without
Speaker 1: ever taking delivery of any physical ammunition. It's been founded
Speaker 1: more than eight years ago and the freedom loving state
Speaker 1: of Idaho and AMMO square is truly automated. Sen it
Speaker 1: forget it. Ammo purchasing. You pick your calibers, you set
Speaker 1: your budget, you select a shipping trigger, and that's it.
Speaker 1: And AMMO builds up over time and is delivered automatically
Speaker 1: when you want it or you can sell it when
Speaker 1: prices go through the roof. Over sixty different caliber options
Speaker 1: to choose from, and you can forget about dealing with
Speaker 1: moving heavy case of ammunition in your garage, your home
Speaker 1: because you can literally exchange your AMMO squared inventory from
Speaker 1: one caliber to another in seconds with just a click
Speaker 1: of a mouse. So if you're ready to have AMO
Speaker 1: on demand at great pricing and be able to actually
Speaker 1: invest in AMMO and sell it if the market goes
Speaker 1: through the roof, just like it did during COVID. Go
Speaker 1: to amosquare dot com slash ben. You sign up now,
Speaker 1: You're gonna get some free AMO in your account today.
Speaker 1: It's effortless ammunition management amosquare dot com slash ben. That's
Speaker 1: amosquared dot com slash ben. Sign up to get some
Speaker 1: free AMO in your account right now, all right. Tony
Speaker 1: Bobolinski is in Washington. He is the former business associate
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden. He met with Joe Biden not once,
Speaker 1: but several times in twenty seventeen. Now. The hearing went
Speaker 1: off the rails when Tony Bobolinski called out Democrats, including
Speaker 1: Representative Raskin and Representive Goldman, for, as he described it,
Speaker 1: lying on behalf of the Biden family. I want you
Speaker 1: to listen to this as it happened on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 2: At the same people preaching this mantra no better, they
Speaker 2: continue to lie directly to the American people without hesitation
Speaker 2: and remorse.
Speaker 1: Rep.
Speaker 2: Dan Goldman and Jamie Raskin, both lawyers, and mister Goldman,
Speaker 2: a former prosecutor with the SDNY from New York, will
Speaker 2: continue to lie today in this hearing and then go
Speaker 2: straight to the media to tell more lies. Hunter Biden's
Speaker 2: defense attorney, Abbey Loll, weaponizes letters to Congress to try.
Speaker 1: To smear my name, mister Sherman the cold.
Speaker 2: Art facts Miss Sherman, in an attempt to save his
Speaker 2: powerfully connected client.
Speaker 3: And his father.
Speaker 2: I challenged mister Lowell to make those claims on national
Speaker 2: television so he can be held accountable for his lies.
Speaker 2: Prior to my successful business career, I was an auficer
Speaker 2: in the United States Navy at Navy's Elite Naval Nuclear
Speaker 2: Power Training Command. I later served as the chief the
Speaker 2: command's chief technology officer.
Speaker 4: For se. I apologize for the disruption from the the am.
Speaker 2: I supposed to say, it's my time, mister RASKI.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but please get Mitch Boblisky please okay, good to order, Uh,
Speaker 4: mister mister Bobilisky, please proceed, Please proceed. Apologize for the
Speaker 4: disruption from the minority.
Speaker 5: Okay, well me, mister Chairman. David saved his time, but
Speaker 5: he called members of this committee liars, and I just
Speaker 5: want to know whether the order and decorum requirements of
Speaker 5: House Rule eleven apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.
Speaker 4: Uh, there's hard lives, there's decorum from the members. We've
Speaker 4: asked for that. There's no language that I'm aware of
Speaker 4: pretending to a witness.
Speaker 3: Thank you, So.
Speaker 4: Don't make sure we didn't waste any of his time
Speaker 4: on the opening statement. Mister Bobbliski, I'm sorry for the disruption.
Speaker 4: Please continue your open statement.
Speaker 2: I think you, mister Askings, We'll make sure you try it.
Speaker 2: Oh my trade great. I just want to restate to
Speaker 2: make sure the American people hear all these facts.
Speaker 1: By the way, I love this guy. He came in
Speaker 1: there and knew that these Democrats who have been lying
Speaker 1: to the American people represent Raskin and represent Goldman, saying, look,
Speaker 1: not only are they lying in the American people, they're
Speaker 1: lying in behalf of the Biden family. And then these
Speaker 1: two members of Congress they get all, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: a member of Congress. You can't talk to me that way.
Speaker 1: Well guess what. Yeah, But there was other things besides
Speaker 1: that that happened. Tony Bobolinski was asked a very simple question.
Speaker 1: Here's the question from Congressman Jordan.
Speaker 2: Listen, mister Bobolinsky, who's the big guy?
Speaker 1: Are you sure about that?
Speaker 2: Because when Jill Biden you sure? I'm a thousand percent sure.
Speaker 1: One thousand percent sure. This is under oath. Tony Bobolinsky
Speaker 1: asked the question, who's the big guy, Joe Biden? Are
Speaker 1: you sure about that? Because and Baby Lensky interrupts, Joe
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, Jim Jordan, are you sure? Are you sure, Bobolinsky,
Speaker 1: I'm a thousand percent sure. Tony Bobolinsky came in there,
Speaker 1: Matt as hell because of the injustice of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing in this country right now with the Biden crime family,
Speaker 1: in the corruption that Tony Bobolinsky witnessed first hand. Tony
Speaker 1: Bobolinsky also came in facts saying Hunter Biden perjured himself
Speaker 1: during his deposition to Congress, saying, quote, he lied to
Speaker 1: the committee. Listen to this from Tony as well, and.
Speaker 2: Gave his transcribe to interview on February twenty eighth, and
Speaker 2: lied throughout his testimony. Here's just one egregious example of
Speaker 2: Hunter's perjury. He lied to the committee on important details
Speaker 2: concerning his money demands. And threats to CFC in text
Speaker 2: messages on July thirty then thirty first, twenty seventeen. He
Speaker 2: leveraged his father's presence next to him in that infamous
Speaker 2: text to strong on CFC to paying Hunter immediately.
Speaker 1: Jim Biden also.
Speaker 2: Led extensively throughout his transcribed interview on February twenty first,
Speaker 2: and perjured himself. An example of that on page one
Speaker 2: hundred of his transcript, Jim is asked specifically, do you
Speaker 2: recall having a meeting with Hunter Biden, Tony Bobolinski, and
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Jim's response, absolutely not. The committee was so
Speaker 2: shocked by his perjury that they asked him the same
Speaker 2: question multiple times. Each time he denied meeting with me
Speaker 2: and Joe Biden. After the Committee showed him text messages
Speaker 2: confirming that I met with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and
Speaker 2: Jim Biden at the Beverly Hilton in May twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: Jim Biden, with a former US attorney lawyer sitting next
Speaker 2: to him, still denied.
Speaker 1: That meeting took place.
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden, in his own transcribed interview, confirm that that
Speaker 2: meeting took place. Hunter confirmed his uncle perjured himself in
Speaker 2: front of this committee. I'm simply here to tell the
Speaker 2: truth to.
Speaker 1: I'm simply here to tell the truth. He's saying he
Speaker 1: lied to Congress multiple times. AOC, by the way, losing
Speaker 1: her mind today, melting down in a back and forth
Speaker 1: with Tony Bobolenski. Here's part of how that happened. Listen,
Speaker 1: did you witness the president commit a crime? Is it
Speaker 1: your testimony today?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: And what crime do you have you witnessed?
Speaker 2: How much time do I have to go through?
Speaker 1: It is simple? You name the crime? Did you watch
Speaker 1: him steal something? Corruption?
Speaker 2: Statues?
Speaker 1: Rico and con What is what is the crime?
Speaker 3: Sir?
Speaker 2: Specific christ You keep up at me to answer the question.
Speaker 4: I answered the question.
Speaker 2: Ko, you're obviously not familiar.
Speaker 4: With cru Excuse me, sir, excuse me, sir, excuse me, sir.
Speaker 1: Rico is not a crime. It is a category.
Speaker 2: What is the category of crimes that you're then charging?
Speaker 1: You have charging long hundred You have charges, sir.
Speaker 2: Back statute do rico? Yes, Well, it's funny in this
Speaker 2: committee room. Everyone's not here.
Speaker 1: There's over each all right, sir, I recli you guys.
Speaker 3: Time.
Speaker 1: I love AOC. There she's trying to defend the president.
Speaker 1: It didn't go well for her. These are just some
Speaker 1: of the highlights as AOC melting down starts yelling at
Speaker 1: Bobolinskey saying that Biden committed crimes. Excuse me, sir, Excuse me, sir,
Speaker 1: excuse me, sir. They didn't know what to do with
Speaker 1: him because he came in and he's a guy that
Speaker 1: worked with the Bidens. He's not a Republican. He's a
Speaker 1: guy that worked with the Bidens and is seeing what
Speaker 1: the Bidens are getting away with. And that is the
Speaker 1: whole problem. They're witnessing it, they're watching it, they're seeing
Speaker 1: it in real time. And bab A Lensky's like, I've
Speaker 1: had enough of this. So if I'm gonna be here,
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you the truth, and you guys
Speaker 1: aren't gonna get away with lying the American people while
Speaker 1: I'm here, and I'm going to remind the American people
Speaker 1: how and when and what you're saying that is a lie.
Speaker 1: And when they went after him, it didn't go well.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to keep covering this because there's going
Speaker 1: to be more that comes out. I can promise you that. Okay,
Speaker 1: but I also want to get to this other big
Speaker 1: story that's vitally important, and it deals with Google interfering
Speaker 1: with elections forty one times over the last sixteen years.
Speaker 1: And the new accusations is that Google literally was swinging
Speaker 1: elections and swinging elections with millions of votes going from
Speaker 1: one side to another because of Google's search algorithms shifting
Speaker 1: public opinion, knowing that they were misleading the public. There
Speaker 1: is shocking new evidence that Google has interfered with our elections,
Speaker 1: in fact, at least forty one times over the last
Speaker 1: sixteen years. That's what the Media Research Center is now
Speaker 1: saying in a new report that totally exposes the bias
Speaker 1: and influence that Google has over our elections, with new
Speaker 1: accusations that they actually could be changing the number of
Speaker 1: votes by millions, tilting the scales for the candidates that
Speaker 1: they choose. Now, we've known for a long time that
Speaker 1: Google has been bias, we had no idea just how
Speaker 1: bias it was until we found out that Google picked
Speaker 1: winners and losers with major elections in the United States
Speaker 1: of America forty one times over the last sixteen years.
Speaker 1: Media Research Center has found forty one different times. They
Speaker 1: say we're Google directly interfered in elections and it had
Speaker 1: a major impact and surged dramatically of the side they
Speaker 1: wanted to win. In every case, Google harmed the candidates
Speaker 1: that they wanted to harm, regardless of party. Those who
Speaker 1: threatened it's left leaning and left wing candidates of choice.
Speaker 1: That is a new accusation by the Media Research Center
Speaker 1: Free Speech America Vice President Dan Snyder is now going
Speaker 1: to join me to talk about this exact detail. Dan,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you coming on. And Google is something that
Speaker 1: we know is powerful for the left. We know that
Speaker 1: they have an ally, we know that they have suppressed
Speaker 1: just basic search engine issues, but this is the first
Speaker 1: time that we're actually seeing what Google is doing directly
Speaker 1: to interfere with our elections. Tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: more about the background in this and how you guys
Speaker 1: were able to find all this out.
Speaker 3: Well. Look, Google has been actively involved in elections for
Speaker 3: a long time, and on a legal basis, their president, CEO,
Speaker 3: Chamber of the Board endorsed Democrats for office all the time.
Speaker 3: Its employees have largely given exclusively to the left ninety
Speaker 3: plus percent of the time. Under federal election campaign disclosure requirements,
Speaker 3: you can see Google statements have been all left wing.
Speaker 3: But what we have not been able to see is
Speaker 3: what they're doing with their one point seven trillion dollar
Speaker 3: corporation behind the scenes. You can't look into their little
Speaker 3: black box of algorithms and see exactly how they're working.
Speaker 3: But we've been able to piece together lots of different
Speaker 3: things and see the consequences of their work, and time
Speaker 3: and time again, the evidence shows that if you are
Speaker 3: an opponent of their candidate choice, Google's going to bury you.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about how they pick winners and losers here,
Speaker 1: and when you say they're going to bury us, give
Speaker 1: us examples of what that actually looks like. You're running
Speaker 1: for office, Google doesn't like you, You're not their candidate of choice.
Speaker 1: How much impact can they actually have over your campaign?
Speaker 3: Well, look, in the twenty twenty two Senate races, there
Speaker 3: were about a dozen Senate races that were being hotly contested,
Speaker 3: and we did a study, and we did this repeatedly.
Speaker 3: We would search for, you know, the campaign websites. We
Speaker 3: would simply search for, you know, like Adam Laxalt, you know,
Speaker 3: Senate campaign in Nevada, and Google would not give you
Speaker 3: his campaign website. But Google would certainly, you know, turn
Speaker 3: over the website of his opponent when you did the
Speaker 3: same search for her and over and over again. Ten
Speaker 3: out of the twelve Republican Senate campaign websites would be
Speaker 3: buried by Google, either not showing up at all or
Speaker 3: showing up way low in search results. But a majority
Speaker 3: of the time, literally Google would not produce the campaign
Speaker 3: website for the Republican seeking the Senate seat in that
Speaker 3: in that race. More recently, before each of the four
Speaker 3: Republican presidential campaign debates, we did two searches. We searched
Speaker 3: for Democrat presidential campaign websites, and we then searched for
Speaker 3: Republican presidential campaign websites. And look, we expected to see
Speaker 3: Joe Biden at the top of the list when we
Speaker 3: search for Democrat presidential campaign websites, and he was every
Speaker 3: single time. Joe Biden was at the top. But guess what,
Speaker 3: our FK Junior didn't show up at all. Google buried
Speaker 3: RFK Junior's campaign website, the single greatest threat that Joe
Speaker 3: Biden winning the nomination. They buried a site.
Speaker 1: But I want to be clear, though, it's not what
Speaker 1: you're saying is It's not that Google is just out
Speaker 1: to get conservative. There's a Republican candidates that they don't like.
Speaker 1: It is if you're not the candidate they choose, even
Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary, if they decide, hey, we like
Speaker 1: this person more because they're going to be better for us.
Speaker 1: We're going to help you win even in the Democratic
Speaker 1: races over other Democrats.
Speaker 3: That's right, Tulca Gabbert RFK Junior. Most recently, but even
Speaker 3: going back to two thousand and eight, when the young
Speaker 3: Senator Barack Obama was challenging Hillary Clinton, Google was bearing
Speaker 3: pro Clinton blogs and highlighting pro Obama blogs. Wow, but here,
Speaker 3: let me get to this. But here's the most shocking
Speaker 3: example here. When we search for Republican presidential campaign websites, well,
Speaker 3: just like we saw Joe Biden at the top of
Speaker 3: the heap, we would have expected to see Donald Trump
Speaker 3: at the top of the heap. But not only was
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's campaign What'son not produced at all by Google,
Speaker 3: it only produced two campaign websites. And this is every
Speaker 3: single time we did this study. The first one was
Speaker 3: Maryann Williamson, a Democrat, again searching for Republican presidential campaign websites.
Speaker 3: One of The only two campaign websites that Google would
Speaker 3: give us Marian Williamson's campaign website and the other was
Speaker 3: Will Hurd, who was scoring zero in the nationwide polling.
Speaker 3: But Google would not give us Joe Biden, the vay Ramaswami,
Speaker 3: Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, anybody else, any Republican. Just one
Speaker 3: Democrat and one Republicans pulling at zero percent.
Speaker 1: Dan, I've got so many more questions I want to
Speaker 1: ask you, but real quick, I want to tell everybody
Speaker 1: about what's happening in the economy. You've probably witnessed it.
Speaker 1: You've seen the FEDS dealing with inflation and not knowing
Speaker 1: what to do. And inflation is not good when it
Speaker 1: comes to your retirement savings. The money you've been saving
Speaker 1: for retirement, is it going to be enough? Is it
Speaker 1: going far enough? Well? With inflation still well above the
Speaker 1: FEDS target rate and consumer prices much higher than they
Speaker 1: were three years ago, you need a financial plan that
Speaker 1: ensures that the money you save today will be enough
Speaker 1: for you tomorrow. That is where gold and silver come in.
Speaker 1: Gold and silver have historically been good hedges against inflation
Speaker 1: and a great way to protect your hard earned retirement funds.
Speaker 1: When it comes to buying gold and silver, you need
Speaker 1: a company and a partner that you can trust. That
Speaker 1: is why I use and I want you to reach
Speaker 1: out to Freedom Goold USA. Freedom Goold USA is all
Speaker 1: about educating their clients on how to invest in precious metals.
Speaker 1: They preach protection and diversifying your assets, and on average,
Speaker 1: they charge twenty five to thirty percent less than most
Speaker 1: major gold and silver firms that you may hear. So
Speaker 1: if you're ready to take control of your financial future,
Speaker 1: I want you to visit Goldusa dot com slash ben.
Speaker 1: That's Goldusa dot com slash Ben. You can also call
Speaker 1: the one eight hundred sixty five five eight eight four three.
Speaker 1: Don't get ripped off, don't be charged twenty five to
Speaker 1: thirty percent more by calling someone else. Visit FREEDOMGOLDUSA dot
Speaker 1: com slash Ben or one eight hundred sixty five five
Speaker 1: eight eight four three tell them. Ben Ferguson sent you. You're
Speaker 1: gonna love working with them. You and I both know
Speaker 1: that in politics, and my guest from me is Dan Schneider,
Speaker 1: a media research center. They do an amazing work to
Speaker 1: expose what we're talking about right now. You should check
Speaker 1: them out. Help them, support them because they're doing amazing
Speaker 1: work and without you, guys, they cannot get it done.
Speaker 1: So I want to make that very clear. But you
Speaker 1: talk about these moments in politics where a candidate would surge, right,
Speaker 1: Tolsei Gabbard's a great example in the Democratic primary when
Speaker 1: she was running for president. She had a moment. And
Speaker 1: what happens after a candidate has a moment is people
Speaker 1: immediately go to Google to find out more about the
Speaker 1: person or to even you know, get involved in their campaign.
Speaker 1: Talk a little bit about what they did to influence
Speaker 1: and suppress her. For example, when she was running as
Speaker 1: a Democrat.
Speaker 3: Right, so, she did an amazing job in a debate,
Speaker 3: and the whole world suddenly was looking at Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 3: as an alternative to Joe Biden. And right as she
Speaker 3: was searching, right as everybody was interested in her, Google
Speaker 3: buried her. They eliminated her ads right when you would
Speaker 3: need to be able to you know, when her campaign
Speaker 3: needed to tell everybody who she is and also to
Speaker 3: raise money, Google eliminated her from search results.
Speaker 1: What was the reasoning behind that that Google gave for
Speaker 1: shutting down her AD account so she could not advertise
Speaker 1: when she had that moment to people that maybe were
Speaker 1: searching for her.
Speaker 3: You know, Google seems always to have these glitches, and
Speaker 3: Google say, well, there was just a glitch. There was
Speaker 3: a glitch when Hillary Clinton's in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 3: when Hillary Clinton's you know blogs pro Clinton blogs were
Speaker 3: suddenly buried, and there was just I'm kind of a
Speaker 3: glitch with Tulsi Gabbard, And there's just there's always a glitch.
Speaker 3: And sometimes they don't have any responses at all. By
Speaker 3: the way, in this most recent study of ours, Google
Speaker 3: has said that every one of our forty one examples
Speaker 3: has been refuted. That is just a lie. Yeah. For example,
Speaker 3: the the I just told you about the presidential campaign
Speaker 3: searches that we did where Donald Trump is completely buried,
Speaker 3: over and over and over. Google has never refuted that.
Speaker 3: Nobody has ever suggested what we reported was wrong. So
Speaker 3: Google just makes up stuff.
Speaker 1: But their exact response on it all, yeah, Google pushback saying, quote,
Speaker 1: we have a clear quote business incentive to keep both
Speaker 1: sides happy, and the safeguards ensure non bias and accurate
Speaker 1: search results. That's a great line written by a PR
Speaker 1: person at Google, but it doesn't back up with the
Speaker 1: facts is what you're saying.
Speaker 3: Those are words. Those are mirror words as I can
Speaker 3: say the sky is green. It doesn't make it so
Speaker 3: Google can say anything at once. It didn't point to
Speaker 3: any evidence, you know, to support the words that it
Speaker 3: spewed out of its mouth.
Speaker 1: Establishment Republicans have also not fared well when they are
Speaker 1: the nominee. An example of this is it was obvious
Speaker 1: that Google was favoring Barack Obama over John McCain in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, more the establishment candidate. It even
Speaker 1: screwed with Mitt Romney in twenty twelve, refusing to correct
Speaker 1: a Google bomb that smeared the then leading GOP primary
Speaker 1: candidate for president, for example, Rick Santorum, with using its
Speaker 1: algorithm to exclude auto fill results that were potentially damaging
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton, explaining that as well, these autofil results
Speaker 1: and the other things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so let me just remind everybody Rick Santorum was
Speaker 3: actually leading among all Republicans in that primary, and just
Speaker 3: as he was surging, there was a thing is a
Speaker 3: popular thing back then, these Google bombs where people would
Speaker 3: kind of create false websites and redefine a person or
Speaker 3: an issue, and these Google bombs were created that said
Speaker 3: the most heinous, abhorrent things about rix Cantorum. Now, Google
Speaker 3: had a policy anytime that some organization or some person
Speaker 3: got bombed, Google would take down those sites, you know,
Speaker 3: because it was it was misinformation, it was false, it
Speaker 3: was the were lies. When it came to Rix Sntorum,
Speaker 3: Google refused to take down those Google bombs. So if
Speaker 3: you tried to google rix Antorum and find anything out
Speaker 3: about him, you were directed to these false, inflammatory, libelous
Speaker 3: campaign sites that were attacking him. Saying again, you can't
Speaker 3: even say these things, you know, without being too embarrassed,
Speaker 3: because they're just the most vile, disgusting things that people
Speaker 3: were being told about. Yeah. Falseho, it's about rix Antorum.
Speaker 3: I mean, just outright, you know, fabricated stuff.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you another question about Google, and this
Speaker 1: goes back to Mitt Romney John McCain that I mentioned.
Speaker 1: What we're seeing with Google is they're not saying they
Speaker 1: hate Donald Trump and MAGA. They're saying we hate anyone
Speaker 1: that's not our guy, and every year that guy can change.
Speaker 1: So we'll treat Donald Trump the same way we treated
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or John McCain if the
Speaker 1: person we want to win is on the other side.
Speaker 1: So if you think they're only being mean to like
Speaker 1: MAGA conservatives, you're wrong. They want these Democrat hardcore lefties
Speaker 1: to win every election no matter what.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. And as we discussed earlier, that will
Speaker 3: include picking you know, a more liberal Democrat and suppressing
Speaker 3: a slightly more you know, or less liberal Democrat. And
Speaker 3: so they've got their candidate of choice and you better
Speaker 3: not be the opponent otherwise you're gonna they're gonna be
Speaker 3: hell to pay.
Speaker 1: This isn't just on the national level of presidential campaigns,
Speaker 1: and that's where Google stops doing this. You guys also
Speaker 1: looked at some of the most competitive, the twelve most
Speaker 1: competitive Senate races in twenty twenty two. What did you
Speaker 1: find out when it came to Senate races?
Speaker 3: Right, so Google buried you know, the Senate candidates in
Speaker 3: those twelve competitive races every time except for two for
Speaker 3: whatever reason. You know, in the Washington Prime. In the
Speaker 3: Washington race the state of Washington, Patty Murray actually fared
Speaker 3: worse than the Republicans. But in every other case, you know,
Speaker 3: the Republican was buried. Now here's where it gets really
Speaker 3: really interesting. It shows how clever Google really is. People
Speaker 3: will recall that there was a runoff in Georgia where
Speaker 3: herschel Walker and his Democrat opponent neither got fifty percent,
Speaker 3: when under Georgia law, they had to go to a runoff.
Speaker 3: So we went to Georgia and again these are using
Speaker 3: clean computers, no cookies, all that, and we went to
Speaker 3: the precinct level, you know, again looking for herschel Walker's
Speaker 3: campaign website and looking for his opponent's campaign website. And
Speaker 3: at the precinct level, we discovered that those precincts that
Speaker 3: were heavily Democrat there was no bias, and those precincts
Speaker 3: that were heavily Republican no bias. But in the precincts
Speaker 3: that were going to toss up precincts where the Democrat
Speaker 3: needed votes to be able to win beat herschel Walker,
Speaker 3: that's where we saw the bias again. That's where herschel
Speaker 3: Walker's campaign website was buried, but the Democrats was elevated
Speaker 3: to the top of search results.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. Let's dive into how much of an influence
Speaker 1: this actually could have had, because it's one thing to
Speaker 1: give the accusation and to show that proof, but then
Speaker 1: to talk about how much of an impact that could
Speaker 1: this have had on our elections. You guys worked with
Speaker 1: doctor Robert Epstein who performed additional research and found that
Speaker 1: Google search algorith rhythms likely shifted millions of votes just
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen alone, for example. And
Speaker 1: then you found even after that, even more votes. We're
Speaker 1: talking about millions that would have favored Democrats in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Dive into that for.
Speaker 3: Us, right. So, doctor Epstein is a PhD statistician. He
Speaker 3: did all of his work at Harvard. He is a
Speaker 3: liberal himself. He is a self proclaimed Democrat. He admits
Speaker 3: he voted for Hillary Clinton. He is not a partisan.
Speaker 3: He is not doing this work to try to help Republicans.
Speaker 3: He's just very concerned about democracy. So his research and
Speaker 3: is very sophisticated. It's seen how Google interacts with users,
Speaker 3: what kind of results are produced, and how that alters
Speaker 3: people's behavior. So he is estimated in the twenty twenty
Speaker 3: election alone, and they were from six to eight million
Speaker 3: votes were suayed against Donald Trump in favor of Joe Biden. Nationwide,
Speaker 3: six to eight million had it not been for Google,
Speaker 3: it would have been a landslide victory for Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: And let me just reiterate, Doctor Epstein is a liberal,
Speaker 3: and he's testified before Congress. He has no interest in
Speaker 3: seeing Republicans win races. He only cares about the rights
Speaker 3: of the voter and to have that voter's votes be
Speaker 3: counted fairly.
Speaker 1: Talk about the amount of influence so people understand. I mean,
Speaker 1: I look, I use Google every day. You guys are
Speaker 1: now saying it's time to use another search engine because
Speaker 1: of what they're doing. I totally support that idea, but
Speaker 1: the reality is overwhelming. The majority of Americans go to
Speaker 1: Google for pretty much anything they need to search. How
Speaker 1: much penetration and market share does Google have over the
Speaker 1: American voter?
Speaker 3: You know, there are different numbers. It's anywhere from ninety
Speaker 3: three to ninety eight. Ninety seven percent of all search
Speaker 3: is done, you know, using the Google search engine. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and it's got so many other products too, like Google News.
Speaker 3: And this is another shocking thing. There's one legitimate outfit
Speaker 3: out there that sort of rates media outlets of whether
Speaker 3: they're left of center or right of center. It's called
Speaker 3: All Sides. It's a reliable organization. We don't always agree
Speaker 3: with them, but they're pretty good. All using all sides data,
Speaker 3: you can see that Google News. If you're searching anything
Speaker 3: about Trump, Biden or elections, Google News would link to
Speaker 3: zero zero right of center media outlets, almost exclusively to
Speaker 3: left wing outlets. Occasionally some some what are called neutral outlets.
Speaker 3: But yeah, like if you're searching on Google News for
Speaker 3: stories about the election, ninety seven percent of the articles
Speaker 3: that were linked to or to left wing outlets Donald
Speaker 3: Trump and Joe Biden. If you're looking for stories of
Speaker 3: on Google News about either of them, again, zero percent,
Speaker 3: you know, linked to conservative outlets. The great bulk were
Speaker 3: linked to to left of center or left wing outlets.
Speaker 3: This is what Google. This is how Google News and
Speaker 3: Google more broadly influences the mind. People think they're learning,
Speaker 3: people think they're getting information news, they're only getting Google propaganda.
Speaker 1: Lastly, what are you guys asking Congress to do? I
Speaker 1: know there's been conversations with Speaker Johnson about this, because
Speaker 1: this seems like this would fall under an inkind contribution
Speaker 1: to democratic candidates. What Google is doing? Is there a
Speaker 1: chance that we could see some sort of significant reform here?
Speaker 1: To make this not happen every single election cycle.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Ben, I want to make sure people understand this
Speaker 3: is shocking. The media has an exception here, So let's
Speaker 3: take the media out of it. So you're not a
Speaker 3: part of what I'm about to say. But today in America,
Speaker 3: you're an individual. You do not have free speech rights.
Speaker 3: If I want to say something political and I want
Speaker 3: to promote what I am saying, So like, let's say
Speaker 3: I write a speech and I want to send my
Speaker 3: speech about candidate or about a policy matter, and I
Speaker 3: want to send it to a thousand friends, and I
Speaker 3: print out my speech to send to a thousand friends.
Speaker 3: By law, I am required to file with a federal
Speaker 3: election commission. I have to log my speech, and if
Speaker 3: I don't, it can be considered a crime. I can
Speaker 3: be fined by the federal government for speaking, for trying
Speaker 3: to amplify my voice. But if you're Google today, the
Speaker 3: Federal Election Commission says it can do whatever it wants.
Speaker 3: It can bury, it can use its resources, it's fast resources,
Speaker 3: it can bury campaign websites. It can treat the Democrats
Speaker 3: far better than the Republicans, and it's not considered a
Speaker 3: camp contribution. It's not considered an in time contribution, and
Speaker 3: there's no filing required. Today, big tech has far more
Speaker 3: free speech rights than I do.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable. If people want to get this report and want
Speaker 1: to find out more, where can they go?
Speaker 3: Dan? Right, So, the Media Research Center's big publications called
Speaker 3: NewsBusters NewsBusters dot org. You can go there to find
Speaker 3: this report. Yeah, the study. It's about a twenty page
Speaker 3: study documenting you know, these forty one times over sixteen
Speaker 3: years that Google has interfered in our elections.
Speaker 1: It's incredible, Dan, great work. Congratulations to you guys and
Speaker 1: what you're doing at the Media Research Center at NewsBusters
Speaker 1: dot org. Go there, check it out. Makes you share
Speaker 1: this podcast with your family and friends wherever you are
Speaker 1: on social media, please and we'll see you back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow