All-In Podcast: Senator Eric Schmitt – Exposing the Biggest Censorship Scandal in US History

Date: August 20, 2025
Guests/Hosts:

• Senator Eric Schmitt (Missouri)
• Jason Calacanis
• David Sacks
• Chamath Palihapitiya
• David Friedberg (minimal participation in this excerpt)

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth interview with Senator Eric Schmitt, former Attorney General of Missouri and author of The Last Line of Defense. The discussion centers on government-driven censorship, the origins and revelations from the Biden v. Missouri lawsuit, the interplay between the government and major tech platforms in suppressing free speech, the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and a broader debate about the weaponization of institutions for political purposes. The conversation also touches on Russiagate, the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy realism.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction and Schmitt’s Background (00:40–02:56)

• Jason and Sacks introduce Senator Eric Schmitt, referencing his new book and his notoriety for leading the Biden v. Missouri censorship case.
• Schmitt explains his close working relationship with Vice President J.D. Vance and the Senate freshman group.

2. The Genesis of the Censorship Lawsuit (02:56–05:45)

• Schmitt recalls the environment of 2020–2022: Covid lockdowns, compulsory mandates, and what he calls a "vast censorship enterprise."
  • “In my view, [this] was the greatest affront to the First Amendment we've ever seen in the history of our country.” (03:19)
• Schmitt details filing the lawsuit against the Biden administration, focusing on gathering evidence (discovery) versus seeking an injunction.
  • Notable Moment: By winning discovery, Schmitt’s team uncovered tens of thousands of documents revealing direct communication between government and platforms, including special government portals for content takedown.

3. Government-Big Tech Collusion & Section 230 (05:45–08:12)

• Discovery revealed the extent of government coercion and collusion with Big Tech (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter).
• Schmitt argues:
  • While platforms benefited from Section 230 protections as neutral hosts, many crossed into acting as publishers by throttling disfavored content.
  • White House officials exerted “jawboning,” coercing platforms with threats (e.g., loss of Section 230, regulatory action).
  • “You also can't outsource that censorship to private companies, which is exactly what was going down.” (07:02)
• Schmitt notes a cultural shift, with liberals abandoning free speech advocacy.

4. Proper Protocols vs. Government Overreach (08:12–12:48)

• The panel addresses foreign interference concerns—what should proper government-tech coordination look like versus improper coercion?
• Schmitt distinguishes notifying platforms about foreign threats from leveraging regulatory threats to force content moderation.
• Jason connects government pressure with anti-trust threats from figures like FTC Chair Lina Khan, showing multi-pronged "pressure points" on platforms.

5. The Role and Misuse of Algorithms (16:13–18:27)

• The hosts explore whether algorithmic curation is an editorial function breaking Section 230 neutrality.
• Schmitt’s position: Platforms using algorithms to systematically exclude one side should not enjoy Section 230 protections.
  • “If you're going to start making these...editorial decisions...you should not get the multibillion dollar subsidy that effectively what section 230 protection is.” (17:35)

6. Hunter Biden Laptop, the Twitter Files, and Russia as Pretext (19:08–26:47)

• Sacks and Schmitt describe how the FBI, knowing the laptop's authenticity, urged platforms to expect a “Russian disinformation” campaign, pre-positioning them to suppress the story.
  • Elvis Chan (FBI) and NGOs were conduits for government "requests."
  • Sacks: “All the conspiracy theories are true...they literally have checkboxes to throttle accounts.” (14:37)
  • Internal Facebook and Twitter communications revealed explicit government pressure to suppress specific narratives.
• The group debates if platforms can be blamed for credulously following the FBI’s recommendations, agreeing the core issue was government overreach.

7. Government Agencies & The Leviathan (26:54–30:13)

• Schmitt reports on widespread agency collusion: CISA, CDC, FBI, and various NGOs worked in tandem to mark terms for deletion and subvert standard info requests (FOIA lady scenario at CDC).
• “This was a leviathan. This wasn’t just one person making a phone call.” (27:16)

8. NGOs and the “Russian Disinformation” Industrial Complex (30:13–34:01)

• The panel scrutinizes Hamilton 68—a now-debunked dashboard for identifying “Russian bots”—showing how NGOs laundered government accusations to justify censorship.
  • Sacks: “When I hear the words Russian disinformation, what I hear now is Red Scare.” (33:32)
• Schmitt points to Clinton campaign strategies around the Steele dossier and the impact on trusting institutions.

9. Russiagate: Origins, Impact, and Legal Reckoning (36:17–46:48)

• Schmitt explains possible ongoing investigations into the origins of Russiagate:
  • “The most likely charge you can make the case is a conspiracy to defraud the United States.” (37:33)
• Panel discusses presidential immunity, the framing of Trump by intelligence agencies, and potential targets (Comey, Clapper, Brennan).
• Sacks: The Russiagate narrative destabilized US-Russia relations and poisoned political discourse.
  • “That is basically the definition of a coup.” (45:03)

10. Russia, Ukraine, and US Realism (47:13–58:13)

• Schmitt describes himself as an “American realist” on foreign policy:
  • Critical of endless, plan-free aid for Ukraine.
  • Advocates for pressuring Europe to step up defense spending and for the US to prioritize China as a strategic focus.
  • “If you think about the Cold War...all that's happening now.” (48:38)
• Differing interpretations of the war’s morality and effectiveness:
  • Sacks: Argues that "Putin as Hitler" is an exaggeration given Russian struggles in Ukraine.
  • Schmitt: “There has to be a negotiated peace here. This can't go on forever.” (52:45)
  • Debates on whether the US should “walk away” if diplomacy fails.

11. Memorable Closing Banter (58:53–60:01)

• Lively outro with characteristic ribbing among the hosts, reminders to purchase Schmitt’s book, and a tongue-in-cheek summary of the polarization in American discourse.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Schmitt: "This vast censorship enterprise that existed, that in my view, was the greatest affront to the First Amendment we've ever seen in the history of our country." (03:19)
• Sacks: “All the conspiracy theories are true. We’ve now gone into the admin tools… literally have checkboxes to throttle accounts… everything conservatives had claimed was true.” (14:37)
• Schmitt: "You can't be the head of the FBI or the CIA and have information you know is false to then open up a criminal investigation against the president, which is what happened." (38:04)
• Sacks (on Russiagate): “That is basically the definition of a coup.” (45:03)
• Schmitt: "There has to be a negotiated peace here. This can't go on forever.” (52:45)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction, book plug, setup – 00:40–02:56
• How the censorship lawsuit began – 02:56–05:45
• From government complaint to massive discovery – 05:45–08:12
• Big Tech, Section 230, and publisher/platform debate – 08:12–12:48
• Algorithmic editorial power & Section 230 implications – 16:13–18:27
• Hunter Biden, FBI manipulation, Twitter Files – 19:08–26:47
• NGOs & laundering government narratives (Hamilton 68) – 30:13–34:01
• Russiagate, legal fallout, coup framing – 36:17–46:48
• US foreign policy realism, Ukraine war status – 47:13–58:13
• Livre banter, book promo, close – 58:53–60:01

Tone & Language

The episode maintains the All-In signature: a spirited, occasionally combative debate between tech-savvy entrepreneurs with a mix of exasperation, sarcasm, blunt pragmatism, and a focus on “ground truth.” Schmitt’s legal and political perspective is earnest and direct, pressing for constitutional grounding and a warning about the lasting consequences of state-driven censorship. Sacks and Jason play contrasting roles, with Sacks skeptical of "Russia panic" narratives and Jason often pushing for moderation or playing devil’s advocate.

Summary for New Listeners

This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking a first-person account of the legal fight to expose government-driven censorship, the true mechanics of government–Big Tech collusion, and the downstream effects on American political discourse and foreign policy. The hosts ask tough questions, steelman counterarguments, and highlight core First Amendment concerns, using real case evidence and candid opinions about the state of democracy and global affairs. The discussion combines newsmaking revelations, nerdy policy details, and lively debate—landing All-In’s signature mix of insight, controversy, and entertainment.