Podcast
Racket News
Hosted by Matt Taibbi · EN
“We care if it’s true. We don’t care why.”
22episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
J.D. Vance's Speech in Munich
Feb 16, 2025Tap to summarizeOne of the things that I wanted to talk about today is, of course, our shared values. And, you know, it’s great to be back in Germany. As you heard earlier, I was here last year as United States senator. I saw Foreign Secretary David Lammy, and joked that both of us last year had different jobs than we have now. But now it’s time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective peoples, to use it wisely to improve their lives.And I want to say that I was fortunate in my time here to spend some time outside the walls of this conference over the last 24 hours, and I’ve been so impressed by the hospitality of the people even, of course, as they’re reeling from yesterday’s horrendous attack. And, the first time I was ever in Munich was with my wife, actually, who’s here with me today, on a personal trip. And I’ve always loved the city of Munich, and I’ve always loved its people.I just want to say that we’re very moved, and our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and everybody affected by the evil inflicted on this beautiful community. We’re thinking about you, we’re praying for you, and we will certainly be rooting for you in the days and weeks to come.Thank you. I hope that’s not the last bit of applause that I get. We gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security. And normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many, many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine — and we also believe that it’s important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense — the threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values: values shared with the United States of America.I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too.Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves, because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.We must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them. Now, within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that cancelled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not.And thank God they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, invent, to build. As it turns out, you can’t mandate innovation or creativity, just as you can’t force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe. And we believe those things are certainly connected. And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it’s sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the cold war’s winners.I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be “hateful content.” Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of “combating misogyny” on the internet.I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago, the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend’s murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden’s laws to supposedly protect free expression do not, in fact, grant — and I’m quoting — a “free pass” to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief.And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Conner, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 metres from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply, it was on behalf of his unborn son.He and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new Buffer Zones Law, which criminalises silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 metres of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no. This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime in Britain and across Europe.Free speech, I fear, is in retreat and in the interests of comedy, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe, but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation. Misinformation, like, for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leaked from a laboratory in China. Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth.So I come here today not just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town. And under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square. Now, we’re at the point, of course, that the situation has gotten so bad that this December, Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbours. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections. But I’d ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it’s wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage, even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.Now, the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear.And I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still. Which, of course, brings us back to Munich, where the organizers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing populist parties on both th...
Transcribe →America's Smear Machine Put on Trial
Feb 3, 2025Tap to summarizeThe confirmation hearings of Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr showed we’re still trapped in an endless fight between Defenders of the Great Russia Conspiracy, and everyone in their way. Gabbard, Patel, and Kennedy faced questioning that was similar in tone to hearings of the House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC), which many forget was a feature of American life for 31 years, from 1938 to 1969. It feels like we’re just starting down a similar long road. All three nominees shared a connection (see below), having been smeared by the same actors, some of whom just resurfaced as accusers. The story goes back at least eight years. In late January, 2018, reporters like NBC’s Ken Dilanian began publishing claims that Russia was advancing Patel’s work. The accusations were made by Democrats like Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and California’s Adam Schiff and Dianne Feinstein, but also Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The central claim was that Russian bots were driving enthusiasm for the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag, which called for publication of a classified report into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe by House Intelligence chair Devin Nunes. The so-called “Nunes memo” was based on Patel’s investigation. Donald Trump’s own Justice Department shrieked that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release the memo, while Schiff said the memo’s release would “politicize the intelligence process.” Nearly a year later, December 16, 2018, news broke that a Senate-commissioned study on Russian meddling in the 2016 election had been completed. Titled “The Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,” the report was commissioned by Virginia Senator Mark Warner’s Intelligence Committee. It described “comprehensive anti-Hillary Clinton operations” by Russian Internet accounts expressing “pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments,” whose tactics “overlapped with the pro-Trump portion of the operation.” Breathless coverage ensued, from NPR to the Washington Post to the New York Times, with Stein and Donald Trump roundly denounced for accepting support of “Russian troll farms.”Two weeks after that, on February 2nd, 2019, NBC launched a third campaign, timed to coincide with the launch of then-Democrat Gabbard’s presidential campaign. The report said that “Russia’s propaganda machine” had discovered Gabbard, and was now “promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.” The campaign would continue throughout her run. Hillary Clinton in October of that year claimed Gabbard was a Russian “asset.” In November, Dilanian essentially re-wrote NBC’s February story, claiming Gabbard was “popular with Russian propagandists.” Whether or not Patel, Gabbard, and Kennedy are confirmed as FBI Director, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Health and Human Services will depend significantly on how committed both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate continue to be to defending those three stories. It’s the chief subtext to the hearings. Key figures on all sides of the confirmation drama, from the nominees to Senate questioners like Republicans Susan Collins and James Lankford and Democrats Schiff to Blumenthal have links to those three P.R. campaigns. All three came from the same now-discredited source:<p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{"url":"https://www.racket.news/subscribe?","text":"Subscribe now","action":null,"...
Transcribe →