Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q And this was happening at Facebook too, right? Like you had information on the Facebook side. Yeah.
A Yeah. You had Meta. You had YouTube. We, you know, all the, this was all happening. And, and the way it was working was, as you guys know, um, these big tech platforms have something called two section two 30 protection, right? Which is basically in the nineties when the internet's becoming a thing, Congress says, you're not, you're not a publisher. You're a platform. So you can't be sued. That is a huge advantage. And by the way, If they're actually acting as a platform, as a proponent of free speech, almost as a free speech absolutist, that's a great thing. The problem was a lot of these entities were then becoming publishers. They were throttling things they didn't like. They were taking down opinions they didn't support, that sort of thing. And so what you had was Joe Biden saying, maybe there's criminal liability. You saw these text messages in the lawsuit from, from Rob Flaherty, who is the deputy communications director of the White House, cussing these guys out, saying, You, you need to know that from the highest levels of the White House, we see this, you're not doing enough. And so as much as I think some of the, the people at these big tech companies were willing participants, there was a coercion that was happening. And that's the basis of the lawsuit, which was, we all know the government can't censor speech, but you also can't outsource that censorship to private …
AI assessment note: “Yeah. You had Meta. You had YouTube. We, you know, all the, this was all happening.”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.85
Q we're here, there's this lawsuit that is now happening, um, or this investigation, I guess, as a, As an attorney, and you were the AG, explain to the American people what the case is right now that they're going after, you know, um, with, uh, this Russiagate allegations, and then where is it in the courts? Give us the mechanics of it, and where do you think it winds up?
A So the question is, um, was there, was anything done, um, illegal, uh, during this sort of Russiagate hoax stuff that could be chargeable? I think you've got Ironically, um, uh, Barack Obama has presidential immunity because of the case that President Trump won at the Supreme Court, which by the way, my Solicitor General at the time in Missouri was John Sauer. He's now the Solicitor General of the United States. He was also Trump's lawyer who argued that presidential immunity case about a year ago. But so, um, he probably has immunity from official acts when he was in office, but not when he's out of office. So the, the real question will be, Um, he's sort of, uh, a conspiracy. I think the most likely charge You can make the case as a conspiracy against a conspiracy to defraud the United States. This is a very elaborate scheme again to undermine people and, and whether they get indictments or not, I think they should pursue them and, and we'll see if that happens. Um, but I think that like the most likely targets of that are Comey, Clapper and Brennan, um, for their role.
AI assessment note: “most likely targets of that are Comey, Clapper and Brennan”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 3 · P 3 · Cm 3 3.30
Q Possible we walk away this year from the situation, you think?
A I don't know. I wouldn't want to put a timetable on. I would not want to get in front of the president who's actually sitting in front of the, across the table from these world leaders. But look, I think that he's been pretty clear. This is not our war. It's not our war. Um, this is in, but I think that up to this point, we've wanted to try to provide, um, a time and space for a solution. And I do think if there's anybody who can do it, it's Trump. Uh, there's nobody else on the planet. I mean, Macron could not Broker this. I mean, you know what I mean? Like, so it's the last best hope. Uh, my hope is that you do get to a peace process because you're just gonna have billions of more people die. Um, and really at this point.
AI assessment note: “I don't know. I wouldn't want to put a timetable on.”
Redirected raw tape
D 3 · C 3 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.25
Q Why are they so tweaked that he met with Putin, do you think?
A I don't know, uh, because there is no plan. There's never been a plan. The only plan they ever had was, is that the United States taxpayer would continue to funnel over two hundred billion dollars gone out of plan. And I had a problem with that in my first couple of years. The Vice President Vance viewed the world kind of similarly with that in the same way. I think we ought to focus on our core national interest, the homeland. We have to figure out a way to pivot to China. We have to get our NATO allies to step up in a much more meaningful way. I think one of the great ironies of all this is that, you know, That these European countries who are going to be in the White House in the Oval Office today, they talk about Putin being this existential threat. Well, they sure don't act like it. They don't, you know, they don't.
AI assessment note: “because there is no plan. There's never been a plan.”
Answered raw tape
D 3 · C 3 · P 4 · Cm 2 3.10
Q Do we ever figure out who they are?
A There needs to be accountability here because I also think it's important to point out that, so take CISA, which is the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency. No one's ever heard of it. Uh, it was created effectively to protect infrastructure from cyber attacks. In that era when Trump was present underground, They work on, under the guise of Russian disinformation, what's called the Election Integrity Project. So they work with Stanford, they work with University of Washington to flag posts to work with social media companies. Then when you get into COVID, they just flip the switch and turn it on any, you know, if you're questioning the efficacy of the vaccine or you're questioning the efficacy of masks, they turn that around in the American people too. So part of the point that's outlined in the book, Last Line of Defense, which you can order right now on Amazon, um, the part of the point was exposing all this was, This was a leviathan. This wasn't just like one person making a phone call. This was all these agencies that were lined up with the regime's narrative and then working and coercing and threatening social media companies. You will take this down or there will be consequences. And so, um, you know, the CDC, I mentioned the CDC, what were they doing? The government went to them and said, tell us the phrases that you want us To flag and take down and, and then we…
AI assessment note: “The FBI was involved in this. CISA was involved with this. The CDC was involved”
Answered raw tape
D 3 · C 3 · P 3 · Cm 3 3.00
Q de facto be an editorial decision? So if you have an algorithm and you say, hey, I'm going to show you more MAGA stuff. I'm going to show you more AOC. That's an editorial decision in my mind. Should that break Section two 30? If somebody decides to build an algorithm that shapes the content you see when you open the app, just like the New York Times editors do.
A Right. That's sort of like in, in the last line of defense book is sort of like, what are the solutions? Are we talk about what's the proper role of Section two 30? Because I actually think if you are a true platform as somebody, again, that believes in free speech, it's a very important thing. One of the concerns Like, I'm not a doomsday guy on, on AI. I think there's, um, I think it can add to human flourishing. I think it can actually make us more productive, and there's a lot of, there's a lot of opportunities that roll with it. One of the things I'm most concerned, though, is about censorship creeping in to AI, right? And so I think you have to be very clear that if you're going to start making these, whether it's a, you know, somebody individually is flagging it, or you have an algorithm that is essentially excluding 50% of the points of view, You should not get the multi-billion dollar subsidy that effectively what section two 30 protection is, right? It's a huge advantage and it should. And by the way, I'm all for that. But I think this manipulation that by the way is sort of.
AI assessment note: “algorithm that is essentially excluding 50% of the points of view, You should not get”
Redirected raw tape
D 2 · C 3 · P 3 · Cm 2 2.55
Q What are they being charged with? I guess is what I'm getting at. Or has that not gotten to that point?
A You can't be the head of the FBI or the head of the CIA and have information, you know, is false to then open up a criminal investigation against the president, which is what happened. Right. And so that's a kind of a big thing. So, um, again, most people would say probably the statute of limitations has, has run on, on many of those charges. But again, An ongoing conspiracy is something different. And by the way, the conspiracy doesn't need to involve you from point A to point Z once you sort of begin the conspiracy. So like, uh, you know, again, it's just go down this rabbit hole a little bit. Like what was Jack Smith looking for at Mar-a-Lago? Um, when he went down there, like he's probably looking for some of the, uh, the information related to the Steele dossier that they thought that he probably took with him. I don't know that for certain, But that's certainly a plausible explanation. So this, and again, you have to remember, Jason, that President Trump leaves office. He announces he's running for president in the fall of 2022. Three days later, a few things happen then. The assistant district attorney in Atlanta in a state case visits the White House counsel's office. The number three person at DOJ leaves the Department of Justice and goes work for Alvin Bragg, who then later brings a case against President Trump. Jack Smith is appointed as special counsel who's in pros…
AI assessment note: “statute of limitations has, has run on, on many of those charges”
Redirected raw tape
D 3 · C 2 · P 2 · Cm 2 2.30
Q Well, I mean, we'll find out if this is a, um, a theatrical exercise or if it's actually going to go to court. What do you think?
A I think it'll go to court. I think this is, um, and, and by the way, I think it's one of the reasons why they were so obsessed in making sure president Trump never got back into office. One of the reasons, I mean, again, in the book, I talk about how there's this, uh, uh, an emergency real or perceived, then you other people And then you try to silence dissent. I think it happened with COVID. Um, it happened with this, anybody that, that claimed that Russia didn't have, um, you know, that, that President Trump wasn't a Russian asset was a traitor and a Putin lover. I mean, this stuff, it, it's kind of wild, honestly, but I, I think we're on the other side of the fever dream, uh, and, but there does need to be some accountability now.
AI assessment note: “I think it'll go to court. I think this is, um, and, and by the way”
