YouTube Demonetizes Taibbi Video Showing Democrats Claiming Prior Elections Were Stolen

In the latest attack on free speech, YouTube had demonetized a video disseminated by former Rolling Stone and current Substack journalist Matt Taibbi. YouTube has previously shown open political bias in its censorship and demonetization policies. However, this is remarkably blatant in demonetizing a video that showed how Democrats previously claimed elections of Republicans were stolen — contradicting the narrative maintained in the media and on social media.

Taibbi sent out an email to his subscribers that revealed YouTube’s decision to demonetize:

Today we’re releasing a video Matt Orfalea has been working on, showing years of audio and video clips, tweets, and headlines in which Democratic Party politicians and media figures describe Donald Trump’s presidency as illegitimate. Before it was even published on this site, Matt received the above notice.

I’d like to thank YouTube for making our point. The material in this video does not promote the idea that any election was stolen or illegitimate. On the contrary, it shows a great mass of comments from Democratic partisans and pundits who themselves make that claim, about the 2016 election. Those comments were not censored or suppressed when made the first time around, by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Karine Jean-Pierre, Adam Schiff, Rob Reiner, Tom Arnold, and Chris Hayes, among many others.

Nor did any platform step in to issue warnings when my former boss, Keith Olbermann, promised with regard to Trump’s ascension to the White House, “It will not be a peaceful transfer of power.”

However, the decision to assemble these materials in one place, inviting audiences to consider their meaning, apparently crosses a line. Now we know: you can deny election results on a platform like YouTube as much as you want, you can even promise disruption, but drawing attention to such behavior angers the algorithm. It’s hard to imagine a better demonstration of the double-standard in content moderation.

Demonetizing a video of what Democrats have previously declared is reminiscent of Twitter blocking of the site LiberalsofTicTok to stop the site from replaying the postings of liberals.

YouTube and other companies are now openly advancing a political agenda in blocking or demonetizing such postings. This is only likely to get worse as we approach the midterm and 2024 elections. The effort is to actively block resources or access to conservative, libertarian, or contrarians viewpoints.

The company is owned by Google, which has also faced such criticism of political bias. These are publicly traded companies like Twitter that have written off many potential users to advance a political agenda of company staff.  They are selling a censored product to consumers who want free speech forums. While these companies continue to dominate the market, they are fueling calls for Substack and other alternative sites committed to free speech.  Taibbi writes on Substack.

Here is the video:



113 thoughts on “YouTube Demonetizes Taibbi Video Showing Democrats Claiming Prior Elections Were Stolen”

  1. Wow Karen S. in “to quoque” manner at her best several times! But on a 2nd thought:: Was Clinton vs Trump a story that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior?

    Hillary Clinton’s ambitions to serve as 1st female President was overshadow with wide-spread accusations BEFORE election such as

    * Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments, especially Saudi Arabia during her Secretary of State tenure (Bernie Sanders)
    * The existence of her personal server & several personal domains during more than two years after she left State Department.
    * The differences between her public statements and what was discussed in email correspondence about Benghazi attack on 9/12/12.
    * Close relationship to “Muslim Brotherhood”
    * House’s OIG warned that Pakistani born Imran Awan and his family were making “unauthorized access” to data of lawmakers like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (D-FL #23). Awan was represented by Chris Gowen is a long-time campaigner for the Clintons & a defense attorney for Steven Donzinger vs Chevron.
    * 2016 DNC email leak
    * Killing of DNC staffer Seth Rich on 7/10/16 in DC
    * Clinton campaign labeled the spending for opposition research (“Steele dossier”) on Trump’s ties to Russians as a legal services conduct [1]

    One of his best speeches then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ever gave in his never-ending political life was at RNC in Cleveland, OH on 7/19/16 [2]. Five lines that nailed it down:

    1. Hillary Clinton will say anything, do anything, and be anything to get elected president.
    2. Barack Obama […] was up front about his plans to move America to the left. Not Hillary.
    3. She even lied about why her parents named her Hillary.
    4. Hillary has changed her positions so many times it’s impossible to tell where conviction ends and ambition begins.
    5. If Hillary is president, we will continue to slide, distracted by the scandals that follow the Clintons like flies.

    Hillary lost 2016 Presidential election and claimed she was stolen from her as Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004) did.

    To describe the GOP support for then President Trump’s political agenda is selling ice cream to eskimos [3]: GOP’s decision not to support Trump BEFORE 2020 President election was in part in the hope that President Biden will start where “W” finished. They overlooked, that since 2009, there are others in the driver’s seat they chose him as a puppet to hide what the man behind “Open Society” is looking for.

    BTW: Ann Coulter latest Column is also devoted to immigration::”Venezuela’s Welfare Has Run Out. Now They Want Ours” [4]

    [1] A Federal Election Commission investigation was settled by a $ 113K payment
    [3] McConnell didn’t mention Trump Doctrine, Immigration, border control, and completing the Wall on southern border with a single word.

  2. I dunno. I think there are plenty of idiots who like ping ponging between the two corralling fake opposing ideologies. Because when it comes down to the nut cuttin’, there isn’t a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two when it comes to covering up for the real power.

    1. Neither party is good, but they are different. There is a lessor evil.

      What we see now is the evidenc of greater evil.

    2. If only Democrats and/or Republicans can win elections, it doesn’t matter how you count the votes. Pick a card, any card.

      ‘.. . no paper can hold the iron. It must come from men’s heart’ *Chief Ten Bears

  3. “Where’s Jackie?”

    Joe Biden has left the building. The world is watching. His administration has ushered in a period of pain and hardship for all Americans and for citizens around the world. The offenses are too long to list. If I were the leader of an enemy nation, I would be thrilled. The wackos are in power.

    Go to the pump. Depressing. Grocery market? Gird your loins! Call the police for an ongoing crime? Get in line. They’ll be there in an hour, if you are lucky. Southern border? Owned by the Cartel. A disaster. Fentanyl flowing freely. Business owner? Doesn’t matter if a mob comes through and wipes you clean. No consequences for the thugs. They can attack your grandmother and beat her within an inch of her life. No consequences. Violent crime? Skyrocketing. Carjackings? Give them
    Your hard earned property. No consequences. Retirement account? Now it’s worth a third. Working middle class? “Pay your fair share!” Illegal alien? No problem. “You get free healthcare.” Poor school aged children. Look what our youth face. The FBI and DOJ are corrupt at the leadership level.

    New York? Out of control. Ex cons are walking the street thanks to George Soros and his cronies. Chicago, L.A., Philadelphia, etc…..Don’t forget the rising homelessness. They are everywhere in my city.

    These are the issues at hand! This should be on the minds of voters.

    1. E.M.
      Those issues are on my mind.
      Someone said, the Republicans may not have all the answers, but the Democrats are the cause of all our problems.

  4. Do You think the Question:
    𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧?
    Should be on the Ballot of the 2024 National Election?

    ☑️ 𝐈 𝐃𝐨

    ✅ 𝐈 𝐃𝐨 𝐍𝐨𝐭

    1. Sure, why not. It’ll make it easy for poll workers to tell which ballots to count…

  5. It is vitally important that key members of the esteemed Deep State community–including, for example, YouTube (and parent Google), Twitter, and Facebook–silence any and all actors that don’t conform with the interests of the Deep State. This is a matter of National Security. A Deep State that is not also a Police State will not endure much longer as a functioning Deep State, putting our entire National Security system at risk.

    The preservation of the Deep State is absolutely essential to ensuring that the general public “thinks only good thoughts” approved by the Deep State. While the public, if courageous enough, could take action to eliminate the Deep State, to preserve the Deep State, it’s necessary for the Deep State to exercise its power over the public, focusing on and targeting “bad people–very bad people,” as Anthony “Deep State” Fremont demonstrates here:

  6. How is this an attack on free speech. All demonitized means is that you don’t get automatic add revenue if people watch your video. The video is still there. Anyone that wants to click on it can see it. Even assuming that 1) YouTube has some first amendment obligation to allow content and 2) it demonitized the video because of a political agenda, this is only a first amendment issue if there is a first amendment right to get paid for your speech. Last I checked, the first amendment guaranteed to right to speak. Turley seems to be implying that this includes a right to be paid to speak. If so, I want $10 from Turley for this post.

    1. Would you conclude the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? That is, if YouTube and Google were run by people with views opposed to the leftist Deep State and they were demonitizing content from leftists?

      Of course, you wouldn’t. You would be appalled if the shoe was on the other foot and you would be saying the exact opposite of what you’re saying here. In short, your pretense at “logic” is a sham and you’re just proudly taking on the role of “useful idiot,” as far as the Deep State left is concerned.

      1. You are making huge assumptions about me. I actually am a big believer that the government should establish content moderation rules for social media. I find the notion that publicly traded corporations have a right to free speech that allows them to escape oversite absurd. And my only problem with what Florida and Texas did as a concept is that doing it on a state by state basis is unworkable. Me and you might disagree with exactly where those lines get drawn, but I definitely agree that social media should not be allowed to discriminate based on political position and their should be sanctions against them if they do.

        My only point is that the example in this article is not the poster child of free speech rights. No one has stopped him from speaking. He is a entitled millennial social influencer that is whining about not getting paid for his brilliant insight that he posted for the world on youtube. He is playing on one side of the political disputes predisposition to distrust youtube in order to jack up the traffic on his post. And Turley, who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar, is feeding right into it.

    2. Scott Hovey- Whether YouTube’s action is a 1st Amendment violation is an issue I will leave to the scholars. This story involves the belief in the importance of free speech. Your comment does not provide any evidence that you understand this concept.

      1. But even if you take the first amendment out of it, how is demonitizing someone an attack on their free speech. Youtube did not remove his content. They hosted it on their website for free. They allow anyone who wants to stream it do so for free. In fact, because the content is demonitized, it’s easier for someone to watch because the viewer does not have to watch an add first. How is allowing someone free use of your service to say what they want an attack on someone’s free speech?

    3. Do you really believe it’s ok to pay someone less based on the color of their politcal affiliation? That’s a brave thing to say in public, but I must disagree.

      1. That’s an interesting perspective. Historically free speech has been viewed as not stopping someone from speaking. People were free to say what they wanted, but they had to live with the consequence of what they say. But if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that not only should companies be required to actually pay a person to produce specific content they don’t agree with, individuals should not be choosing who they contract with based on things the person has said. Traditionally the idea that I don’t have to hire a man because I don’t like the fact that he publically advocates for something is part of my package of individual freedoms. What about this scenario. A homeowner who believes strongly in the right to life is looking for a person to cut down a tree. A person who put in the lowest offer is actively involved in advocating for abortion rights. I believe it’s completely fine for the homeowner to pass up the lowest bid. Are you saying they should nonetheless hire the guy because it would violate the pro abortion guys free speech rights?

        1. Equal pay for equal work is a tenet of American civil liberties. Paying someone less based on political views is not ok.

    4. “How is this an attack on free speech.”

      Demonitizing that video is more dishonest than just removing it. The obvious motivation is this: You can’t get paid for posting such opinions. So we trust that you won’t have a desire to express those opinions, in the future.

      Of what good is free speech, if one cannot benefit from it?

      Yes, 1A restricts the government, not private companies. But those companies have already proven their willingness to impose controls demanded by those in government. That is censorship by proxy, i.e., fascist control of speech.

      1. I agree, people/corporations pay for people to produce things they want, and they don’t pay for people to produce things they don’t. And if you are paying someone to say something, and not paying someone to say the opposire thing, you probably prefer if the person you are not paying would just shut up. I can understand why people have a problem with youtube demonitizing based on political views and understand why they want laws to address it.

        My only point is that Turley is wrong when he frames demonitizing as a “free speech” issue. Free speech is about allowing people to say or not say something. If you have a problem with youtube paying or not paying people for what they say, your gripe is with capitalism. Forcing youtube to pay for content it would otherwise not want is a form of socialism.

        I personally don’t have a problem with introducing socialism in limited areas to correct problems in the free market and I trust the democratic process to decide if this is an appropriate place to do it. What bugs me is Turley framing the discussion as purely about free speech. Turley is a smart man and he knows the difference. Either he just didn’t think it through, or he intentionally blurred the concepts. The former I can forgive, I am sure he’s busy and not everything he writes needs to be perfect. But the latter bugs me. I doubt Turley would get as much traffic if he framed the article as a call to impose socialist principals on social media companies. And that’s why articles like this add to the problem.

  7. OT: 1 part Marx and 1 part Gentile, mix together, wait and it rises as leftism in the US. For extra flavor one can add a bit of Mao.

    FBI misled judge, seized $86 million in cash from private bank vaults, court documents allege
    An official testified that the warrant omitted the main part of the FBI’s plan: To permanently seize everything inside of boxes that contained at least $5,000 in cash or goods.

    …1,400 private safe deposit boxes in a Beverly Hills vault where they seized $86 million in cash, according to newly unsealed court records. …

    Agents also defied restrictions set by U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim in the warrant …

    “The government did not know what was in those boxes, who owned them, or what, if anything, those people had done,” …

  8. Once… Just once, I would like to see MSM state that Hillary’s or Stacey Abram’s claims of “stolen” wins are “without evidence,” or “election lies,” let alone, the “Big Lie.” Better yet, would love to see NBC, ABC, NPR, or other MAINSTREAM media talk about “far left-wing” or “left-wing extremists.”
    I know there are those who will dismiss my comment as “whataboutism.” But, until I witness a neutral, removed, and honest mainstream media in this country, I stand by my comment.

    1. Excellent point!

      I would love to see our depraved media run a series of reports on Bill’s culpability in the slaughter of 800,000 innocent, unarmed, black men, women and children. For that matter why isn’t anyone demanding accountability for his criminal violations of international law? Why?

      Bill Clinton lied to the Rwandan people and to the world when he said he was unaware of the bloodshed seizing the country in 1994. FOIA documents prove he did know about the ongoing holocaust and chose to break the law-The Proxmire Act-which required him legally to intervene.
      Johnathan, please run a story on his criminal role in that most tragic genocide.
      Thank you,

    1. Sure you can Mark. You can just switch the channel. You might notice that CNN has lately tried to be a little more balanced. Losing hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue has a tendency to bring a news company to it’s senses. The peoples vote with their pocket book maters. Be of good cheer.

    2. The only thing we can do is stop using or viewing any media organizations that are consistently not truthful.

  9. Democrats have a knack for sloganeering. Thus we have “The Big Lie.” This YouTube video perfectly illustrates what party told “The Big Lie.” Only one person died on Jan 6 and she was a Trump supporter. In leftist bastions across the nation people died in the riots and millions of dollars of damage was done. These deaths and loss of property are being paid for through the taxes of the citizens of these cities. “ The Real Big Lie” continued for the next four years and did further damage to our nation. If your a Democrat or an independent I ask you how can you in good conscience continue to vote for “The Real Big Liars”. Let us hope that Democrats and Independent of good faith will not join hands with “ The Really Big Liars” in the next election.

  10. This is prohibited under Texas’ common carrier law barring censorship by large internet platforms. The 5th circuit just upheld the law against a facial challenge by an internet platform association. Professor Turley should write a column about that decision.

    I don’t know if there is a way for Taibbi, or anyone in Texas, to bring a claim under that law.

    1. I believe he can, as it affects Texans, not elsewhere.
      I am not sure if there is a temporary stay on the law, or if that was overturned and it is now fully effective.

    2. Demonitized just means you don’t get automatic add revenue. The video is still on you tube and anyone that wants to see it can. It’s only a “censorship” issue if you believe people not only have a right to speak, they also have a right to force companies to pay them for their speech.

  11. I can’t get too exercised over this. It’s their site. Perfectly legal More of a borderline problem but still legal is Amazon refusing to host Parler. That’s more like Holiday Inn refusing to let black people rent a room. But the real issue is why can’t conservatives build their own hosting company and their own sites. After all they have their own pillows

    1. But the real issue is why can’t conservatives Jews, immigrants, blacks, Catholics build their own hosting company and their own sites country clubs, restaurants, schools, parks. After all they have their own pillows traditions, beliefs, culture

      We understand your type, Dennis. We know hateful people like you exist, driven in no small part by demonic fervor by the segregationists not too long ago in our country

      Meanwhile, honor, duty, country still exist in the hearts of some Americans. In SW Florida, US Coast Guard SAR teams are rescuing people “with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right…”

      Adversity brings out the best in most of us, and the worst in others

      1. Thanks. I wouldn’t have put it as crassly as you but “Jews, immigrants, blacks, Catholics DO build their own country clubs, restaurants, schools, parks, etc.” as well as their own web sites. So why not answer the question (Why can’t conservatives?) rather than going off on some totally absurd and ridiculous tangent. In a way you (if you are a conservative and not a troll) answered my question: because conservatives cannot look at an issue logically

        1. Look what happed when men tried to have their own Men’s Clubs; the feminists sued for discrimination.
          Meanwhile women had/have their exclusively female clubs or gatherings, and no guy sues them for it.

          1. Discrimination is an unconstitutional charge; it causes the rights and freedoms of Americans to be denied.

            Private property, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

            This is no-brainer adjudication, and the Supreme Court is nowhere to be found.

            Discrimination is the first, middle and final step of freedom – one walks out one’s door in the morning and turns right or left based on some discriminatory data point.

            If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot enjoy the most basic of freedoms.

            Particular individuals have no power to compel the actions of other individuals.

            Laws prohibit property damage and bodily injury – the rest, one must adapt to.

    2. dennis byron, we can see that you have little concern about the Democrats who said that the 2016 election was stolen. You have little concern that YouTube tried to block the evidence showing Democratic hypocrisy. Instead you give us your cute little pillow quip. It’s okay. We all now know where your coming from. You are so cute and clever.

      1. Please come on out here into the real world, not-thinking-anything-at-all, and read my comment using the words’ English meanings. Try not to read my comment (or any comment) in the echo chamber in which your narrow mind lives. I am in fact a long time reader and follower of the far leftist Matt Taibbi and saw this directly from him; I don’t need Turley’s interpretation. I really appreciate Taibbi’s thought process and writing even when I do not agree with it. The tik tok or whatever this post is about was not his but he provided his site to the author. Doing so, Taibbi is a perfect example of how real people take things into their own hands rather than spewing all the whining I see from conservatives on this site. A couple of years ago, facing the corporate media’s censorship, he started his own site and made a successful business out of it.

        Back to my question: why can’t conservatives do that?

        1. There are at least five problems associated with Youtube’s actions.

          1. Youtube and others provide the government an indirect method of violating the First Amendment.
          2. Some problems emanate from government legislation like section 230 CDA. See
          3. Consider why we have the restraint of trade laws.
          4. Town square and telecommunication issues.
          5. Monopoly with questions of conspiracy.

    3. Dennis Byron- “Legal” has nothing to do with it. Yes, YouTube has their choice of who gets to say what on their platform. Legal, I’m sure. It is also cowardly, partisan and they have censored a fully accurate position because it rubs against their politically correct grain. The criticism of YT is 100% warranted.

      1. I would have thought that “legal” has everything to do with a blog written by a law professor about legal issues, quiet. (What or who is YT?)

        1. So you would have no problem with the phone company telling certain businesses that they can’t use their phone to create income. Or, electric companies telling companies they can’t use their energy to make products they dissagree with.

          1. But that is not what demonitizing does. Youtube has negotiated an advertising revenue stream with vendors. That’s how YouTube makes its money. If you are monitezed, YouTube pays you to run those ads. If you are demonitized, YouTube does not pay you to run the adds. Demonitizing does not stop you from using YouTube to make money. You can go find your own vendor and plug their product on your channel, there’s plenty of people doing just that. Since YouTube is the payer, the more accurate question is are you OK with the government forcing the electric company or the phone company to pay people to make something the company doesn’t want.

            1. Anonymous has altered Jim’s question and then answered his own. Jim’s question has been left unanswered.

              But there is more to the question. The federal government and the White House have used social media companies to indirectly abridge freedom of speech. That is unconstitutional. This has been written about extensively though those that follow only the left-wing press only know one side of the news. That is a problem that personally they must overcome if they wish to be informed.

              Outsourced censorship: Feds used private entity to target millions of social posts in 2020
              Biden administration gave millions in tax dollars to groups after election, records show. Election Integrity Partnership says it had 35% success rate getting tech platforms to label, remove or restrict content.


              Enemies list? Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites


  12. When do we say we are done with our modern Democrats? They propose nothing, other than hate-filled nonsense to keep themselves in power, they spread fear and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and it is beyond the pale at this point with them literally calling anyone that disagrees, often sensibly, a fascist (which could have rather severe ramifications in the future). I am just done. if you still think somehow dems are the party of the people, you are voting for your own destruction, and that check WILL come due, even to the most elite, but not properly connected. Seriously: stop supporting this. You are not helping anyone anymore, the 60s ended 50 years ago, and things have changed. Dramatically. We do not need another world war. Find your dang spines and do the right thing. I have not seen a class of cowards to parallel the modern Dem voter base in my entire life, and I am not ‘young’. Wake. The. ****. Up. You are cowards, believing in a legacy that was never true, and you are so insulated from the rest of us that it is impossible to take this seriously anymore. Enough.

    1. James,
      I have Dem friends.
      He is, only because he is union.
      He thinks the Dems have lost their minds.
      I do not think he is voting this mid-terms.
      Her, vehemently anti-Trump.
      But she thinks Biden is a failure.
      And she thinks the Dems have lost their minds.
      I do not think she is voting in the mid terms.

      I am voting in the mid terms.
      And I am an registered Independent.

    2. They have been brainwashed as you can see by the parade of “news” organizations in the video.

    3. When do we say we are done with our modern Democrats?

      I’m a conservative Independent. What has become quite clearly true is the following statement from Dan Bongino:
      Republicans may not be the answer to all of our problems, but Democrats are the cause of all of our problems.

  13. YouTube’s acts demonstrate its disdain for natural and God-given rights and freedoms, and its complete rejection of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    YouTube’s acts are not dissimilar to “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s egregious, illicit acts against American fundamental law, and its thesis of freedom in stark contrast to extralegal tyranny.

    YouTube is a direct and mortal enemy of the “fundamentally formed” United States of America, as was Lincoln (slavery was in decline and on its deathbed).

    A nation of laws must adhere to its laws.

    Tell YouTube and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.

    “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

    “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

    “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

    – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

    “We are a nation of laws, not of men.”

    – President John Adams

    “Americans practically think and breathe in legal terms.”

    – Helle Porsdam

    “Rule of Law in American Life: A Long and Intentional Tradition”‘

    “Everyone contributes to the rule of law.”

    “As Danish scholar Helle Porsdam has said, ‘Americans practically think and breathe in legal terms.’”

    “One colonist, Thomas Paine, produced a booklet in 1776 called Common Sense, and it became a bestseller by today’s standards. In it, he detailed how, ‘in America, law is king.'”

    – American Bar Association

Comments are closed.