Elon Musk dissolves Twitter's censorship council



Twitter axed its so-called Trust and Safety Council on Monday night.

Leftist elements of the defunct council have denounced the move and joined the chorus of critics opposed to Twitter's apparent embrace of Elon Musk's "free speech absolutist" ideals.

The dissolution of the council comes just days after three of its members, including the niece of Biden official John Podesta, resigned, citing as partial cause their opposition to the restoration of banned accounts belonging to conservatives such as former President Donald Trump.

Thanks but no thanks

Trust and Safety Council members received an email signed "Twitter" on Monday that said, "As Twitter moves into a new phase, we are reevaluating how best to bring external insights into our product and policy development."

Evidently, the best way forward was without the meddling council's direct involvement.

The letter noted that Twitter will "continue to welcome your ideas going forward" and "will also continue to explore opportunities to provide focused and timely input into our work, whether through bilateral or small group meetings."

An archived version of the council's now-defunct "About" page describes the council as "a group of independent expert organizations from around the world. Together, they advocate for safety and advise us as we develop our products, programs, and rules."

The so-called expert groups that provided the council with counsel included the Anti-Defamation League, the LGBT activist group Black Rainbow, Feminist Frequency, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Muslim Advocates, and the United Nations' Association for Progressive Communications.

The group's purported areas of focus included "Online Safety and Harassment, Human and Digital Rights, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, Child Sexual Exploitation, and Dehumanization."

How dare he!

Alex Holmes, now a former member of the council and a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation advisory board member, took to Twitter to lament, writing, "Many of us have been in this space for a number of years, each with different expertise, but all with a passion to see healthy and diverse conversations and safety exist on platforms."

"The way this has unfolded and way members have been treated is unfortunate and unacceptable," Holmes added.

\u201cMany of us have been in this space for a number of years, each with different expertise, but all with a passion to see healthy and diverse conversations and safety exist on platforms.\n\nThe way this has unfolded and way members have been treated is unfortunate and unacceptable.\u201d
— Alex Holmes \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@Alex Holmes \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1670893482

The Washington Post reported that the council was set to meet virtually to discuss recent developments when it learned that it had been disbanded.

Larry Magid, chief executive at the Silicon Valley nonprofit ConnectSafely, was on the board as of Monday. He told the Post, "By disbanding it, we got fired instead of quit."

Members Eirliani Abdul Rahman, Anne Collier, and Lesley Podesta saved Musk three emails by resigning last week, claiming "the safety and wellbeing of Twitter's users are on the decline."

Rahman alleged in a statement that slurs against black Americans and gay men jumped since Musk's takeover and that anti-Semitism was on the rise.

"Another red line for me was when previously banned accounts such as those on the far right, and those who had incited others to violence, such as then US President Donald Trump's, were reinstated," said Rahman.

While noting that the readmission of the former president and others amounted to unforgivable actions on the part of Twitter's leadership, the trio of quitters claimed that under Musk, Twitter was in danger of losing its reputation as "the platform where anyone could be heard."

In response to these resignations, Musk tweeted, "It is a crime that they refused to take action on child exploitation for years!"

Twitter founder Jack Dorsey suggested that the allegation that the Trust and Safety Council failed to take appropriate action to protect minors was false.

However, Musk doubled down, writing, "When Ella Irwin, who now runs Trust & Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety. She raised this with Ned & Parag, but they rejected her staffing request."

\u201c@jack @Cernovich @annecollier @eirliani @podesta_lesley No, it is not. \n\nWhen Ella Irwin, who now runs Trust & Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety.\n\nShe raised this with Ned & Parag, but they rejected her staffing request.\n\nI made it top priority immediately.\n\n@ellagirwin\u201d
— annecollier (@annecollier) 1670516715

Roth on the run

While some council members have gone online to complain, the former council head, Yoel Roth, has reportedly gone on the run.

The Washington Post reported that Roth fled his home on account of Musk drawing attention to his doctoral thesis.

Musk tweeted on Saturday, "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis," adding, "This explains a lot."

\u201c@elizableu Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis:\u201d
— Eliza (@Eliza) 1670694731

In addition to erroneously claiming investigative journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss were conservatives and only later making a stealth edit, the Washington Post claimed Musk had "mischaracterized Roth's academic writing about sexual activity and children."

Even if the trust and safety council hadn't been disbanded, Roth still wouldn't be able to hit Musk with a misinformation label, given that he resigned back in November.

The 35-year-old penned an op-ed in the New York Times on Nov. 18, stating, "In my more than seven years at the company, we exposed government-backed troll farms meddling in elections, introduced tools for contextualizing dangerous misinformation, and, yes, banned President Donald Trump from the service."

Roth, who likened members of the Trump administration to Nazis, embraced the descriptor "custodians of the internet" and claimed the "work of online sanitation is unrelenting and contentious."

Online sanitation, for Roth, has involved taking input from the FBI and censoring the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, potentially impacting the 2020 election; de-platforming the democratically elected president of the United States; and censoring satire he personally did not find to be amusing.

Here is the former head of the now defunct Trust and Safety Council claiming that a satire site's conference of a fictitious "Man Of The Year" award to a biological man "is dangerous":

\u201cRoth defends the decision to ban @TheBabylonBee: "Not only is it not funny, it is dangerous" \n\nKara Swisher, no fan of the Babylon Bee, gently disagrees -- noting that the account was engaged in satire. "It's still misgendering," Roth insists\u201d
— Michael Tracey (@Michael Tracey) 1670042298

Chris Wallace's new Sunday show bombs in debut



The title of the new CNN Sunday show hosted by Chris Wallace, "Who's Talking to Chris Wallace?", might ask a remarkably appropriate question, though perhaps not in the way its creators and producers intended. "Who's Talking?" recently debuted to abysmal numbers, leaving some of Wallace's colleagues and supporters scrambling to spin the news favorably.

At 7 p.m. Eastern time last Sunday, Wallace's show premiered on the network. Even though CNN promoted the show heavily, it drew just 401,000 total viewers and a measly 44,000 viewers in the coveted 25-54 age demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Comparing those numbers to the show's competition and to other CNN shows that previously aired in the same time slot demonstrates just how poorly the "Who's Talking" launch went. The numbers represent a 29% drop from the 7 p.m. overall network average in 2022 and a 64% drop among the 25-54 group. By contrast, "Sunday Night in America with Trey Gowdy" over at Wallace's former network, Fox News, drew a staggering 1.3 million total viewers, more than three times Wallace's audience. It's worth noting, however, that Gowdy's show debuted in June 2021, so it may already have established a core audience.

Still, Wallace has had difficulty finding his niche since he left Fox earlier this year after 18 years with the network. He signed with CNN for a hefty salary between $6 and $10 million a year. At the time, Jeff Zucker was still the president of CNN Worldwide, and Zucker and the network were eagerly anticipating the launch of CNN+, a new subscription-based streaming service on which Wallace was supposed to star.

But like Wallace's new show, CNN+ tanked. It debuted on March 29 and was canceled by April 28, leaving hosts and staff reeling. Meanwhile, Zucker resigned, and new president Chris Licht began to reshuffle the priorities at CNN. "Who's Talking," which was initially intended to air four days a week on CNN+, was then reworked into a Sunday evening show on network TV.

Despite the discouraging launch of "Who's Talking," CNN remains encouraged about its future. "We’re thrilled with the launch and Chris’s news-making interviews," a network spokesperson said. The unnamed spokesperson also noted that three episodes of the show, including the premiere, were made available for streaming on Friday, and streaming viewers would not have been included in the numbers.

"Live domestic TV viewers represent only a fraction of [the show's] intended audience," another source at CNN reportedly said, suggesting that ratings don't tell the whole story.

Still, CNN's optimism hasn't kept other media outlets and personalities from hammering the poor showing:

\u201cFormer Fox News host Chris Wallace suffered embarrassingly low ratings for the debut of his new CNN show. https://t.co/GPMXUoLvNi\u201d
— Newsmax (@Newsmax) 1664293337
\u201cNo one watched Chris Wallace's new CNN show.\n\nRatings:\nhttps://t.co/GN9EPGGgUT\u201d
— OutKick (@OutKick) 1664298763
\u201cHe's lost all of his fans.\nhttps://t.co/KUrFd11Vq0\u201d
— Dinesh D'Souza (@Dinesh D'Souza) 1664298040


\u201cFoxNews made Chris Wallace, didn\u2019t need him. Ratings don\u2019t lie. https://t.co/V5xQt7SWfQ\u201d
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) 1664245269

The next episode of "Who's Talking with Chris Wallace?" will feature an interview with former MLB slugger Alex Rodriguez.

Socialist Reddit group posts home addresses of Supreme Court justices, discuss hunting them down at their churches. TikTok user hint at using pipe bombs in retaliation to Roe v. Wade reversal.



One of the top posts in a socialist subreddit featured the addresses of Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Reddit users in the anti-capitalist group discussed hunting down Supreme Court justices at their churches and possibly sending them mail bombs.

The alarming threats were made in r/WorkersStrikeBack – a self-described "leftist, anti-capitalist, socialist subreddit that is dedicated to support worker strikes, protests and unions all over the world, address the obvious problems related to an average worker's workplace, offer advice to a fellow worker struggling with their workplace problems and mock or satirize any kind of anti-worker sentiment."

The post broadcasted the home addresses of Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch.

At the time of publication, the post doxxing the Supreme Court justices had been allowed up in the subreddit for more than 22 hours. What is most concerning is the post received nearly 27,000 upvotes in the online socialist community of 97,000 users.

There were over 2,000 comments to the doxxing post – some suggested violence in retaliation for overturning Roe v. Wade.

A Reddit user urged people to hunt Supreme Court justices at their churches.

"Find their churches. The area they live in is super wealthy and they all definitely are part of local bloated churches. Find their churches, they can never be free, because you can track when they're home by when they they go to their local church."

One Reddit user asks, "Where are the 2nd homes?"

A mail carrier appears to request that domestic terrorists don't use the mail service to deliver bombs to Supreme Court justices, but instead called for "more direct action."

"Socialist mailman here, please don't send anything that could hurt your mail handlers," the Redditor wrote. "Accidental tearing happens to mail all the time. I would encourage more direct action at a time like this."

A Redditor ranted, "Six of these fascist creeps. A mere SIX. 330 MILLION of us. Why are we putting up with this? This is a f***ing WAR now."

Another Redditor stated, "Politicians are way too comfortable in this country when they're willing to break precedent to go against 70% of the population to fit their own agenda. Maybe it's time they felt less comfortable and safe."

One person said, "Violence is never the answer. It's the question. And right now, the answer is yes."

Someone else in the subreddit suggests that they "need to target the police" because "it'll be them enforcing the abortion bans."

A user ominously adds, "I've been looking for a life purpose."

\u201cReddit thread talking about hunting Supreme Court justices at church. Includes home addresses of Supreme Court Justices on Reddit. 25k upvotes, 20 hours old.\n\n@wokal_distance @wrong_speak @Cernovich @MattWalshBlog\u201d
— tacodip (@tacodip) 1656254207

Meanwhile on TikTok, a user hinted at unleashing pipe bombs against Supreme Court justices. In a comment to a photo of Clarence Thomas with his home address, a user listed the components needed to make a pipe bomb.

There were also numerous users on Twitter making veiled pipe bomb threats against Supreme Court justices.

\u201cJUST IN: Tik Tok users are posting Supreme Court Justice Addresses online, with the most popular comment about pipe bombs.\u201d
— BNN Newsroom (@BNN Newsroom) 1656240715

Horowitz: Why are Republicans going along with the blank check for Ukraine?



Over the past two generations of foreign policy blunders, our government has failed to formulate an exit strategy. Now, as it relates to the endless transfer of cash and arms to the capricious Ukrainian government, we don’t even have an entry strategy. Nobody could explain in a few coherent sentences what exactly we hope to accomplish, how our sacrifice will sustain anything in the face of inveterate ethnic conflicts in eastern Ukraine, or why it’s worth exacerbating the worst supply chain crisis in our lifetime. All Republicans know is that they want to trip over themselves to outbid Biden’s virtue-signaling on the dime of American taxpayers and consumers.

We thought Republicans learned their lesson from COVID legislation not to jump on expensive, civilization-changing legislation just to be on the “right side” of the new, ephemeral “current thing,” but we were wrong. When Biden pledged his original cash payments and weapons to Ukraine’s fractured civilization, Republicans demanded that he spend even more money. We got $13.6 billion out of that deal. Then all but 10 Republicans in the House just voted for an unconditional “lend-lease” weapons transfer program. Now Biden is demanding another $33 billion in spending, $20 billion of which will be more arms. Those are Iraq/Afghanistan level numbers.

There are certain basic questions anyone should be asking at this point. Republicans should start demanding answers to the following:

  • Where are the money and arms going, and how are they not going toward the neo-Nazi Azov brigade that will, in the small chance they defeat the Russians, continue persecuting the ethnic Russians and fuel an intermittent conflict with Russia in perpetuity?
  • Why has our government, and the Biden family in particular, been so obsessed with Ukraine for years, and how do we know this money is not going to fund the very same grifting elements behind the Russia collusion story?
  • Don’t we first want to investigate why the same players involved in the Wuhan research have been involved with the bio-labs in Ukraine and how this funding is affecting those endeavors and the corrupt people behind them?
  • Ukraine is on Russia’s border, and in the eastern part of the country, Ukrainians are Russian kinsmen. Especially after the sacrifice of the past few months, Russia is not budging. There is no way arms and cash will ever deter or dissuade the Russians. All they will accomplish is to continue to fuel the macro-war and more internal ethnic bloodshed with an uncontrolled flow of weapons. Short of a full-scale allied invasion against Russia, this “middle ground” of cash and weapons will actually fuel the worst outcome. How will this not result in more needless bloodshed?
  • Then again, forgetting about commitment of troops, the other European countries have barely devoted a fraction of the funding that we have. If the Europeans clearly aren’t worried about this being the “Poland and Hitler moment of 1938,” then why are we barreling head-first into the next Sunni vs. Shia-equivalent dumpster fire?
This chart shows military aid to Ukraine during month 1 of the warpic.twitter.com/FqQKtTJgOn
— Samuel Ramani (@Samuel Ramani) 1650648301
  • All the while, the more we fuel the war rather than encourage Zelenskyy to give up what is already given up, we will make Americans (and the world) suffer with endless supply shortages. The Western oligarchs have been open about the fact that prolonging the Ukrainian conflict will help transition us away from individual freedom and our abundance of fossil fuels. Diederik Samsom, chief of staff for Frans Timmermans, the European commission’s executive vice president responsible for energy policy, recently said that the “geopolitical imbalances” have made us realize “we have paid way too little” for food and fuel in the past 40 years.

As for the latter point, that might be an added feature to this strategy for the left, but conservative Republicans supposedly care about American taxpayers and consumers. So why are they, including Freedom Caucus members, unquestioningly joining this morass?

There is no greater ally to Ukraine than Israel, with tremendous cultural and economic ties. Israel has taken in a lot of refugees. But at the same time, the Israeli prime minister advised Zelenskyy to give in to Putin’s demands on the ethnic Russian territories and NATO membership. The Israelis understand that this cost is already sunk from years of weak NATO and U.S. policies that on the one hand poked the Russian bear relentlessly, but then weakened their own hard and soft power deterrents both on military power and energy independence – placing them at the mercy of the Kremlin’s demand.

Last Thursday, all but 10 Republicans voted for a bill (S.3522) that will allow the DOD to transfer any weapon of war aside from nuclear weapons to the tenuous Ukrainian government.

Do we even know where these weapons are landing? In a recent expose, CNN quoted a defense official who conceded, “It drops into a big black hole, and you have almost no sense of it at all after a short period of time."

"I couldn't tell you where they are in Ukraine and whether the Ukrainians are using them at this point," a senior defense official told reporters earlier this year regarding Mi-17 helicopters, 155 mm Howitzer cannons, Switchblade drones, and Javelin and Stinger missiles.

This after the Pentagon just admitted to leaving $7 billion in weaponry behind in Afghanistan.

So, after two decades of funding multiple sides of every Middle Eastern conflict, in which our weapons kept trading sides as quickly as Harper’s Ferry changed hands in the U.S. Civil War, we’ve learned nothing from our blunders? It’s no wonder the White House had to enlist the help of “TikTok stars” to propagate support for its Ukrainian escapade. Sadly, Republicans didn’t even need convincing.

And who are we supporting? Is the Ukrainian regime really worse than Putin? The civil rights violations are appalling. Have we even conditioned the aid to democratic reforms? Of course not.

Ukraine militants take the AP with them as they they arrest and remove critics of the regime. Many Americans think this is OK.\n\nWhen Biden rounds up Americans, they\u2019ll use the same logic as the fascist enablers of Ukraine. \n\n\u201cIt\u2019s war.\u201dpic.twitter.com/MN2w9nHeJ5
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) 1651443827

Republicans and conservative media had a good laugh out of Biden’s horrifically incoherent, and essentially insane, statement attempting to articulate who and what we are fighting in Ukraine. However, the laugh is really on them, because their strategic thinking is just as gibberish. At least Biden can blame it on cognitive decline.

Horowitz: As criminals take advantage of hands-off justice system, feds clamp down on political prisoners



For the past decade, I've been trying to raise awareness about the harms of the weak-on-crime policies being advocated by both parties. As crime continues to surge, even the most violent career criminals are released on little or no bail, a growing phenomenon that is responsible for most of the violent crimes committed in the country. The insipid mantra of the de-incarceration crowd is that we shouldn't lock people up for low-level offenses. I have long wondered what they consider to be high-level offenses. Now we have our answer. It is you and me.

We are now living in an America where accused murderers and rapists with long rap sheets are released without bail, while Trump supporters are being held without the opportunity to post even high bail for nebulous charges of trespassing on public property. All of us want violent criminals punished, but as Julie Kelly of American Greatness found after examining 200 indictments related to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, nearly all of them were charged with trespassing for simply taking selfies in the Capitol.

Take the case of Jessica Watkins. She is being charged with disorderly conduct, entering a restricted building, and obstruction of an official proceeding. She has no prior record, and these are the quintessential "low-level" crimes I've been hearing the left lament for years in the context of the discussion of over-incarceration. Yet the Feds are asking that she be held without bail because she has spoken to friends about the need for a revolution.

Adding here to ⁦@Cernovich⁩ attention to Jessica Watkins arrest, detention in Capitol breach case.Feds cite her p… https://t.co/WnwY8LDTc7
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@Julie Kelly 🇺🇸)1613917225.0

By that standard, tens of millions of Trump-haters could have been held without bail for the comments they regularly spewed about him for years, especially when they were involved in Black Lives Matter riots. The fact that people are being charged, much less held without bond, for taking selfies in the Capitol, with no evidence that they engaged in assault or theft, is further disturbing because by the government's own admission, some police officers let them in. Last week, the Capitol Hill police announced the suspension of six officers and an investigation into the actions of 29 others because they are suspected of letting in the crowd. Absent evidence of other criminal behavior, it is indefensible to charge civilians with trespassing before this investigation is complete.

This is typical of the dozens of cases I read - Walked into building thinking it was open - Respectful to polic… https://t.co/E3qTnozFTd
— Mike Cernovich (@Mike Cernovich)1613881308.0

It's also disturbing that they continue to lie about the death of Officer Brian Sicknick to use it as a pretext for labeling any and all opposition to the Left as insurrection and sedition and treating the entry into the Capitol differently from any other commensurate crime.

Let's be clear: The only political violence that has taken place since Jan. 6 fomented by a group that wants to overthrow the government is from Antifa. Antifa's adherents have committed clear-cut violent crimes, yet few of them are arrested and none of them are held without bail. Thus, when attorney general nominee Merrick Garland compares Trump supporters to Timothy McVeigh and vows to focus on "domestic terrorism" but refuses to mention Antifa, you know this is not about justice, but about a sadistic persecution. In fact, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that Antifa's attacks are not terrorism because they occur at night. It's all about a two-tiered system. Which is why, when Garland promises to fight discrimination, he doesn't mean the systemic anti-white bias at every level of the corporate culture.

The two-tiered justice system is even more appalling when you examine the number of rapists and murderers who have been set free on low or no bail in recent years in all of America's major cities. While there is zero evidence of any of the Capitol Hill protesters committing crimes outside that day, most crime in this country is committed by repeat violent offenders released under "criminal justice reform measures."

Just to pick a recent example from Chicago, America's murder capital, Oscar Grissett was just bonded out of jail again by a liberal advocacy group despite a history of manslaughter, robbery, and committing crimes while on parole. Here is his timeline according to CWB Chicago:

  • In 1992, Grissett was paroled from a two-year sentence for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm.
  • Just four weeks later, he was charged with murder after driving a stolen car and killing a pedestrian with it while fleeing from police. He received a 25-year sentence, but despite 100 disciplinary actions while in prison, he still got out early, even though this was during the two decades of "tough on crime" sentencing.
  • In 2010, he was convicted of theft and robbery again and sentenced to two 15-year terms and a 9.5-year term, but of course wound up being paroled by 2018.
  • Shortly thereafter, he was convicted for another robbery of a store and sentenced to just four years, but was released after less than two years in March 2020.
  • While he was on parole, prosecutors charged him with two counts of felony possession of a stolen motor vehicle and felony burglary in September of last year. One would think that given his rap sheet and the fact that he was unrepentant from three decades of crime, he would be held without bail. But instead he was offered just $25,000 cash bail, which was paid for by "the Bail Project," a left-wing group that is against pre-trial holding (but would never bail out Trump supporters for low-level charges of trespassing on public property).
  • So, what did Grissett do while out on bail again? Police arrested him on December 8 for stealing a car and then holding up a store clerk at a pet store and stealing money from the cash register.
  • Yet despite all this, last Friday, Judge Susana Ortiz set his bail at $100,000 for the pet store robbery and ordered Grissett to go onto electronic monitoring if he posts bond.

Rather than pushing reforms to stop this leaky justice system, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a bill nearly abolishing cash bail.

The case of Oscar Grissett is not an aberration. It represents the prototypical career criminal who is never properly deterred or stopped in our justice system. It's in this world that Trump supporters are now being held without possibility of even posting bail on charges of trespassing in a public building, even if they didn't engage in violence and did not have a prior record.

While the DOJ and the DHS focus on the nonexistent threat of ubiquitous violence from Trump supporters, nearly every major city is seeing a surge in crime thanks to the reduction in prison and jail incarcerations. Philadelphia is experiencing an even worse crime year than last year, which was the worst in a generation, when Philly had the second highest number of murders on record. Over the weekend, the violence spread to the suburb of Norristown, where one was killed and four were injured while children were enjoying a night of bowling with their families.

Perhaps it will take the violence spilling over into the suburbs, where some suburban voters have become woke, for them to realize that it is the career violent offenders who need to be locked up to ensure their family's safety, not Trump voters.

'Dilbert' creator Scott Adams played Biden supporters like a fiddle—here’s how

Conservative commentator Mike Cernovich broke down how the backlash prominent Trump supporter Scott Adams is facing proves that the left is a hate group.

Potential Joe Biden blunder ​raises questions about possible teleprompter use​



During an appearance on a late-night talk show, Joe Biden may have accidentally revealed that he uses a teleprompter.

The Democratic presidential nominee appeared on "The Late Late Show with James Corden" on April 21. During the virtual appearance from Biden's basement, an eagle-eyed viewer noticed an intriguing detail.

Biden displayed several framed photographs of his family. Biden shared a very large framed photo of himself with his two sons, Hunter and Beau, when they were in college. When the former vice president held up the frame to the camera, a reflection of what appears to be the text of a teleprompter shows up on the glass of the picture frame.

GOP Rapid response Director Steve Guest shared a screen capture of the video on Twitter with the caption: "That reflection…Joe Biden was using a teleprompter for an interview with James Corden." There appears to be green and blue text in the reflection.

@Cernovich That reflection... Joe Biden was using a teleprompter for an interview with James Corden. https://t.co/wqBrhqNVHW
— Steve Guest (@Steve Guest)1599931731.0

TheBlaze reached out to the Biden campaign to verify if the former vice president used a teleprompter in his interview with James Corden. At the time of publication, the Biden campaign did not respond.

The viral video of a possible teleprompter comes only days after Biden campaign spokesman T.J. Ducklo refused to answer the question if Biden uses a teleprompter during TV interviews.

Fox News' Bret Baier asked Ducklo, "Has Joe Biden ever used a teleprompter during local interviews or to answer Q&A with supporters?"

Ducklo responded, "Bret, we're not gonna — this is straight from the Trump campaign talking points." Baier retorted, "Well, yeah, they're using it."

Ducklo replied, "What it does, Bret, is it's trying to distract the American people."

"They're using it. They talk about it every day," Baier asked Ducklo twice, "Can you say yes or no?"

"They talk about it every day because they don't have a coherent argument for why Donald Trump deserves reelection, deserves four more years," Ducklo said. "We know that he lied to the American people, we know that he has not shown leadership during this crisis and they are desperate to throw anything they can against the wall to try to distract from that fact."

"I'm not going to allow the Trump campaign to funnel their questions through Fox News and get me to respond to that," Ducklo said on Fox News' "Special Report."

Bret Baier just asked Biden's National Press Sec a simple yes or no question:Has Joe Biden ever used a teleprompt… https://t.co/8xVuTsubXW
— Kelb Hull (@Kelb Hull)1599778897.0

Last week, reporters were criticized for giving Biden easy softball questions during a rare press conference. President Donald Trump said the easy questions "were meant for a child."

"I look at that and I think it's a disgrace," Trump added. "And then I watch Biden getting asked questions that are really meant for a child to answer, anybody could answer. And I look at the level of question that you people ask. I mean honestly, it's disgraceful."