 The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities that can compromise integrity or credibility. Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud of your objectivity. But a deeper concern that I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it's likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone easily disputed or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with that? I think it depends. Really? You wouldn't agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it's likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone easily disputed or invalid conclusion? Mrs. Congressman, when I've done probably a dozen stories involving whistleblowers, every reported story that I've ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives. Every time you do a story, you're making a balancing test between the public interests. Reclaiming my time, thank you very much. I ask you this, because before you became Elon Musk's hand-picked journalist, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan's podcast about being spoon-fed information. And I quote, I think that's true of any kind of journalism. And you'll see it behind me here. I think that's true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you've lost. They have you at that point. And you've got to get out of that habit. You just can't cross that line. Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes. Good. Heartbreaking. The worst person you know just made a great point. That exchange took place today during the House Judiciary's select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. And it marks the second time that Congress has held a hearing on Elon Musk's Twitter files. Now, what we just watched was absolutely, brutally humiliating for Matt Tyebe, someone who I used to respect. He got exposed as the unprincipled, careerist opportunist that he is by Debbie Wasserman Schultz of all people, one of the most corrupt, unprincipled, careerist members of Congress. And when you compare both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Matt Tyebe, just to be clear, without question, I think that she's done far more harm than he could ever dream of doing as a pseudo journalist. But with that being said, nothing about what she said there was wrong. In fact, it gets even worse because she goes on to explain why Matt Tyebe betrayed his own principles. And again, what she says here is 100% correct. And Matt Tyebe knows it, but refuses to admit it. Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter files. No. Elon Musk, it's my time. Please do not interrupt me. Elon Musk spoon fed, Elon Musk spoon fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint, or at the very least generates another right-wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard and you appear to have benefited from it. Before the release of the emails in August of last year, you had 661,000 Twitter followers. After the Twitter files, your followers doubled and now it's three times what it was last August. I imagine your sub-stack readership, which is a subscription, increased significantly because of the work that you did for Elon Musk. Now, I'm not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it's quite obvious that you've profited from the Twitter files. You hit the jackpot on that Vegas slot machine to which you referred. That's true, isn't it? I've also reinvested. You've made some, no, no, no. Is it true that you have profited since you were this recipient of the Twitter files? You've made money. Yes or no? It's probably a wash, honestly. Nope, you have made money that you did not have before, correct? But I've also spent money that I didn't have before. I just hired a whole group of people to invest in it. Patently obvious answer, reclaiming my time. Attention is a powerful drug, eyeballs, money, prominence, attention, all of it points to problems with accuracy and credibility and the larger point, which is social media companies are not biased against conservatives and if anything, they ignored their own policies by allowing Trump and other magnet extremists to post incessant lies, endangering public safety, and even our democracy. Hypocrisy is the hangover of an addiction to attention. That was just brutal. Matt Taiyibi violated his own principles by letting Elon Musk spoon feed him cherry-picked information, also he can further his own career and he wouldn't even fess up to it. He pretended as if the money that he made was a wash since he expanded. Yeah, but you wouldn't have been able to expand in the first place Matt had you not sold out to Elon Musk. So to pretend as if you didn't benefit from the Twitter files is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever seen. And ironically, everything that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said about Taiyibi can apply to her as well. Why does she take money from the predatory payday loan industry? Well, because they contribute to her campaign and they help her get elected and further her own career. Why did she violate the DNC's own charter back in 2016 and sabotage the one candidate that was better positioned to defeat Donald Trump? Well, because she wanted a position in Clinton's administration. The reason why her attack on Taiyibi was so powerful, I think, is because she's as conniving and opportunistic as he is. She knows how the game is played. So that's why her exposing him was so humiliating because she knows how the sausage is made. But when it comes to how biased and selective the release of the Twitter files were, Congressman Connelly's questions to Taiyibi were also deeply embarrassing for him. Let's watch. Mr. Taiyibi, you have said that this isn't really a matter of right or left, that there are lots of different ideological colorations involved in the Twitter files. Is that roughly correct? Yes. And Mr. Schellenberg, you would agree with that. Yes. So when you release information, have you released any information of, for example, right wing elements or the Trump White House attempting to moderate content at Twitter? Yes. No, not the Trump White House. Presale, although I did report initially in the first Twitter files that the Trump White House had made and requests and had been honored. Mr. Schellenberg? I did not find that. You haven't found it. So we had a hearing the other day on Twitter and we had four witnesses, three for the majority, one for the minority and all four testified under oath. They had never received a request for content moderation or take down by the Biden White House, but they did from Donald Trump's White House. And specifically, the case brought up was an exchange between Donald Trump then President of the United States and Chrissy Tagen, where he had called her something and she called him something back, I won't repeat it. And this was under oath, confirmed, yeah, that happened. And that the White House shortly thereafter, after Tagen had her email about the president which was pejorative, that the White House called Twitter to try to take on the content. You were that, Mr. Tebe? Yeah, I certainly heard that in the news, yes. And, but did you see that email exchange? No, I have not seen an exchange from the Trump White House. I have seen one from Congressman Schiff and one from Senator Angus King. Yeah, nice try. We're talking about the Trump White House and people under oath confirming it. And my question is, in the Twitter files, did Elon Musk or Twitter provide you with that exchange with Chrissy Tagen? No, but that's probably because the searches that I was making. Well, probably because it didn't confirm the bias that this is all about, as the gentleman from Texas would say, the left attempting to control content when, in fact, the evidence is the Trump White House most certainly attempted to control content at Twitter. So Connolly just demonstrated that Matt Tyebe was Elon Musk's useful little idiot who willingly promoted a biased partisan narrative all for personal gain. And when Connolly tried to get him to admit that Musk hadn't given him the full story about how Trump was also trying to use his power to get tweets removed, well, all Tyebe could do was invoke Democrats like the hack that he is. So it confirms that daddy Elon Musk only let him see one side of the story. Hence why principal journalists wouldn't let powerful people selectively hand them documents in the first place because you're not getting the full picture as journalists seek to do. And again, I find it sad because Matt Tyebe used to be a good journalist. He was critical of the billionaire class and the establishment, but now he's on team red presumably because that's where the money is. And he's even parroting their anti-trans talking points and promoting Matt Walsh's What is a Woman documentary. It's just sad to me, honestly, but sometimes when you violate your own journalistic standards, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But lucky for Tyebe, his new right wing audience isn't going to hold him accountable at all for hypocrisy or even care about principal journalistic ethics so long as he's consistently giving them what they want, which is content reinforcing this narrative that Dems bad and Republicans can do no wrong. But to be clear, I don't think that his recent behavior invalidates the good work that he's done in the past, but certainly going forward, nothing that he says should be taken seriously. The Matt Tyebe of today is completely different than the person that we all used to respect that we had fond memories of. But career-wise, I have no doubt that this decision, his shift to the right, is very lucrative. But when it comes down to morality and ethics, I know Matt Tyebe is too smart to believe his own bullshit, but he's going to have to live with the fact that he chose money over morals. And that's really sad, but this is the lane that he's chosen for himself. This is the lane that a lot of individuals have chosen. Will you act like a... Bada, bada, bada.