 One of the major frustrations throughout this entire ordeals, the way that speech was suppressed during the pandemic. I know you experienced it yourself. You were kicked off YouTube for your comments about masks. And we now know thanks to the Twitter files, the FBI paid about $3.4 million to Twitter between October, 2019, February, 2021 for its efforts to comply with their information requests. And you recently asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about that. Director Wray, did the FBI pay Twitter money to moderate content moderation? I'm not aware of us paying money to moderate content there or anywhere else. What was the $3 million for that the FBI gave that's been revealed in Twitter files? Then when it comes to payments, going back well over four decades, when we are required by federal law, when a company, like in this instance a provider, goes through expenses to produce information, we're required to reimburse them for those expenses. And so I think that a lot of the questions about payments revolve around exactly that. And you will repeat under oath that there was never any discussion of the FBI to take down constitutionally protected speech. To my knowledge, our agents conducted themselves in compliance with the law throughout. He said that they simply are compensating Twitter for taking actions to address criminal activity, not to engage in censorship. Do you believe him? Well, he may be telling the truth. I think it's an open question. But there's the FBI, but there's also the Department of Homeland Security. We do know that they were working with Stanford University on internet oversight of all kinds of things, not just whether elections are being influenced by Russians, but whether or not what people are saying about vaccines. We do know from the Twitter files that they have acknowledged, and also from the Missouri versus Biden depositions, that they have acknowledged that even things they felt to be true, but harmful to the government position deserve to be censored. The important part of this debate though is that we not get carried away. Many people on the right are carried away with how terrible big tech is, and they now want to regulate big tech or force big tech to take their opinions. I don't believe in that at all. Where I've decided to place my emphasis is on the government half of this equation. If government is meeting with Twitter and paying Twitter to encourage them to take down constitutionally protected speech, we should limit government from that interaction. Government shouldn't be involved with trying to limit constitutionally protected speech. However, if Twitter wants to censor me, or if YouTube wants to take my speech down because I say masks don't work, that is their prerogative, they're a private company and I would never want to stop them. But it's important we make this distinction because there are many on the right wing populist part of particularly the Republican Party who are saying let's just tell Twitter they have to take conservative viewpoints or let's mandate what is actually, let's have a review committee. I don't want that at all, but I do think that a consistent libertarian position is telling the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CDC, Biden spokesman, Biden White House, that they can't be meeting on a weekly basis with either overt or implied threats of you need to do this or else. We know from the Missouri versus Biden case that there actually were threats of antitrust action being brought against big tech or getting rid of their liability protection if they didn't tow the line. That to me is a clear infringement of the First Amendment and I think is going to ultimately be, the decision will ultimately agree with that will be the Supreme Court, hopefully in the near future. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from my conversation with Rand Paul. You can watch another clip right here or the full conversation over here.