Mike Ritland

And so they need to have as much information as possible. And so we pay premium subscriptions for foreign-facing activity to U.S. media companies who are the best in business or sometimes the only or some of the only people who provide that needed proprietary service. So a great example of this is with the Reuters case. Because when I talked about the Reuters case, a lot of people

And so they need to have as much information as possible. And so we pay premium subscriptions for foreign-facing activity to U.S. media companies who are the best in business or sometimes the only or some of the only people who provide that needed proprietary service. So a great example of this is with the Reuters case. Because when I talked about the Reuters case, a lot of people

And so they need to have as much information as possible. And so we pay premium subscriptions for foreign-facing activity to U.S. media companies who are the best in business or sometimes the only or some of the only people who provide that needed proprietary service. So a great example of this is with the Reuters case. Because when I talked about the Reuters case, a lot of people

there's still a scandal there and a moral hazard in the system that needs to be reformed, but a lot of people ran away with it and sort of presupposed, when they read this, that that meant that it was like a direct pay to play. We don't know if there was or wasn't, if there was back-channel conversations, if there was an informal phone call. I'm not suggesting there was.

there's still a scandal there and a moral hazard in the system that needs to be reformed, but a lot of people ran away with it and sort of presupposed, when they read this, that that meant that it was like a direct pay to play. We don't know if there was or wasn't, if there was back-channel conversations, if there was an informal phone call. I'm not suggesting there was.

there's still a scandal there and a moral hazard in the system that needs to be reformed, but a lot of people ran away with it and sort of presupposed, when they read this, that that meant that it was like a direct pay to play. We don't know if there was or wasn't, if there was back-channel conversations, if there was an informal phone call. I'm not suggesting there was.

Or if it's simply the incentives aligned. You know these are the people giving you the money. You know they're targeting Trump. Because this was the other thing, is all 11 agencies targeting Trump, targeting Elon Musk, were paying to the... non-news agency side of Reuters who was digging up the dirt that the regulatory agencies could use to go after Elon Musk. The same thing for OCCRP.

Or if it's simply the incentives aligned. You know these are the people giving you the money. You know they're targeting Trump. Because this was the other thing, is all 11 agencies targeting Trump, targeting Elon Musk, were paying to the... non-news agency side of Reuters who was digging up the dirt that the regulatory agencies could use to go after Elon Musk. The same thing for OCCRP.

Or if it's simply the incentives aligned. You know these are the people giving you the money. You know they're targeting Trump. Because this was the other thing, is all 11 agencies targeting Trump, targeting Elon Musk, were paying to the... non-news agency side of Reuters who was digging up the dirt that the regulatory agencies could use to go after Elon Musk. The same thing for OCCRP.

USAID funds the hit piece journalists. The hit piece journalists dig up dirt. The prosecutors then use that dirt as the basis to arrest them. And then you have a USAID big fat bow on top of it with an accomplishment section saying, ta-da, 456 arrests that we sponsored. But in this case, for example, the Justice Department under the Biden administration paid tens of millions of dollars.

USAID funds the hit piece journalists. The hit piece journalists dig up dirt. The prosecutors then use that dirt as the basis to arrest them. And then you have a USAID big fat bow on top of it with an accomplishment section saying, ta-da, 456 arrests that we sponsored. But in this case, for example, the Justice Department under the Biden administration paid tens of millions of dollars.

USAID funds the hit piece journalists. The hit piece journalists dig up dirt. The prosecutors then use that dirt as the basis to arrest them. And then you have a USAID big fat bow on top of it with an accomplishment section saying, ta-da, 456 arrests that we sponsored. But in this case, for example, the Justice Department under the Biden administration paid tens of millions of dollars.

It was something like $60 million to Reuters for Westlaw because Thomson Reuters has properties. They have their news agency side. They have a tool for legal folks, for legal research. LexisNexis and Westlaw dominate that space. So the Justice Department is paying for Westlaw and they're tens of millions of dollars padding the profits of a portfolio company of Thomson Reuters.

It was something like $60 million to Reuters for Westlaw because Thomson Reuters has properties. They have their news agency side. They have a tool for legal folks, for legal research. LexisNexis and Westlaw dominate that space. So the Justice Department is paying for Westlaw and they're tens of millions of dollars padding the profits of a portfolio company of Thomson Reuters.

It was something like $60 million to Reuters for Westlaw because Thomson Reuters has properties. They have their news agency side. They have a tool for legal folks, for legal research. LexisNexis and Westlaw dominate that space. So the Justice Department is paying for Westlaw and they're tens of millions of dollars padding the profits of a portfolio company of Thomson Reuters.

But every one of those million is less that they need to make in their news line because their profits are still being pumped up for the network, and they are still... picking heavy winners and losers in domestic politics. You know, like, for example, what if they were paying Raytheon?

But every one of those million is less that they need to make in their news line because their profits are still being pumped up for the network, and they are still... picking heavy winners and losers in domestic politics. You know, like, for example, what if they were paying Raytheon?

But every one of those million is less that they need to make in their news line because their profits are still being pumped up for the network, and they are still... picking heavy winners and losers in domestic politics. You know, like, for example, what if they were paying Raytheon?

You know, what if the Defense Department was paying Raytheon, you know, continually, you know, as it does, billions of dollars in defense contracts, and Raytheon opens up a new line of business called Raytheon Media LLC. And Raytheon Media LLC has a basically explicit media purpose. to target Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Republicans like Bill Kristol.

You know, what if the Defense Department was paying Raytheon, you know, continually, you know, as it does, billions of dollars in defense contracts, and Raytheon opens up a new line of business called Raytheon Media LLC. And Raytheon Media LLC has a basically explicit media purpose. to target Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Republicans like Bill Kristol.