It's posts like this where I give Ryan ENORMOUS respect for calling out these disingenuous YouTubers like Shawn Ryan (as many would never say derogatory things about Joe Rogan, etc in fear of being blacklisted from their podcasts, etc).
My question for Ryan would be, if he thinks Shawn is a "true believer" (believes in this Russian propaganda as truth) or one of these even more sinister types, like a Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, who know they are spreading lies, but don't care, as the clicks and likes are worth more to them than the damage they know they are causing to society and to American institutions.
It's ironic how many of these special forces types are so, well, let's call it for what it is: anti-American. I don't care if you served, what you did when you served, etc, if you're intentionally eroding confidence in American institutions (even with how flawed they can be, like any institution), you are not a patriot, you're a traitor, in my view.
From what I know from his past, Shawn Ryan doesn’t seem to be one to purposely put out disinformation for greed. He has, in the past, given time to suspect people like Tim Kennedy and Robert O’Neill. You think he interviews controversial military vets and gov’t operator types for us to decide the merits of their stories? His written synopsis for this podcast seems to indicate he questions the veracity of Shoemate’s story. The question would be, does giving questionable people a chance to air their stories, no matter how specious, make Shawn an enabler? In this case, his interview gave you the chance to debunk Shoemate.
Shawn’s synopsis:
“Sam Shoemate is an intelligence officer and Chief Warrant Officer 2 (US Army, Retired). On December 31st, Sam received an email allegedly from Matthew Livelsberger - who would be named as the perpetrator in the detonation of a Tesla Cybertruck at Trump Tower the following day. In this episode of the Shawn Ryan Show, Shoemate brings forward critical information and allegations that cast doubt on the “mainstream” narratives surrounding this event - and many others - if true.”
I do appreciate the analysis you provide in your Substack and YouTube. I even buy you a coffee every month.
When someone says "This is the truth", the journalist has an obligation to at least do a smell test to see if it is probably the truth before they transmit lies to millions of people.
Shawn Ryan is not even remotely sniffing the bullshit that people are feeding him. He is airing whatever clickbait garbage comes his way and trying to cover his ass by putting "if true" in the description.
I unsubbed from his podcast ages ago because of this nonsense.
Sorry but I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've seen endless lies, propaganda and disinformation, mainly on the political front emanate from Shawn Ryan and many (most) of the other special forces type podcasts. I've wondered why so many of them have turned into MAGA propagators of disinformation, and what happened to the code among military folks, especially special forces, to not be public with their views. Maybe it's just the more rational centrists, leftists, whatever you want to call them, keep quiet as is the tradition, or maybe this is how the majority of them thing, I don't know. I will say, you see very few Delta Operators with the disinformation podcasts like Ryan, and I've heard many say they are generally the most intelligent.
Either way, Shawn Ryan regularly pushes disinformation, and whether it's intentional, or just being lazy about what he says, it doesn't matter. People believe the crap he spews and take it for gospel, because of his status as a special forces operator. To me that's the most disgusting part, using the military as a beacon of credibility, to push institutional eroding disinformation.
I watched the Shawn Ryan show and enjoyed it till he had a Canadian special forces on the show who is a great soldier who I had respected. I am a Canadian veteran infantry and I know when you go to a country in the world you have to respect their laws to a certain extent. We can go on for hours but let’s stick to the COVID vacine. When I first joined I had no idea I would turn into a pin cushion, I do not remember how many shots I had to get but to meet the requirements of certain vaccines like Polio or Yellow Fever and 8 more to be able to serve overseas and over the years they added vaccines like hepatitis.
Now COVID, if a Canadian soldier refused the COVID vaccine he could no longer travel to countries like Britain, France or even the USA yes maybe Iraq or Afghanistan did not have a requirement so the soldier could travel there. Cannot travel then you cannot serve, did not matter what you believed or your political associations. Same goes for large companies let’s say you work for IBM or Delta if they needed to send you to a country that demands the Yollowfever vaccine.
So after that show I lost a lot of respect for the show then saw a show that had conspiracy’s I was done I no longer trust what Shan Ryan says
Hindsight is 20/20 and immunologists, epidemiologists (people who actually know stuff) say we dodged one hell of a bullet. It's easy to say now that C19 vaccine mandates weren't necessary, but if it had been as bad as say, SARS, these anti-vaxxers were putting all their military buddies and comrades in danger. Not cool.
I worked at a Harley Davidson dealer and next door there is a BMW dealer. They did not follow any COVID precautions and three employees got sick with COVID the Province of Québec closed them for 3 weeks in May, I figure they lost at least 2 million but when they re-opened they sure followed all COVID precautions and as the word got all of the stores around us did as well.
Unfortunately, they've figured out that nothing sells clicks and likes, like conspiracy theories, hate and fear. It goes back to Joseph Goebbels in 1920s Germany, when a German newspaper baron teamed up with Nazi propagandists, not even so much for political reasons, but to sell newspapers, pushing conspiracy theories about the Jews. There was a literal Rupert Murdoch of Nazi Germany. It's funny how history does literally repeat itself.
Ryan Mcbeth is an institutionalist. He drank the kool-aid a long time ago and has some really odd views on some core issues. But Mcbeth does know his stuff when it comes to the technical or practical side of things from an engineering perspective. I don't know anything about Sam. Shawn Ryan has all sorts of people on his show. I didn't see that particular show but I'm assuming we can make up our own minds about whether Sam is a liar or not?
But this attack on Shawn Ryan is not going to go over very well. Shawn Ryan over the years has done some very good work in exposing institutional corruption in the military, especially the Navy. Getting the Captain who ran Navy Seals Training exonerated recently is a good example.
He's extremely honest about what he is saying and the strength of his Podcast is based on bringing in people who normally don't get interviewed; his long-form method of interviewing; and his letting the guest make their case rather than talking over them. He comes off as a really good person.
I am sorry, but I think you are the one sipping the Kool Aid here. This guy routinely invites guests who push false or misleading claims. I admit that once in a while he has guests who genuinely aim to do good, but the show has ventured too deep into conspiracies. We are talking 9/11 truthers, election deniers with no real proof, COVID skeptics who ignore established science, January 6 apologists who rewrite history, and former service members who brush aside the reality of the 2007 Blackwater Massacre in Nisour Square, where private contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians and some were later convicted on serious charges.
At this point, I do not consider him a credible voice for meaningful discussions. I am all for rooting out corruption and improving both mental and physical care for our veterans and active duty service members, but the show has turned into a platform for unchallenged conspiracies rather than an honest, fact based conversation.
I've never understood the logic of the 9/11 truthers since there are reasonable explanations for the points they often cite as proof. But your other points--that's just lazy. You listen to the mainstream media and the political side they support and come up with your generally matching conclusions.
I understood the COVID hysteria during the early days because people were scared. And when that fear faded and the facts of what actually happened started coming out, people like you stuck to their original positions because they perceived they were being told their fear was baseless--which it wasn't. COVID was real and people, mostly people of a certain age with more than one comorbidity, did die. But it's 2025 now, not 2021. The story regarding the lies and manipulations that was pushed during the COVID have been coming out for a while now via civil litigation, public policy changes in Europe, and hopefully there will be criminal prosecutions. Spouting off about "established science" or as it was falsely characterized at the time, "settled science," makes you sound like a kook. Those are political characterizations. No reputable scientist would ever say "We start with the scientific method as the basis for scientific inquiry--except for this list that Graak put together--those subjects have reached their conclusion and are now officially "settled."
"Election deniers?" Another political term that I'm sure you're not applying to Hillary Clinton's efforts smear Trump as only having won in 2016 because Russia made it happen. We had to endure four years of nonsense and endless, evidence free, political investigations. Tens of millions were spent on this witch-hunt. Violent protesters burned up property and attacked and injured thousands of police officers--but no problem for you I suppose? We were told that "This is what Democracy looks like."
Then 2020 happened and instantly, we went from Russia having fixed the 2016
I respect that you are skeptical, but a lot of the claims in your message can be challenged by documented facts:
First, on COVID. Early in the pandemic there was fear and uncertainty because very little was known, and public health advice evolved as research and data came in. That does not mean all guidance was a “lie.” Multiple peer-reviewed studies, conducted in different countries, consistently showed that vaccines helped reduce severe illness and death. Scientific consensus can change over time when new evidence appears, but consensus is not a political term. It is what emerges after data is tested and retested. If there are specific court cases or investigations proving criminal behavior by health officials, they should be cited. So far, most litigation has centered on policy disputes or procedural issues rather than prosecutable wrongdoing.
Second, the term “election deniers” is not simply a partisan label. It commonly refers to people who allege widespread fraud despite courts and audits finding no basis for overturning results. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 complaints about Russian influence led to the Mueller investigation, which indicted multiple Russian nationals and entities for election interference. Although President Trump was not charged with criminal conspiracy, the report confirmed that foreign actors attempted to disrupt the process. That is different from falsely claiming ballots were massively altered in 2020 and having those claims consistently dismissed by Republican and Democratic judges alike.
Third, the idea that “violent protesters burned up property and attacked and injured thousands of police officers” with zero pushback ignores the reality that those involved in property destruction or assaults during protests in 2020 were arrested and charged in multiple states. Many of these prosecutions are public record, and convictions have been handed down. Condemning violence is not just about January 6 or just about the 2020 protests; it is about applying the law regardless of political leanings.
Finally, there is nothing unusual about scientists using terms like “settled science” to describe areas where massive evidence supports a conclusion. Evolution, the link between smoking and cancer, and the fact that COVID is caused by a coronavirus are all examples of established scientific knowledge. That does not mean science cannot adapt when faced with new evidence, but it does mean overwhelming data backs the core conclusions. Calling these settled does not magically halt research; it just reflects that any new claim would need significant, verifiable proof to overturn what is already well-established.
Skepticism is valuable. However, it should come with facts that stand up to scrutiny. If there is proof of widespread election fraud, scientific malpractice, or criminal conspiracy, it should be presented in courts or in peer-reviewed studies. When those institutions repeatedly reject the claims, it is worth considering that the evidence might not be as strong as advertised.
Election to "We just had the safest and fairest election in history." And if you think otherwise you need to have your speech suppressed and get smeared as a "election denier." I suppose you were one of the hysterics claiming that 67 Courts looked at the evidence and found no evidence of Election fraud. Did it bother you that this lie was repeated so often by the media that many people actually think there were trials that took place after investigations were done, discovery took place, and evidence was presented to a Court?
There were problems with the 2020 Election. Hundreds of laws were changed in advance of that Election in several key States. Oversight was weakened, or in where cases where oversight was baked in--standards were ignored. Recounts were done--but the signature matches were not. When that pipe supposedly burst in Atlanta and the counting of the vote stopped as monitors were kicked out--did you protest Graak when counting didn't actually stop and there wasn't a burst pipe in play that stopped it? Did you say "Okay, well you have a point on that one." Or did you just laugh?
There were so many examples of fraud, or statutes not being enforced. How about the one where the allegation was made that remote actors could access the voting machines? Now I personally don't believe the 2020 Election was impacted by voter machine manipulation. What I'm talking about was the response to the allegation. We were told it was impossible. There was no way to access those machines from outside of the building or facility those machines were located. That allegation was a blatant lie--and if you say there was, well you are an "election denier!" But strangely, when the very same people who were operating the voting machines were asked "Well if you had a problem? Like a mechanical or software issue. What would you do?" Answer: "Well, we would contact the Dominion techs in Colorado and they would remotely access the device to see what the problem was and work up a solution." What? That must have been a huge story in the media at the time, right Graak? It wasn't? Because...ah...repairing a machine remotely is different from changing vote counts remotely. Yeh...that works.
How about examples where vacant lots were discovered with voters registered at that address? Literal vacant lots. Now here is where the Graak types had a chance to say "Okay! You have one there. Ten voters are registered out of a vacant lot! There needs to be an immediate investigation." Instead the Graak types said "Ten voters? That's not enough to change the Election's outcome! Investigation! What a waste of resources that would be! You're saying there were other vacant lots? Shut up Election Denier!"
There are countless examples that don't involve nutty conspiracy theories. What actually happened was the American people found out that issues of Election fraud have to be dealt with prior to an Election as big as a Presidential Election. There is simply no time for traditional practices of allegations leading to investigations, followed by Discovery, gathering witnesses, followed by presenting those findings to a Court. The goal of the other side was to spout claims that anyone claiming fraud was a nut, and delaying any inquiry until it was too late.
Even with that some heroic efforts were made. Tens of thousands of election workers signed affidavits, thousands of documents and other evidence was gathered, video was produced--some very good cases were put together in a very short amount of time--and never looked at by any Court. Instead these efforts were dismissed on standing grounds or laches. You didn't File in time, you should have Filed this prior to the Election; oh, you should have Filed this afterwards. And that became the basis for the lie "67 Courts looked at the evidence and said there was no Election Fraud."
Even a significant percentage of Democrats didn't believe that Joe Biden pulled in 81 million votes when he was struggling to generate any enthusiasm for his campaign at the time. But it happened and we had another Election four years later with a different outcome. Where were you Graak when the Democrats launched this massive lawfare effort against Trump prior to the 2024 Election? Trying to send him to prison? Bankrupt him via bogus civil actions? When Latisha James declared during her campaign for New York Attorney General that if you vote for her she promises to prosecute Donald Trump--did you protest Graak? Tell your friends "That is wrong. You can't run for office promising that you will target someone for prison based on a crime you can't name, or for which no evidence exists as of yet!" Did you say something like that Graak?
January 6th? What rewritten history? Do you mean calling a bunch of unarmed protesters insurrectionists who actually had a chance to overthrow the government? That lie? Or that Donald Trump ordered Mike Pence to declare him President or overturn the results of the Election? You mean that lie? If months of violent leftist attacks in multiple States, and Washington, DC failed to stop the Election how was anyone on January 6th going to do anything other than delay a vote by a few hours?
I think most people would agree that if someone on January 6th committed vandalism, or assaulted anyone, especially police officers and other government personnel just doing their jobs, they should go to jail. I would even say the penalty should be a lot stronger because of the context--a message had to be sent. But that same message needed to be sent to those other violent protesters who burned down police stations and set Federal property on fire--but people like you were strangely silent on that one.
Finally, there is plenty of information out there regarding how those Blackwater Contractors were railroaded. The politics of that incident and the various players involved. They were pardoned. Pardons do happen for political or reasons other than justice. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. There was a well documented history leading up to those pardons. And there are other sources on this besides the Shawn Ryan Show--although his show did put the faces and personal stories to several of the men who were accused.
Don't know what to tell you Graak. The media isn't trusted anymore--although far too many people still take their false narratives at face value.. That has led millions of people to do their own research and listen to their own sources for news. Sometimes those sources are questionable and further exploration is required. But spouting mainstream media talking points, with all the attendant baggage that comes with them, doesn't add credibility to your opinions. Pick any of your issues and try a different approach. Avoid loaded terms like "election denier" or "established science." There is just science Graak. And it is ever evolving as more information is discovered, valid studies occur, evidence gets discovered or produced, and things get reexamined. And this process never stops--unless someone named Graak comes along with a different political or ideological viewpoint, gets alternative viewpoints suppressed, gets funding shut off, then talks of "established science." Gee, I wonder how the Graaks of the world made sure a scientific finding won't ever be challenged in the future--it being "established" and all.
I understand your concern, but there are many factual problems in the argument you presented. First, the idea that 67 courts never examined the evidence of election fraud is misleading. Some cases were dismissed on procedural grounds like standing or timing, but several judges, including those appointed by President Trump, did review the merits and found no credible evidence that fraud could have changed the outcome. Bill Barr, who served as Attorney General under Trump, stated that the Justice Department found no large-scale fraud that would alter the election. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which worked with officials of both parties, concluded that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.
Regarding the water leak incident in Georgia, official investigations and security footage confirmed that counting did not continue in secret, and poll watchers were not permanently kicked out. The leak was minor, but it did cause a brief delay. Monitors later returned, and there is no verified evidence that ballots were run through illegally. State-level audits in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan uncovered no widespread manipulation or tampering with machines. Many experts have pointed out that while Dominion Voting Systems and other vendors can connect remotely to troubleshoot problems, there is no proof of unauthorized remote interference with the vote counts.
Claims of vacant lots and false voter registrations do occur in small numbers, and election officials routinely investigate these issues. When they identify real fraud, they refer it for prosecution. State election offices in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and others have reported catching and correcting voter roll errors when discovered. These isolated mistakes are not part of a nationwide plot to sway millions of votes. If you find ten bogus registrations at a vacant lot, that is obviously a concern, but it is not enough to overturn election results decided by tens or hundreds of thousands of votes.
On the Blackwater case, multiple investigations by the FBI and the State Department concluded that the men involved in the 2007 Nisour Square shooting killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded many more. Court proceedings included witness testimony, forensic evidence, and expert analysis that led to criminal convictions for some of those contractors. President Trump later issued pardons, but many officials, including some in the military, felt the pardons undermined the justice process.
January 6 was also more serious than a group of unarmed people wandering the Capitol. Over 1000 participants have been charged with crimes ranging from trespassing to assaulting law enforcement. Hundreds of police officers were injured during the riot, and some later experienced severe trauma or health issues. Members of both parties have condemned the violence. Those who believe protesters should be punished only if they committed vandalism or assault should also acknowledge that the extensive damage and injuries at the Capitol have been well documented and covered by a variety of sources.
Finally, mainstream media definitely has biases, but so do alternative outlets. Trust should be based on verifiable evidence, not just on whether information confirms existing views. It is fair to be skeptical and ask questions, but dismissing all counterarguments as conspiracy or propaganda is not helpful either. Scientific and legal processes rely on continuous testing, open debate, and solid evidence. If there is genuine proof that votes were changed or that the Blackwater contractors were set up, it should be brought forward, tested, and challenged. When investigations and courts consistently reject these claims, there comes a point where maintaining them without new evidence starts to look like denial rather than legitimate skepticism.
I'm going to respond to some of these by memory--not going to pull any records on this reply. You're using a bit of sleight of hand, and I think AI, but I'm open that you might actually believe in what you are saying in quoting the talking points.
There were only a handful of States that actually mattered in that Election; Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan. In Nevada more than enough evidence was gathered and submitted to do an election challenge. Dismissed on procedural grounds. In Arizona a Court did authorize testing to be done regarding signature matches. The results showed a significant discrepancy that favored Biden--both sides concurred. The Court then unilaterally changed the standard from the accepted one used for election controversies to one used for criminal cases involving forgery. And that showcased what because a significant factor in many of these cases--Courts saying "So?" Knowing there was no way in hell, if Courts were not going to follow the law, could something be adjudicated by January 6th.
There was a huge audit done long after the 2020 Election in Arizona. They found tens of thousands of problem ballots. That was the story. How was it presented to the public by the media? Maricopa County refused to release the disks containing critical information that would have taken the audit to a moment of truth. So when it was stated that over 70 thousand ballots were a problem, it was easy for the opposition to ask "So who did those 70,000 vote for then?" "We don't know without the disks." "We just know that 70,000 likely could have been tossed out." Headline: "Audit can't identify a single vote that was fraudulently cast for Biden."
Wisconsin had a significant problem with Granny Harvesting. Meaning nursing homes in specific districts were successfully targeted for ballot harvesting. Yes, a Wisconsin Court did essentially say "Yes, you do show discrepancies on the narrow grounds we allowed for appeal of our original denial, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome--and he was correct because that statement was made long after Biden assumed the Presidency. But was there enough to open an investigation at the time--yes, that was the standard. Was it done? No. But we'll just take that Judge's word for it--whatever was out there during that time, it wouldn't have been enough to overcome 20,000 votes.
Michigan was caught being corrupt in 2016 and in 2020. When Hillary funded the Green Party to do an Election challenge in 2016--something she said she would never do during her campaign--they started finding more votes for Trump in Wayne County and shut down the effort. In 2020 you had the Election Monitors kicked out and the famous video of cardboard being put up to block their view. You had the Republican who was on the Certification Board state on the record that he intended to withhold Certification until an investigation could be done because of all the discrepancies that were being found. Then the video feed was cut off. A few minutes later they were back but now the same guy said he changed his mind and was Certifying the results--and I believe it was two of them that experienced this sudden mind change. There was a fairly strong gathering of documents, witnesses and evidence in Michigan--that went nowhere for a number of reasons--but not because they found nothing.
Pennsylvania changed the law prior to the Election and the Governor assumed an election role that Constitutionally belongs to the State Legislature. The Democrats also controlled the State Supreme Court--which directly intervened when asked to by the Democrat Attorney General when a District Court found there was enough evidence to warrant issuing a stay. Pennsylvania was the State of 3am mass mail drop-offs. A lot happened in Pennsylvania--they violated their own Election laws which is why it's helpful to control the highest Court in the State.
Georgia. The only State where Donald Trump officially launched an Election challenge. It was a very strong challenge. It was a moot point because it was never heard. The Court had 10 days to respond to the challenge--and they didn't, instead choosing to run out the clock. I'll skip their failure to maintain copies of records, copies of records that were available were blocked by Democrat lawsuits, more ballots submitted than were issued, the refusal to do signature matching, the ballots submitted that reflect people who no longer lived in Georgia.
On a side note, the water leak was minor, and it happened the previous day in another area--but that's not what Fulton County told the media, and the American people the night they shut down the counting. And the workers who kept counting were caught. Then the video came out. But they did eventually investigate themselves and found no wrongdoing--so there's that I suppose.
Why did all these State Courts act the way they did? Because when a majority of States Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay so the irregulars could be looked at--they punted on Standing. Two Justices wanted to issue the Stay--they needed four. That signaled to every jurisdiction in the United States that no intervention was required.
So you're using a few talking points. A "Trump appointed Judge" means about as much as being a "Biden appointed Judge." The most significant players in Judicial nominations are normally a State's two Senators. Nominees who are pushed by Democrats or Republicans get confirmed regardless of what Party holds the Presidency at the time. That is hopefully changing. But spouting about someone being appointed by Trump to insinuate that person has a bias in favor of Trump isn't true. It isn't true for any President. You have to look at who the Judge is and who put them up for a nomination. President's are not the ones pushing the appointments. That only happens when you get to a Supreme Court nominee.
There wasn't "hundreds" of officers injured on January 6th. Most estimates put it at around 140--everything from a stubbed toe to getting shoved/punched. The vast majority of the protesters didn't engage in criminal activity. Trespassing is a crime that normally warrants a misdemeanor citation--not four years in jail. You ignored the actual point. There was zero chance these unarmed civilians were going to overthrow the government--and they were not charged with that crime. Just about everyone condemned January 6th--so? Does that mean due process goes out the window and you get treated differently than the BLM/Antifa thugs who burned a church, damaged Federal property, attacked cops, and marched on the Whitehouse?
I'll close this off. A lot of what your AI is saying can be summed up as "The people responsible investigated themselves and found nothing that changes anything." You cite Bill Barr's statement that no voter fraud had been found. You also need to cite that at the time he said it, no investigation had been done. So what's the basis for his Statement? One US Attorney in Pennsylvania tried to launch an investigation and Barr directed him to stop it. So no, you don't get to cite someone who refused to look, who refused to even ask questions, as a source confirming that nothing happened.
Well, I don't agree with you about Shawn, he's too much of a click hunter in my estimate, and I've never been one for conspiracy. Incompetence, bureaucracy, and politics is typically my understanding of shit government policy. However, that is a cogent, well reasoned and written argument that I can find very little fault with.
The most positive thing about what seems to be some rather terrible events is that I still live in a country where I can listen to both sides of this and make my opinion known to the public at large.
I'm no fan of media. I grew up with HollyWeird selling their brand of truth through film in the 80's, went to war with CNN in the 91, for myself from '95 to '06, listened to NPR like a good boy through undergrad and my second career, then Glen Beck and into Fox News until Trump's first term, and finally through all the people I admired from gwot through grad school into covid.
The only consistent theme has been all of these institutions rising and later becoming less reliable. I don't know if SR or ever Mr. McBeth are on the right side of these events, but, I am happy I still have access to both sides.
Thank you James for reminding me that there are reasonable arguments being made and that I don't need to agree with someone to admire the intelligence, integrity, and thought behind an intelligent opinion.
Thank you for your response. There is no perfect source of information and you are right; incompetence, bureaucracy and politics--I would add ideology--is usually the answer for garbage public policy. Conspiracies I normally discount because it incredibly hard to get multiple players together who work at different specialties to somehow collaborate on some mind-blowing plot--without leaking it at some point.
James, I definitely see your point and agree with most of your comments. BUT my hope is that IF Ryan and Shawn have an opportunity to talk they are able to get a better understanding and general thought process on why Shawn has certain guests on his podcast (I like Shawn and what he is doing overall). Having someone on the podcast that is not “on the level” so to speak does offer them a platform to be heard. But I think that it’s a double edged sword, they are spreading whatever info on a large platform yes, but that light is likely going to shine on the guest in a way that is not positive for the guest thus giving them more “hater’s” and quickly ending their 15 minutes of fame. And having a controversial guest is usually good for clicks, comments, and currency. Like it or not it seems to be the way it is in that business. Cheers 🍻
Shawn Ryan has recently spoken of his vetting process. Even telling Joe Rogan how he taped an entire show with one guest, but then after additional fact checking decided to not air it. Good on him. Tucker Carlson had a problem recently by giving a platform to a "historian" who peddled some nonsense. It happens. Tucker has a soft spot for people who have a more radical view on some issues--but he needs to be aware of his own bias. He gets a lot right, but the viewer has to factor this certainty he has into their own take on things. Tucker firmly believes the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Japan was an act of evil. Not open to debate, not questionable. Full stop. By definition--full blown evil. The up to two million American military personnel who were projected to be casualties, and the millions of Japanese civilians who didn't lose their lives because the invasion never happened might have a different viewpoint? The war is always evil crowd never can answer the question "Okay, so if we don't fight WWII, who defeats the Nazis? How does the Holocaust end? Not everything is about the military industrial complex, sometimes wars have to be fought.
Mistakes happen and when they do it's up to the viewer dig a little deeper. Or if the problem is more than the occasional one-off--finding better content. Ryan Mcbeth puts out great content--but some of his ideology is a problem. He supports DEI--mainly because he doesn't seem to actually know what it is--believing it to be about recruiting people with diverse skillsets that can benefit an organization. It's a racist ideology that reduces human beings to their immutable characteristics. How can someone has smart as Ryan believe in that racist ideology--but he does and says so with utter conviction. I'm hoping that he does a little more research on these topics if he's going to make statements supporting these types of ideologies.
Can we please see the toxicology/blood work report from the Vegas terrorist! He was clearly delusional and paranoid, spreading all sorts of wild conspiracy theories and thinking that Government was after him. Can we just put an end to it once and for all! WHAT DRUGS WERE INVOLVED?
The right wing propaganda machine convinced him of a whole bunch of things that are not true. Backing Musk, Trump, and Kennedy is not the answer people think it will be. No one is getting pulled out of poverty by those three. No, they will make things worse for everyone. TK wants to abolish the Department of Education, said it himself. Musk will take advantage of the ignorance of the people by cutting what sounds like a lot of money, but is actually chump change and it will all come from programs people need. His government contracts will certainly not be impacted negatively. And Trump? Let's just say I expect his 2nd term to be far worse than the first and that is saying something.
This is exactly why I pay money support you Ryan. I don't always agree with some of your takes, but you do tend to shine a light on things that people need to be aware of.
The Shawn Ryan Show has a history of bringing on guests whose views many would consider controversial. Some have attempted to gloss over or minimize the 2007 Blackwater Massacre in Nisour Square, Baghdad, where Blackwater private security contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded more than 20 others. Investigations by the FBI and other agencies concluded that these actions were unjustified, and several contractors were ultimately convicted of charges including manslaughter. Giving a platform to people who try to whitewash an event of this magnitude is unsettling.
The show has also featured current or former members of government intelligence agencies who criticize Edward Snowden. While opinions on Snowden vary, it is a fact that he exposed the National Security Agency for illegally spying on American citizens. Whether he went too far is open to debate, but if the agency had been operating within legal limits, there would not have been anything to leak.
Being fair does not mean every viewpoint deserves unchallenged air time. It means pushing back on guests who misrepresent facts or promote outright falsehoods. Asking for evidence and holding people accountable is essential to maintain credibility. Many on both sides of the political spectrum have grown wary of mainstream outlets that chase controversy without questioning it, and platforms like yours risk falling into the same trap if they fail to question or contest dubious claims.
Been a long time watcher of Ryan, and just subscribed finally, and it's nice to read comments and interact with like minded (sane!) people.
The Snowden topic is an interesting one. I've worked for the government the last bunch-o-years as a software developer, and went from Snowden being a hero, to it being well, in my view, much more nuanced.
Yes, they were (and are) collecting a massive amount of data, but people WILLINGLY give 100x more information to social media sites like Facebook, then prop up Snowden as a hero. He's come out way too strongly anti-American, being a "useful idiot" to Putin as of late, for me. It tarnished any semblance of thinking of him as a hero, at least for me.
It's nice to be able to have these conversations, which are like many things, nuanced, without having to be labeled left or right, although I clearly consider the GOP "damaged goods" at this point, growing up Republican, then switching to a moderate. There's just not this level of conspiracy theory believing folks on the left, like with the Trumpers. Granted, there's some, but nothing like these people (friends of mine included) who think the election was rigged and literally the earth is flat, etc.
I certainly believe the Election in 2020 had a massive amount of fraud. Certainly enough to change the outcome. But I didn't take Donald Trump's word for it. And how it was done--the big picture stuff, is readily available to the public. The deeper stuff--dead voters, targeting ballot harvesting, mass mailings to all registered voters using outdated information that ensured more ballots than voters were floating around, rules, policies and standards altered or changed--or just ignored; the 51 Intelligence Officers who declared the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation and the subsequent suppression of that information--not the information that Hunter Biden liked Cocaine and hookers, the information that his father took bribes and used his Office to benefit himself and his family financially. You don't think that suppression had an impact?
Don't know about anyone who believes the Earth is flat. I'm sure they are out there. But you are claiming that you know, or have met people who believe the Earth is flat--and believe the 2020 Election was stolen? I can articulate how the 2020 Election had major issues--issues that are never rebutted. Instead it's name calling. But I would have a hard time articulating the Earth is flat. How would such a person explain the horizon? Let alone satellite imagery of Earth--I suppose that's all fake according to your friends?
I find government data collection on citizens dubious at best. Just because I agree to Facebook gathering some of my information does not mean the government should have it. Yet agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have bought personal data from private brokers, including location and app usage data. That is not something I knowingly consented to. We need stronger privacy laws to protect our information. It is almost impossible to function in society without handing over facial data for recognition systems. You cannot even get a proper ID without a photo, and many states share that information with each other and with federal authorities. It would not surprise me if it ends up shared across borders too.
As for Snowden, or anyone in a similar position, there is always more nuance. I think he did the right thing by showing Americans they were being spied on illegally, but I also believe he should have stayed and taken responsibility for his actions. It bothers me that he ended up in a hostile country when there were other nations without extradition. Still, I get that he felt he had no choice but to leave.
I see the faux outrage over that one CEO who got shot, leading to a massive manhunt and daily NYPD press briefings telling us we are wrong if we feel even a little empathy for the suspect. Meanwhile, thousands of people died in that same stretch of time because they were denied medical care by insurance providers. A school shooting happened after the CEO's death, and it only got a couple of days of headlines. That shows how the death of a wealthy executive is apparently more newsworthy than children being murdered at school.
Back to the main point, it really upsets me that people like Shawn Ryan and Joe Rogan invite guests on their podcasts who spew complete nonsense without any pushback. They are no different from Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN when they bring on climate deniers or January 6 apologists under the excuse of showing "both sides." Some things do not need both sides; they need truth and facts. Because of this, everyone retreats into social media bubbles that reinforce their own misinformation, and it just gets worse. Right or wrong, the federal government is also picking winners and losers by targeting certain platforms like TikTok, which only adds fuel to the fire.
I could rant on for days, but I think you get where I'm coming from.
The suicide letter by Master Sargeant Matthew Livelsberger is somber. Most of the content is not new to us; it's been part of the public discourse for years now. But it's a serious message that should make us reflect on our personal and collective paths.
The big problem here comes from the response and not the initial error of poor fact checking. We can all be fooled when we are under time pressure. Ryan Shaw could do a huge service by admitting that he was fooled. Betcha he won't do that. But he should. Ryan McBeth would if he discovered he had been lied to. Right now in tech side of the YouTube world mia culpas are coming from every top reviewer over the "Honey Scam." I watch a lot of these videos. To me, admitting when you got it wrong or were fooled yourself increases my willingness to believe what they are saying in other contexts. Wrong information can be self corrected in a situation where people react appropriately to new information. I had to do this for years in my career. Never liked being wrong but I liked staying wrong even more.
we get the unvarnished, no bullshit analysis from Ryan!
It's posts like this where I give Ryan ENORMOUS respect for calling out these disingenuous YouTubers like Shawn Ryan (as many would never say derogatory things about Joe Rogan, etc in fear of being blacklisted from their podcasts, etc).
My question for Ryan would be, if he thinks Shawn is a "true believer" (believes in this Russian propaganda as truth) or one of these even more sinister types, like a Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, who know they are spreading lies, but don't care, as the clicks and likes are worth more to them than the damage they know they are causing to society and to American institutions.
It's ironic how many of these special forces types are so, well, let's call it for what it is: anti-American. I don't care if you served, what you did when you served, etc, if you're intentionally eroding confidence in American institutions (even with how flawed they can be, like any institution), you are not a patriot, you're a traitor, in my view.
100%
From what I know from his past, Shawn Ryan doesn’t seem to be one to purposely put out disinformation for greed. He has, in the past, given time to suspect people like Tim Kennedy and Robert O’Neill. You think he interviews controversial military vets and gov’t operator types for us to decide the merits of their stories? His written synopsis for this podcast seems to indicate he questions the veracity of Shoemate’s story. The question would be, does giving questionable people a chance to air their stories, no matter how specious, make Shawn an enabler? In this case, his interview gave you the chance to debunk Shoemate.
Shawn’s synopsis:
“Sam Shoemate is an intelligence officer and Chief Warrant Officer 2 (US Army, Retired). On December 31st, Sam received an email allegedly from Matthew Livelsberger - who would be named as the perpetrator in the detonation of a Tesla Cybertruck at Trump Tower the following day. In this episode of the Shawn Ryan Show, Shoemate brings forward critical information and allegations that cast doubt on the “mainstream” narratives surrounding this event - and many others - if true.”
I do appreciate the analysis you provide in your Substack and YouTube. I even buy you a coffee every month.
If he did not want to put out disinformation, why would he put out Shoemate?
You don't need to affirm lies, you just give them air and appearance of prior scrutiny.
When someone says "This is the truth", the journalist has an obligation to at least do a smell test to see if it is probably the truth before they transmit lies to millions of people.
Shawn Ryan is not even remotely sniffing the bullshit that people are feeding him. He is airing whatever clickbait garbage comes his way and trying to cover his ass by putting "if true" in the description.
I unsubbed from his podcast ages ago because of this nonsense.
My thoughts exactly.
No. If he (S. Ryan) smelled a rat, he should not have aired said rats message.
Sam S said he deleted the message, but then shows us the message....hmmmm ok. Someone is lying
He could've gotten it from the trash (deleted messages) folder.
Sorry but I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've seen endless lies, propaganda and disinformation, mainly on the political front emanate from Shawn Ryan and many (most) of the other special forces type podcasts. I've wondered why so many of them have turned into MAGA propagators of disinformation, and what happened to the code among military folks, especially special forces, to not be public with their views. Maybe it's just the more rational centrists, leftists, whatever you want to call them, keep quiet as is the tradition, or maybe this is how the majority of them thing, I don't know. I will say, you see very few Delta Operators with the disinformation podcasts like Ryan, and I've heard many say they are generally the most intelligent.
Either way, Shawn Ryan regularly pushes disinformation, and whether it's intentional, or just being lazy about what he says, it doesn't matter. People believe the crap he spews and take it for gospel, because of his status as a special forces operator. To me that's the most disgusting part, using the military as a beacon of credibility, to push institutional eroding disinformation.
I watched the Shawn Ryan show and enjoyed it till he had a Canadian special forces on the show who is a great soldier who I had respected. I am a Canadian veteran infantry and I know when you go to a country in the world you have to respect their laws to a certain extent. We can go on for hours but let’s stick to the COVID vacine. When I first joined I had no idea I would turn into a pin cushion, I do not remember how many shots I had to get but to meet the requirements of certain vaccines like Polio or Yellow Fever and 8 more to be able to serve overseas and over the years they added vaccines like hepatitis.
Now COVID, if a Canadian soldier refused the COVID vaccine he could no longer travel to countries like Britain, France or even the USA yes maybe Iraq or Afghanistan did not have a requirement so the soldier could travel there. Cannot travel then you cannot serve, did not matter what you believed or your political associations. Same goes for large companies let’s say you work for IBM or Delta if they needed to send you to a country that demands the Yollowfever vaccine.
So after that show I lost a lot of respect for the show then saw a show that had conspiracy’s I was done I no longer trust what Shan Ryan says
Hindsight is 20/20 and immunologists, epidemiologists (people who actually know stuff) say we dodged one hell of a bullet. It's easy to say now that C19 vaccine mandates weren't necessary, but if it had been as bad as say, SARS, these anti-vaxxers were putting all their military buddies and comrades in danger. Not cool.
I worked at a Harley Davidson dealer and next door there is a BMW dealer. They did not follow any COVID precautions and three employees got sick with COVID the Province of Québec closed them for 3 weeks in May, I figure they lost at least 2 million but when they re-opened they sure followed all COVID precautions and as the word got all of the stores around us did as well.
Hey Roger, was that in Montreal?
Yes
Bought my 3rd bike there.
Unfortunately, they've figured out that nothing sells clicks and likes, like conspiracy theories, hate and fear. It goes back to Joseph Goebbels in 1920s Germany, when a German newspaper baron teamed up with Nazi propagandists, not even so much for political reasons, but to sell newspapers, pushing conspiracy theories about the Jews. There was a literal Rupert Murdoch of Nazi Germany. It's funny how history does literally repeat itself.
Money, money, money
Ryan Mcbeth is an institutionalist. He drank the kool-aid a long time ago and has some really odd views on some core issues. But Mcbeth does know his stuff when it comes to the technical or practical side of things from an engineering perspective. I don't know anything about Sam. Shawn Ryan has all sorts of people on his show. I didn't see that particular show but I'm assuming we can make up our own minds about whether Sam is a liar or not?
But this attack on Shawn Ryan is not going to go over very well. Shawn Ryan over the years has done some very good work in exposing institutional corruption in the military, especially the Navy. Getting the Captain who ran Navy Seals Training exonerated recently is a good example.
He's extremely honest about what he is saying and the strength of his Podcast is based on bringing in people who normally don't get interviewed; his long-form method of interviewing; and his letting the guest make their case rather than talking over them. He comes off as a really good person.
I am sorry, but I think you are the one sipping the Kool Aid here. This guy routinely invites guests who push false or misleading claims. I admit that once in a while he has guests who genuinely aim to do good, but the show has ventured too deep into conspiracies. We are talking 9/11 truthers, election deniers with no real proof, COVID skeptics who ignore established science, January 6 apologists who rewrite history, and former service members who brush aside the reality of the 2007 Blackwater Massacre in Nisour Square, where private contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians and some were later convicted on serious charges.
At this point, I do not consider him a credible voice for meaningful discussions. I am all for rooting out corruption and improving both mental and physical care for our veterans and active duty service members, but the show has turned into a platform for unchallenged conspiracies rather than an honest, fact based conversation.
I've never understood the logic of the 9/11 truthers since there are reasonable explanations for the points they often cite as proof. But your other points--that's just lazy. You listen to the mainstream media and the political side they support and come up with your generally matching conclusions.
I understood the COVID hysteria during the early days because people were scared. And when that fear faded and the facts of what actually happened started coming out, people like you stuck to their original positions because they perceived they were being told their fear was baseless--which it wasn't. COVID was real and people, mostly people of a certain age with more than one comorbidity, did die. But it's 2025 now, not 2021. The story regarding the lies and manipulations that was pushed during the COVID have been coming out for a while now via civil litigation, public policy changes in Europe, and hopefully there will be criminal prosecutions. Spouting off about "established science" or as it was falsely characterized at the time, "settled science," makes you sound like a kook. Those are political characterizations. No reputable scientist would ever say "We start with the scientific method as the basis for scientific inquiry--except for this list that Graak put together--those subjects have reached their conclusion and are now officially "settled."
"Election deniers?" Another political term that I'm sure you're not applying to Hillary Clinton's efforts smear Trump as only having won in 2016 because Russia made it happen. We had to endure four years of nonsense and endless, evidence free, political investigations. Tens of millions were spent on this witch-hunt. Violent protesters burned up property and attacked and injured thousands of police officers--but no problem for you I suppose? We were told that "This is what Democracy looks like."
Then 2020 happened and instantly, we went from Russia having fixed the 2016
I respect that you are skeptical, but a lot of the claims in your message can be challenged by documented facts:
First, on COVID. Early in the pandemic there was fear and uncertainty because very little was known, and public health advice evolved as research and data came in. That does not mean all guidance was a “lie.” Multiple peer-reviewed studies, conducted in different countries, consistently showed that vaccines helped reduce severe illness and death. Scientific consensus can change over time when new evidence appears, but consensus is not a political term. It is what emerges after data is tested and retested. If there are specific court cases or investigations proving criminal behavior by health officials, they should be cited. So far, most litigation has centered on policy disputes or procedural issues rather than prosecutable wrongdoing.
Second, the term “election deniers” is not simply a partisan label. It commonly refers to people who allege widespread fraud despite courts and audits finding no basis for overturning results. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 complaints about Russian influence led to the Mueller investigation, which indicted multiple Russian nationals and entities for election interference. Although President Trump was not charged with criminal conspiracy, the report confirmed that foreign actors attempted to disrupt the process. That is different from falsely claiming ballots were massively altered in 2020 and having those claims consistently dismissed by Republican and Democratic judges alike.
Third, the idea that “violent protesters burned up property and attacked and injured thousands of police officers” with zero pushback ignores the reality that those involved in property destruction or assaults during protests in 2020 were arrested and charged in multiple states. Many of these prosecutions are public record, and convictions have been handed down. Condemning violence is not just about January 6 or just about the 2020 protests; it is about applying the law regardless of political leanings.
Finally, there is nothing unusual about scientists using terms like “settled science” to describe areas where massive evidence supports a conclusion. Evolution, the link between smoking and cancer, and the fact that COVID is caused by a coronavirus are all examples of established scientific knowledge. That does not mean science cannot adapt when faced with new evidence, but it does mean overwhelming data backs the core conclusions. Calling these settled does not magically halt research; it just reflects that any new claim would need significant, verifiable proof to overturn what is already well-established.
Skepticism is valuable. However, it should come with facts that stand up to scrutiny. If there is proof of widespread election fraud, scientific malpractice, or criminal conspiracy, it should be presented in courts or in peer-reviewed studies. When those institutions repeatedly reject the claims, it is worth considering that the evidence might not be as strong as advertised.
Election to "We just had the safest and fairest election in history." And if you think otherwise you need to have your speech suppressed and get smeared as a "election denier." I suppose you were one of the hysterics claiming that 67 Courts looked at the evidence and found no evidence of Election fraud. Did it bother you that this lie was repeated so often by the media that many people actually think there were trials that took place after investigations were done, discovery took place, and evidence was presented to a Court?
There were problems with the 2020 Election. Hundreds of laws were changed in advance of that Election in several key States. Oversight was weakened, or in where cases where oversight was baked in--standards were ignored. Recounts were done--but the signature matches were not. When that pipe supposedly burst in Atlanta and the counting of the vote stopped as monitors were kicked out--did you protest Graak when counting didn't actually stop and there wasn't a burst pipe in play that stopped it? Did you say "Okay, well you have a point on that one." Or did you just laugh?
There were so many examples of fraud, or statutes not being enforced. How about the one where the allegation was made that remote actors could access the voting machines? Now I personally don't believe the 2020 Election was impacted by voter machine manipulation. What I'm talking about was the response to the allegation. We were told it was impossible. There was no way to access those machines from outside of the building or facility those machines were located. That allegation was a blatant lie--and if you say there was, well you are an "election denier!" But strangely, when the very same people who were operating the voting machines were asked "Well if you had a problem? Like a mechanical or software issue. What would you do?" Answer: "Well, we would contact the Dominion techs in Colorado and they would remotely access the device to see what the problem was and work up a solution." What? That must have been a huge story in the media at the time, right Graak? It wasn't? Because...ah...repairing a machine remotely is different from changing vote counts remotely. Yeh...that works.
How about examples where vacant lots were discovered with voters registered at that address? Literal vacant lots. Now here is where the Graak types had a chance to say "Okay! You have one there. Ten voters are registered out of a vacant lot! There needs to be an immediate investigation." Instead the Graak types said "Ten voters? That's not enough to change the Election's outcome! Investigation! What a waste of resources that would be! You're saying there were other vacant lots? Shut up Election Denier!"
There are countless examples that don't involve nutty conspiracy theories. What actually happened was the American people found out that issues of Election fraud have to be dealt with prior to an Election as big as a Presidential Election. There is simply no time for traditional practices of allegations leading to investigations, followed by Discovery, gathering witnesses, followed by presenting those findings to a Court. The goal of the other side was to spout claims that anyone claiming fraud was a nut, and delaying any inquiry until it was too late.
Even with that some heroic efforts were made. Tens of thousands of election workers signed affidavits, thousands of documents and other evidence was gathered, video was produced--some very good cases were put together in a very short amount of time--and never looked at by any Court. Instead these efforts were dismissed on standing grounds or laches. You didn't File in time, you should have Filed this prior to the Election; oh, you should have Filed this afterwards. And that became the basis for the lie "67 Courts looked at the evidence and said there was no Election Fraud."
Even a significant percentage of Democrats didn't believe that Joe Biden pulled in 81 million votes when he was struggling to generate any enthusiasm for his campaign at the time. But it happened and we had another Election four years later with a different outcome. Where were you Graak when the Democrats launched this massive lawfare effort against Trump prior to the 2024 Election? Trying to send him to prison? Bankrupt him via bogus civil actions? When Latisha James declared during her campaign for New York Attorney General that if you vote for her she promises to prosecute Donald Trump--did you protest Graak? Tell your friends "That is wrong. You can't run for office promising that you will target someone for prison based on a crime you can't name, or for which no evidence exists as of yet!" Did you say something like that Graak?
January 6th? What rewritten history? Do you mean calling a bunch of unarmed protesters insurrectionists who actually had a chance to overthrow the government? That lie? Or that Donald Trump ordered Mike Pence to declare him President or overturn the results of the Election? You mean that lie? If months of violent leftist attacks in multiple States, and Washington, DC failed to stop the Election how was anyone on January 6th going to do anything other than delay a vote by a few hours?
I think most people would agree that if someone on January 6th committed vandalism, or assaulted anyone, especially police officers and other government personnel just doing their jobs, they should go to jail. I would even say the penalty should be a lot stronger because of the context--a message had to be sent. But that same message needed to be sent to those other violent protesters who burned down police stations and set Federal property on fire--but people like you were strangely silent on that one.
Finally, there is plenty of information out there regarding how those Blackwater Contractors were railroaded. The politics of that incident and the various players involved. They were pardoned. Pardons do happen for political or reasons other than justice. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. There was a well documented history leading up to those pardons. And there are other sources on this besides the Shawn Ryan Show--although his show did put the faces and personal stories to several of the men who were accused.
Don't know what to tell you Graak. The media isn't trusted anymore--although far too many people still take their false narratives at face value.. That has led millions of people to do their own research and listen to their own sources for news. Sometimes those sources are questionable and further exploration is required. But spouting mainstream media talking points, with all the attendant baggage that comes with them, doesn't add credibility to your opinions. Pick any of your issues and try a different approach. Avoid loaded terms like "election denier" or "established science." There is just science Graak. And it is ever evolving as more information is discovered, valid studies occur, evidence gets discovered or produced, and things get reexamined. And this process never stops--unless someone named Graak comes along with a different political or ideological viewpoint, gets alternative viewpoints suppressed, gets funding shut off, then talks of "established science." Gee, I wonder how the Graaks of the world made sure a scientific finding won't ever be challenged in the future--it being "established" and all.
I understand your concern, but there are many factual problems in the argument you presented. First, the idea that 67 courts never examined the evidence of election fraud is misleading. Some cases were dismissed on procedural grounds like standing or timing, but several judges, including those appointed by President Trump, did review the merits and found no credible evidence that fraud could have changed the outcome. Bill Barr, who served as Attorney General under Trump, stated that the Justice Department found no large-scale fraud that would alter the election. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which worked with officials of both parties, concluded that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.
Regarding the water leak incident in Georgia, official investigations and security footage confirmed that counting did not continue in secret, and poll watchers were not permanently kicked out. The leak was minor, but it did cause a brief delay. Monitors later returned, and there is no verified evidence that ballots were run through illegally. State-level audits in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan uncovered no widespread manipulation or tampering with machines. Many experts have pointed out that while Dominion Voting Systems and other vendors can connect remotely to troubleshoot problems, there is no proof of unauthorized remote interference with the vote counts.
Claims of vacant lots and false voter registrations do occur in small numbers, and election officials routinely investigate these issues. When they identify real fraud, they refer it for prosecution. State election offices in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and others have reported catching and correcting voter roll errors when discovered. These isolated mistakes are not part of a nationwide plot to sway millions of votes. If you find ten bogus registrations at a vacant lot, that is obviously a concern, but it is not enough to overturn election results decided by tens or hundreds of thousands of votes.
On the Blackwater case, multiple investigations by the FBI and the State Department concluded that the men involved in the 2007 Nisour Square shooting killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded many more. Court proceedings included witness testimony, forensic evidence, and expert analysis that led to criminal convictions for some of those contractors. President Trump later issued pardons, but many officials, including some in the military, felt the pardons undermined the justice process.
January 6 was also more serious than a group of unarmed people wandering the Capitol. Over 1000 participants have been charged with crimes ranging from trespassing to assaulting law enforcement. Hundreds of police officers were injured during the riot, and some later experienced severe trauma or health issues. Members of both parties have condemned the violence. Those who believe protesters should be punished only if they committed vandalism or assault should also acknowledge that the extensive damage and injuries at the Capitol have been well documented and covered by a variety of sources.
Finally, mainstream media definitely has biases, but so do alternative outlets. Trust should be based on verifiable evidence, not just on whether information confirms existing views. It is fair to be skeptical and ask questions, but dismissing all counterarguments as conspiracy or propaganda is not helpful either. Scientific and legal processes rely on continuous testing, open debate, and solid evidence. If there is genuine proof that votes were changed or that the Blackwater contractors were set up, it should be brought forward, tested, and challenged. When investigations and courts consistently reject these claims, there comes a point where maintaining them without new evidence starts to look like denial rather than legitimate skepticism.
I'm going to respond to some of these by memory--not going to pull any records on this reply. You're using a bit of sleight of hand, and I think AI, but I'm open that you might actually believe in what you are saying in quoting the talking points.
There were only a handful of States that actually mattered in that Election; Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan. In Nevada more than enough evidence was gathered and submitted to do an election challenge. Dismissed on procedural grounds. In Arizona a Court did authorize testing to be done regarding signature matches. The results showed a significant discrepancy that favored Biden--both sides concurred. The Court then unilaterally changed the standard from the accepted one used for election controversies to one used for criminal cases involving forgery. And that showcased what because a significant factor in many of these cases--Courts saying "So?" Knowing there was no way in hell, if Courts were not going to follow the law, could something be adjudicated by January 6th.
There was a huge audit done long after the 2020 Election in Arizona. They found tens of thousands of problem ballots. That was the story. How was it presented to the public by the media? Maricopa County refused to release the disks containing critical information that would have taken the audit to a moment of truth. So when it was stated that over 70 thousand ballots were a problem, it was easy for the opposition to ask "So who did those 70,000 vote for then?" "We don't know without the disks." "We just know that 70,000 likely could have been tossed out." Headline: "Audit can't identify a single vote that was fraudulently cast for Biden."
Wisconsin had a significant problem with Granny Harvesting. Meaning nursing homes in specific districts were successfully targeted for ballot harvesting. Yes, a Wisconsin Court did essentially say "Yes, you do show discrepancies on the narrow grounds we allowed for appeal of our original denial, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome--and he was correct because that statement was made long after Biden assumed the Presidency. But was there enough to open an investigation at the time--yes, that was the standard. Was it done? No. But we'll just take that Judge's word for it--whatever was out there during that time, it wouldn't have been enough to overcome 20,000 votes.
Michigan was caught being corrupt in 2016 and in 2020. When Hillary funded the Green Party to do an Election challenge in 2016--something she said she would never do during her campaign--they started finding more votes for Trump in Wayne County and shut down the effort. In 2020 you had the Election Monitors kicked out and the famous video of cardboard being put up to block their view. You had the Republican who was on the Certification Board state on the record that he intended to withhold Certification until an investigation could be done because of all the discrepancies that were being found. Then the video feed was cut off. A few minutes later they were back but now the same guy said he changed his mind and was Certifying the results--and I believe it was two of them that experienced this sudden mind change. There was a fairly strong gathering of documents, witnesses and evidence in Michigan--that went nowhere for a number of reasons--but not because they found nothing.
Pennsylvania changed the law prior to the Election and the Governor assumed an election role that Constitutionally belongs to the State Legislature. The Democrats also controlled the State Supreme Court--which directly intervened when asked to by the Democrat Attorney General when a District Court found there was enough evidence to warrant issuing a stay. Pennsylvania was the State of 3am mass mail drop-offs. A lot happened in Pennsylvania--they violated their own Election laws which is why it's helpful to control the highest Court in the State.
Georgia. The only State where Donald Trump officially launched an Election challenge. It was a very strong challenge. It was a moot point because it was never heard. The Court had 10 days to respond to the challenge--and they didn't, instead choosing to run out the clock. I'll skip their failure to maintain copies of records, copies of records that were available were blocked by Democrat lawsuits, more ballots submitted than were issued, the refusal to do signature matching, the ballots submitted that reflect people who no longer lived in Georgia.
On a side note, the water leak was minor, and it happened the previous day in another area--but that's not what Fulton County told the media, and the American people the night they shut down the counting. And the workers who kept counting were caught. Then the video came out. But they did eventually investigate themselves and found no wrongdoing--so there's that I suppose.
Why did all these State Courts act the way they did? Because when a majority of States Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay so the irregulars could be looked at--they punted on Standing. Two Justices wanted to issue the Stay--they needed four. That signaled to every jurisdiction in the United States that no intervention was required.
So you're using a few talking points. A "Trump appointed Judge" means about as much as being a "Biden appointed Judge." The most significant players in Judicial nominations are normally a State's two Senators. Nominees who are pushed by Democrats or Republicans get confirmed regardless of what Party holds the Presidency at the time. That is hopefully changing. But spouting about someone being appointed by Trump to insinuate that person has a bias in favor of Trump isn't true. It isn't true for any President. You have to look at who the Judge is and who put them up for a nomination. President's are not the ones pushing the appointments. That only happens when you get to a Supreme Court nominee.
There wasn't "hundreds" of officers injured on January 6th. Most estimates put it at around 140--everything from a stubbed toe to getting shoved/punched. The vast majority of the protesters didn't engage in criminal activity. Trespassing is a crime that normally warrants a misdemeanor citation--not four years in jail. You ignored the actual point. There was zero chance these unarmed civilians were going to overthrow the government--and they were not charged with that crime. Just about everyone condemned January 6th--so? Does that mean due process goes out the window and you get treated differently than the BLM/Antifa thugs who burned a church, damaged Federal property, attacked cops, and marched on the Whitehouse?
I'll close this off. A lot of what your AI is saying can be summed up as "The people responsible investigated themselves and found nothing that changes anything." You cite Bill Barr's statement that no voter fraud had been found. You also need to cite that at the time he said it, no investigation had been done. So what's the basis for his Statement? One US Attorney in Pennsylvania tried to launch an investigation and Barr directed him to stop it. So no, you don't get to cite someone who refused to look, who refused to even ask questions, as a source confirming that nothing happened.
Well, I don't agree with you about Shawn, he's too much of a click hunter in my estimate, and I've never been one for conspiracy. Incompetence, bureaucracy, and politics is typically my understanding of shit government policy. However, that is a cogent, well reasoned and written argument that I can find very little fault with.
The most positive thing about what seems to be some rather terrible events is that I still live in a country where I can listen to both sides of this and make my opinion known to the public at large.
I'm no fan of media. I grew up with HollyWeird selling their brand of truth through film in the 80's, went to war with CNN in the 91, for myself from '95 to '06, listened to NPR like a good boy through undergrad and my second career, then Glen Beck and into Fox News until Trump's first term, and finally through all the people I admired from gwot through grad school into covid.
The only consistent theme has been all of these institutions rising and later becoming less reliable. I don't know if SR or ever Mr. McBeth are on the right side of these events, but, I am happy I still have access to both sides.
Thank you James for reminding me that there are reasonable arguments being made and that I don't need to agree with someone to admire the intelligence, integrity, and thought behind an intelligent opinion.
Thank you for your response. There is no perfect source of information and you are right; incompetence, bureaucracy and politics--I would add ideology--is usually the answer for garbage public policy. Conspiracies I normally discount because it incredibly hard to get multiple players together who work at different specialties to somehow collaborate on some mind-blowing plot--without leaking it at some point.
James, I definitely see your point and agree with most of your comments. BUT my hope is that IF Ryan and Shawn have an opportunity to talk they are able to get a better understanding and general thought process on why Shawn has certain guests on his podcast (I like Shawn and what he is doing overall). Having someone on the podcast that is not “on the level” so to speak does offer them a platform to be heard. But I think that it’s a double edged sword, they are spreading whatever info on a large platform yes, but that light is likely going to shine on the guest in a way that is not positive for the guest thus giving them more “hater’s” and quickly ending their 15 minutes of fame. And having a controversial guest is usually good for clicks, comments, and currency. Like it or not it seems to be the way it is in that business. Cheers 🍻
Shawn Ryan has recently spoken of his vetting process. Even telling Joe Rogan how he taped an entire show with one guest, but then after additional fact checking decided to not air it. Good on him. Tucker Carlson had a problem recently by giving a platform to a "historian" who peddled some nonsense. It happens. Tucker has a soft spot for people who have a more radical view on some issues--but he needs to be aware of his own bias. He gets a lot right, but the viewer has to factor this certainty he has into their own take on things. Tucker firmly believes the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Japan was an act of evil. Not open to debate, not questionable. Full stop. By definition--full blown evil. The up to two million American military personnel who were projected to be casualties, and the millions of Japanese civilians who didn't lose their lives because the invasion never happened might have a different viewpoint? The war is always evil crowd never can answer the question "Okay, so if we don't fight WWII, who defeats the Nazis? How does the Holocaust end? Not everything is about the military industrial complex, sometimes wars have to be fought.
Mistakes happen and when they do it's up to the viewer dig a little deeper. Or if the problem is more than the occasional one-off--finding better content. Ryan Mcbeth puts out great content--but some of his ideology is a problem. He supports DEI--mainly because he doesn't seem to actually know what it is--believing it to be about recruiting people with diverse skillsets that can benefit an organization. It's a racist ideology that reduces human beings to their immutable characteristics. How can someone has smart as Ryan believe in that racist ideology--but he does and says so with utter conviction. I'm hoping that he does a little more research on these topics if he's going to make statements supporting these types of ideologies.
Ugh, actively dislike Shawn Ryan's channel.
podcasts are filled with dumb dumbs who surround themselves with dumb dumbs to convince themselves they are not dumb dumbs. like a dumb circle jerk
Interesting. Thanks for clarifying this from yesterday.
Sam S says that he followed the instructions and deleted the message, BUT THEN he shows us an Email with that message...oh ok, not made up at all
Can we please see the toxicology/blood work report from the Vegas terrorist! He was clearly delusional and paranoid, spreading all sorts of wild conspiracy theories and thinking that Government was after him. Can we just put an end to it once and for all! WHAT DRUGS WERE INVOLVED?
The toxicology will probably come back as 15hr/wk of Fox News, 10 hrs/wk of Joe Rogan and a trace of Shawn Ryan.
Nah, most likely some type of adhd drug that kept him up for days straight. Sounds like the ramblings of a guy without sleep.
The right wing propaganda machine convinced him of a whole bunch of things that are not true. Backing Musk, Trump, and Kennedy is not the answer people think it will be. No one is getting pulled out of poverty by those three. No, they will make things worse for everyone. TK wants to abolish the Department of Education, said it himself. Musk will take advantage of the ignorance of the people by cutting what sounds like a lot of money, but is actually chump change and it will all come from programs people need. His government contracts will certainly not be impacted negatively. And Trump? Let's just say I expect his 2nd term to be far worse than the first and that is saying something.
Ryan, can you provide more evidence to support your claims here? It’s weak.
This is exactly why I pay money support you Ryan. I don't always agree with some of your takes, but you do tend to shine a light on things that people need to be aware of.
The Shawn Ryan Show has a history of bringing on guests whose views many would consider controversial. Some have attempted to gloss over or minimize the 2007 Blackwater Massacre in Nisour Square, Baghdad, where Blackwater private security contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded more than 20 others. Investigations by the FBI and other agencies concluded that these actions were unjustified, and several contractors were ultimately convicted of charges including manslaughter. Giving a platform to people who try to whitewash an event of this magnitude is unsettling.
The show has also featured current or former members of government intelligence agencies who criticize Edward Snowden. While opinions on Snowden vary, it is a fact that he exposed the National Security Agency for illegally spying on American citizens. Whether he went too far is open to debate, but if the agency had been operating within legal limits, there would not have been anything to leak.
Being fair does not mean every viewpoint deserves unchallenged air time. It means pushing back on guests who misrepresent facts or promote outright falsehoods. Asking for evidence and holding people accountable is essential to maintain credibility. Many on both sides of the political spectrum have grown wary of mainstream outlets that chase controversy without questioning it, and platforms like yours risk falling into the same trap if they fail to question or contest dubious claims.
Been a long time watcher of Ryan, and just subscribed finally, and it's nice to read comments and interact with like minded (sane!) people.
The Snowden topic is an interesting one. I've worked for the government the last bunch-o-years as a software developer, and went from Snowden being a hero, to it being well, in my view, much more nuanced.
Yes, they were (and are) collecting a massive amount of data, but people WILLINGLY give 100x more information to social media sites like Facebook, then prop up Snowden as a hero. He's come out way too strongly anti-American, being a "useful idiot" to Putin as of late, for me. It tarnished any semblance of thinking of him as a hero, at least for me.
It's nice to be able to have these conversations, which are like many things, nuanced, without having to be labeled left or right, although I clearly consider the GOP "damaged goods" at this point, growing up Republican, then switching to a moderate. There's just not this level of conspiracy theory believing folks on the left, like with the Trumpers. Granted, there's some, but nothing like these people (friends of mine included) who think the election was rigged and literally the earth is flat, etc.
I certainly believe the Election in 2020 had a massive amount of fraud. Certainly enough to change the outcome. But I didn't take Donald Trump's word for it. And how it was done--the big picture stuff, is readily available to the public. The deeper stuff--dead voters, targeting ballot harvesting, mass mailings to all registered voters using outdated information that ensured more ballots than voters were floating around, rules, policies and standards altered or changed--or just ignored; the 51 Intelligence Officers who declared the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation and the subsequent suppression of that information--not the information that Hunter Biden liked Cocaine and hookers, the information that his father took bribes and used his Office to benefit himself and his family financially. You don't think that suppression had an impact?
Don't know about anyone who believes the Earth is flat. I'm sure they are out there. But you are claiming that you know, or have met people who believe the Earth is flat--and believe the 2020 Election was stolen? I can articulate how the 2020 Election had major issues--issues that are never rebutted. Instead it's name calling. But I would have a hard time articulating the Earth is flat. How would such a person explain the horizon? Let alone satellite imagery of Earth--I suppose that's all fake according to your friends?
I find government data collection on citizens dubious at best. Just because I agree to Facebook gathering some of my information does not mean the government should have it. Yet agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have bought personal data from private brokers, including location and app usage data. That is not something I knowingly consented to. We need stronger privacy laws to protect our information. It is almost impossible to function in society without handing over facial data for recognition systems. You cannot even get a proper ID without a photo, and many states share that information with each other and with federal authorities. It would not surprise me if it ends up shared across borders too.
As for Snowden, or anyone in a similar position, there is always more nuance. I think he did the right thing by showing Americans they were being spied on illegally, but I also believe he should have stayed and taken responsibility for his actions. It bothers me that he ended up in a hostile country when there were other nations without extradition. Still, I get that he felt he had no choice but to leave.
I see the faux outrage over that one CEO who got shot, leading to a massive manhunt and daily NYPD press briefings telling us we are wrong if we feel even a little empathy for the suspect. Meanwhile, thousands of people died in that same stretch of time because they were denied medical care by insurance providers. A school shooting happened after the CEO's death, and it only got a couple of days of headlines. That shows how the death of a wealthy executive is apparently more newsworthy than children being murdered at school.
Back to the main point, it really upsets me that people like Shawn Ryan and Joe Rogan invite guests on their podcasts who spew complete nonsense without any pushback. They are no different from Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN when they bring on climate deniers or January 6 apologists under the excuse of showing "both sides." Some things do not need both sides; they need truth and facts. Because of this, everyone retreats into social media bubbles that reinforce their own misinformation, and it just gets worse. Right or wrong, the federal government is also picking winners and losers by targeting certain platforms like TikTok, which only adds fuel to the fire.
I could rant on for days, but I think you get where I'm coming from.
The suicide letter by Master Sargeant Matthew Livelsberger is somber. Most of the content is not new to us; it's been part of the public discourse for years now. But it's a serious message that should make us reflect on our personal and collective paths.
Thank you Ryan for setting everybody straight, really enjoy your videos.
The big problem here comes from the response and not the initial error of poor fact checking. We can all be fooled when we are under time pressure. Ryan Shaw could do a huge service by admitting that he was fooled. Betcha he won't do that. But he should. Ryan McBeth would if he discovered he had been lied to. Right now in tech side of the YouTube world mia culpas are coming from every top reviewer over the "Honey Scam." I watch a lot of these videos. To me, admitting when you got it wrong or were fooled yourself increases my willingness to believe what they are saying in other contexts. Wrong information can be self corrected in a situation where people react appropriately to new information. I had to do this for years in my career. Never liked being wrong but I liked staying wrong even more.