Previous Episode: Update Episode 1/13/2020
Next Episode: GOOGLE COVERUP?

Google may not understand just how many consumers, and even how many regulators, it may have alienated through its heavy handed censorship of Donald Trump’s surprise political victory — and the ensuing fallout of the sex trafficking scandal connected to the Clintons, which has since become known as “Pedogate” in the truth community.

Google’s cofounders abruptly resigned from their posts last year, despite Google’s parent company Alphabet enjoying near record profits and all-time high market penetration.

One of those cofounders, Sergey Brin, reportedly continued to visit Jeffrey Epstein after his first conviction. A founder of Google, remaining friends with Jeffrey Epstein years after his first conviction — why? What business did Google’s cofounder have with a convicted pedophile?

In the days after the Podesta WikiLeaks dropped in late 2016, Google’s censorship of discussion of the emails — which many people believe, to this day, pointed to instances of possible underage sex trafficking — was unlike anything previously seen from American Internet companies.

Why such heavy handed censorship, of this one particular topic? John Podesta knew Jeffrey Epstein, and remained close friends with convicted pedophile Dennis Hastert — incidentally a Republican and nominal opponent of Podesta’s progressive policy view.

Why did Google feel the need to mass censor, demonetize, and delete those talking about this topic?

My life’s passion — a journalism YouTube channel with original interviews & research, which had reached more than 17 million views and 170,000 subscribers — was deleted without warning, replaced with the following error message:











Disappeared for covering John Podesta and Jeffrey Epstein.






Disappeared for covering John Podesta and Jeffrey Epstein.







Shortly thereafter, our FULCRUM News company YouTube channel was deleted without warning as well — and within days another company claimed our name, so they ended up getting whatever traffic we had built up from promoting the channel in the prior months to our audience.

From its earliest days, the Pedogate scandal attracted the attention of top people at Google. Liz Mitchell, the wife of Google’s VP of infrastructure, befriended me days after one of our first videos on the Podesta emails went viral, back in 2016. She expressed concerns about conservative censorship cropping up online — which her husband’s company would later become the flagship model for.

She also seemed to have a deep knowledge of the people, places, and events implicated by the Pedogate scandal, and seemed keen to understand which details I had come across.

Her emails to me became so numerous that — to this day, as you can see in the screenshot below — I haven’t had time to open all of them up.











From early on, Mitchell seemed to want me to focus on Comet Ping Pong & Pizza — rather than the WikiLeaks emails and broader scandal, which became known as “Pedogate” in the following years.






From early on, Mitchell seemed to want me to focus on Comet Ping Pong & Pizza — rather than the WikiLeaks emails and broader scandal, which became known as “Pedogate” in the following years.

















Mitchell, the wife of one of Google’s top executives at the time, took a keen personal interest in our Pedogate coverage.






Mitchell, the wife of one of Google’s top executives at the time, took a keen personal interest in our Pedogate coverage.

















Mitchell also wanted us to focus on a museum in Washington, DC owned by wealthy investors — we were wise, in retrospect, not to do so. My focus has always been the Podesta emails, the “pizza” and “walnut sauce” code language used throughout it, and the offhand references to children unrelated to the Podestas.






Mitchell also wanted us to focus on a museum in Washington, DC owned by wealthy investors — we were wise, in retrospect, not to do so. My focus has always been the Podesta emails, the “pizza” and “walnut sauce” code language used throughout it, and the offhand references to children unrelated to the Podestas.







Was Mitchell just a concerned member of the public, or was she trying to see what FULCRUM knew and who our sources were?

And why did Google practice such un-American demonetization and deplatforming of accredited, well respected journalists covering this scandal?

Had they respected my First Amendment rights, it’s hard to know how much sooner the Epstein trafficking scandal would have become mainstream information in America and around the world. It’s hard to know how many fewer child victims there would be today, if Google had not mass violated our First Amendment rights.

Continue Reading: