Twitter files

"We don't "shadow bad ever" said the two people at the top of Twitter in the past. And now we see the proof in full detail, that they did. We see every Conservative that was banned, marginalized and the the proof right there in the internal documents.


SR made a point the other day that the Twitter releases show that "some" Republican requests to take down material they didn't like also happened.


Think about the people who ran Twitter. 99.9% liberal Democrats and we are to believe there were just as many Republican requests OKed as Democrats? As a matter of fact, in that release that included Republican request, it was added MOSTLY Democrat requests.


It sure would settle this issue if we can hear about those Republican requests that were upheld but I haven't heard a single one yet. Anybody know of a Liberal that was banned or had speech suppressed?


But here is what is proving to be, so far, the big story here. Where are the files that show the communications between the FBI and Twitter which we know happened? Could it be that the guy who was tasked with "verifying" what files would be released to the press was Jim Baker, former lead council at the FBI? Musk is now saying it is quite possible that Baker "scrubbed" any reference to the FBI and that is why we aren't seeing that information.


My question to those of you on the left, are you hearing about what is being released or ignore it and say to each other "consider the source" just like they did on Hunter's laptop. Blame it on the fact that Giuliani's name was associated with the release so no need to pay any more attention to the story when Giuliani's role had nothing to do with the facts of the case and the New York Times will tell you that. They have "verified" that it was Hunter's laptop and no reason to believe that Hunter didn't write every word and that what he was saying was his "truth" as the left likes to say.


But you can't admit that, that would be suicide for you party, you know, like any Republican admitting that Trump had no right to keep the documents he did. The law is very clear on this IMHO but to charge Trump criminally, you need intent to do harm. Show me that intent to give or sell that information and I'd personally put Trump in jail but you can't and like it or not, just like Hillary, no intent, no charge even though they both broke the law. Remember Donald Jr. who broke the law by asking for dirt on Hillary from a foreign national but the powers that be determined he had no intent to consciously break the law. Don't blame me, that's what they said.


Just imagine what we would have if we all called a lie a lie no matter who said it.


And if person's in the Trump administration were leaning on Twitter to do the bidding of the "government" I have no problem at all calling them out for the same things I'm calling out the Biden people the day after Biden was elected to this day.


I play no favorites when it comes to lying. Charge and prosecute anybody from any party in government for suppressing free speech.


It is clear as day from the evidence we can all now see, that Twitter "influenced" the election in favor of Democrats.

Third batch of "Twitter Files" were released today.


Two reporters are being given these "raw documents" as I understand it and yes, trying to put them in context with the questions being asked, "how was this place being run" and was the "work product" at Twitter, designed to not only favor one political party over another but to work for their preferred party by banning, marginalizing, shadow banning speech, which they did and testified they didn't. If I understand this from a legal point of view of who has responsibility for doing what, if Twitter had just said they have a right to suppress anything, for any reason on "their" platform and legally, that would be a pretty good argument but what if it can then be proven that you lied about something you didn't need to lie about, but you did and that could lead to legal consequences for you.



Today, batch number 3 of the Twitter Files came out and Matt Taibbi, shares file number 27 with us. I would prefer to see the actual words used in the official documents and not a translation by a reporter no matter how trusted that reporter might be. Jack Dorsey, previous owner, reportedly asked Musk to just release the raw documents to the public instead of going through the reporters, but here we are.


This speaks to the first pronouncement that Democrats and Republicans, but mostly Democrats made these "suppression" requests. Now we read this. "we're told it's there, we looked for it, however they are absent here.



#27

Examine the entire election enforcement Slack, we didn't see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked, they may exist, we were told they do. However, they are absent here.


Matt Taibbi

The FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security and the Dept. of National Intelligence had DOCUMENTED weekly meetings with Twitter. The government through a proxy may not do what the law clearly says the government can not do, suppress political speech



Mic drop! The federal government under Trumps term yet to be determined or both Trump and Biden's term, colluded and conspired with Twitter to suppress speech, mostly Conservative speech and speech that spoke against what the Biden administration held as sacrosanct.. They broke the law and somebody, all person's involved no matter the party, should be prosecuted

But if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, did it make a sound?

The Main Stream Media is just ignoring the story, that means all of the morons that still believe that the MSM is honest in it’s reporting will go on believing the tripe that they are fed.

But if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, did it make a sound?

The Main Stream Media is just ignoring the story, that means all of the morons that still believe that the MSM is honest in it’s reporting will go on believing the tripe that they are fed. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Exactly. When one party has a dishonest media against them. A dishonest Intelligence services. A dishonest social media and a dishonest FBI, it's amazing that any of this information is getting out though the great un-informed are oblivious because the people they depend on for their information, are flat out lying to them.


For me, this is the most important story out there. No Democracy will survive without free speech holding those in power accountable.


This is as clear as day now. The federal government meet with Twitter on a weekly basis, coordinating what they want allowed to be reported and if it was detrimental to the Democrat party, it was suppressed.


If we lose the right to challenge the government through free speech, we will lose this country.

perhaps jack was clueless as to what was going on behind his back.


kinda like right out of the pages of scott adam's dilbert comic strip.

I believe Dorsey knew exactly what was going on. You don’t be a CEO of a company and don’t know what’s going on in your company he knew, and he lied.

SMH cheaters deniers losers is what THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is made of

And Fauci and the FBI crooks

Dorsey will be brought back before a Congressional committee and we'll see if he tells us he had no idea what his people were doing "behind my back". Problem is, there were plenty of people making this complaint in public and he obviously didn't look into it. Dorsey's "I didn't know" will probably work as well as SBF saying he doesn't know where billions of dollars went.


The Democrats will do what they always do, say "it's old news" and they would be right to one extent and never dealt with but now we know crimes, lying to a Congressional committee are in play.

I believe Dorsey knew exactly what was going on. You don’t be a CEO of a company and don’t know what’s going on in your company he knew, and he lied.

SMH cheaters deniers losers is what THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is made of

And Fauci and the FBI crooks Originally Posted by Cendell M

it is not unheard of corporations having clueless CEOs who don't know what they are doing or in this case, ignorant of what others are doing behind his back or disbelief (ignoring) in other peoples claims of who's doing what.


where do you think scott adams of dilbert comic strip gets his material from.. employee war stories from the corporate world....

Yes, it could be possible I don’t disagree with that, their dropping Twitter files left and right on the corruption that company was Pulling and it’s just really hard to believe that the CEO didn’t hear of it never knew of it. It’s just really hard for me to believe that but it’ll all come out at the end.

Dorsey will be brought back before a Congressional committee and we'll see if he tells us he had no idea what his people were doing "behind my back". Problem is, there were plenty of people making this complaint in public and he obviously didn't look into it. Dorsey's "I didn't know" will probably work as well as SBF saying he doesn't know where billions of dollars went.


The Democrats will do what they always do, say "it's old news" and they would be right to one extent and never dealt with but now we know crimes, lying to a Congressional committee are in play. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes agree!

I believe Dorsey knew exactly what was going on. You don’t be a CEO of a company and don’t know what’s going on in your company he knew, and he lied.

SMH cheaters deniers losers is what THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is made of

And Fauci and the FBI crooks Originally Posted by Cendell M

Is that like Trump knowing about his COO cooking the books for tax purposes?

Is it just me or does this sound like another Benghazi thread?

https://nypost.com/2022/12/11/biden-...-hunter-probe/


Biden allies move to intimidate witnesses ahead of GOP’s coming Hunter probe

By Jonathan Turley

Just when you thought our politics could not get more poisonous, a recent meeting in California suggests the past is mere prelude. The Washington Post, which revealed the powwow, described it as Biden family “allies” planning an offensive to blunt any investigation into the Bidens’ alleged multimillion-dollar influence-peddling schemes.
Republicans will see it more like the gathering of the Legion of (Democratic) Doom. Some of the most controversial political operatives are involved in the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect the Bidens.


The California meeting’s host was none other than Hunter Biden’s friend, agent and lawyer Kevin Morris. After Hunter was placed under investigation for, among other possible charges, tax evasion, Morris reportedly paid off as much as $2.8 million in back taxes for Hunter.



Morris, per the Washington Post, called for a “more aggressive” response to those seeking to investigate the alleged influence peddling. That plan includes hitting critics, such as Fox News, with possible defamation lawsuits. (For full disclosure, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox News.)


The paper also reported Morris “outlined extensive research on two potential witnesses against Hunter Biden — a spurned business partner named Tony Bobulinski and a computer repairman named John Paul Mac Isaac.” “Spurned” is hardly the sole or most relevant description of Bobulinski: The businessman was recruited by the Biden family to manage foreign deals and later directly contradicted President Biden’s claims that he knew nothing of those dealings. His testimony could present a serious threat in the coming House investigation in establishing not only the president’s knowledge but his possible receipt of proceeds from the deals.


What’s most interesting about the piece is why the Washington Post was given such access and such a detailed account. Generally, political operatives lay out scorched-earth campaigns in secret. But someone wanted this campaign to be public before the House can call any witnesses.


For key witnesses like Bobulinski, the message is about as subtle as a 2-by-4 to the head. The Washington Post is viewed as one of the most pro-Biden newspapers in the country and only recently admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic after pushing the false Russian-disinformation claim. Now the paper is detailing a plan that could create an open season on those who might try to substantiate the Biden family’s influence peddling.


Notably, the article stresses this effort is “operating separately from the White House. [David] Brock said his organization also remains independent of Hunter Biden and his team and is following its own strategy.”


The separation is important to deflect any allegations of witness intimidation. Media and political figures leveled such claims against the Trump White House when impeachment witnesses were attacked in the press. Congressional Democrats denounced criticism of the witnesses as an effort to silence or deter witnesses from coming forward.
Those who view this as a not-so-veiled threat will likely cite the inclusion of David Brock, one of the most controversial and reviled Democratic operatives in Washington.
Long a radical figure closely associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, Brock has repeatedly been at the center of controversial attack campaigns and was most recently tied to news sites criticized as fakes or ploys.


Many see him as the lowest common denominator of Democratic operatives, someone willing to take extreme measures to support Democratic figures and causes. Even Biden senior adviser Neera Tanden allegedly once remarked, “I hope Hillary truly understands now how bats–t crazy David Brock is.”
Brock, however, has always given figures like Clinton deniability for direct responsibility for his actions. He described his new group, Facts First USA, as a “SWAT team” designed to “ensure that the media and public do not accept the false narrative that flows from congressional investigations.”


The Post described the meeting as a “glimpse into a sprawling infrastructure that is rapidly, almost frantically, assembling to combat Republicans’ plans to turn Hunter Biden into a major news story when the GOP takes over the House next year.” It also discussed an array of well-known lawyers the Biden family has assembled as well as plans by the White House and Democratic National Committee.


Various Democratic groups plan to attack efforts to disclose the Bidens’ multimillion-dollar efforts by attacking Donald Trump’s family. These include the Congressional Integrity Project, which recently hired Jeff Peck, the chief of staff to Biden when he was a senator. These talking points are already appearing in the media, which are heavily invested in denying any scandal connected to the family.


That’s why the Post article looks like a shot across the bow of any potential witnesses. This is not to say these reporters are knowing agents of this campaign, but Democratic operatives clearly wanted people to know about this alliance.


The article touches all the bases to insulate the Bidens and the Democratic National Committee from responsibility for what Brock and Morris may unleash. However, with the inclusion of former Biden staff and allies, it’s a line that can be quickly lost as investigations heat up. Targeting witnesses like Bobulinski could invite congressional investigators to look more closely at these groups and their funding.


Morris could also be taking a real risk. There are already questions about whether he was acting as counsel, agent or friend in reportedly paying off tax debts for Hunter Biden. Rules of professional ethics demand clarity in legal representation.


Moreover, Morris himself could be called as a witness and face questions over his own role in the scandal and its suppression in the media. That makes orchestrating an aggressive public campaign more problematic if it targets or intimidates other witnesses.


This is, of course, well known to these sophisticated political operatives, which makes the effort to publicize this campaign all the more concerning. House Democrats have blocked efforts to investigate any Biden influence peddling. They will have to take ownership of that refusal if the investigation establishes a massive and corrupt operation.




But the new campaign is designed to give plausible deniability and comfortable distance from planned attacks on witnesses and commentators. Hunter Biden may have collected millions in selling access and influence, but anyone investigating or accusing the Bidens is now fully warned: Proceed at your own peril.


Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Is it just me or does this sound like another Benghazi thread? Originally Posted by WTF

It’s just you.