, , , , , , , , , ,

Before we get to the topic at hand, let’s understand something. In relations between the federal government, particularly a government willing to ignore the Constitution and the law to reward its friends and punish its enemies, no government agency or functionary has to be specific. When they say to Twitter, a company already so ideologically aligned with a D/S/C government as to be indistinguishable from that government, “we’re forwarding these tweets to you for a look,” everyone knows that means: “get rid of these tweets and ban the people who posted them.” They don’t have to be specific. Everyone knows what’s being not asked, but demanded, and everyone knows those demands are going to be met. Were this not so, Twitter would be able to produce not one, but many instances in which D/S/C’s “for a look” didn’t result in taking down tweets and/or banning their posters. To date, examples of that kind of adherence to the laws of probability are exceedingly rare, if not altogether nonexistent.

Oh, and this applies to Facebook, etc. as well:

And it turns out some of the people who got the media to suppress our Hunter story have ties to Russiagate names: Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan, for example, admits that before the 2020 election he organized weekly meetings with Facebook, which also limited access to our [the NY Post’s] story. Chan was an acquaintance of Twitter counsel James Baker, who before that was a top FBI lawyer involved in the Russia-collusion plots, and also worked with fiercely anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

If you haven’t read the first thread, farmed out to independent journalist Matt Taibbi by now, you’ll want to take this link. Here are some previews from that thread:

See what I mean? It was absolutely unnecessary for D/S/Cs to say “get rid of these.” That’s not how the game is played. Twitter fascists were more than happy to “handle” things.

If this doesn’t make clear what was happening, nothing will.

I’m not at all sure Taibbi is right. There may have been a few at Twitter with a conscience, but even that is far from provable.

We’ll see how far this goes…

As always, the Babylon Bee is on top of things.

As one might imagine, D/S/Cs have gone absolutely berserk. They’ve completely coordinated their narratives, accusing Taibbi of “doing PR for the richest man in the world.” They’re also saying, when they’re not burying the story, “This is old news. We’ve known all about this all along,” to which one wag responded: “Cool, how about links to all the articles you wrote about it?” No links have been forthcoming. They’re also saying that before 2020, it wasn’t the official government colluding with Twitter to ban free speech, so it’s all good.  Andrea Widberg at American Thinker, had this:

In the run-up to Elon Musk’s release of all of Twitter’s internal information regarding the Hunter Biden laptop, shadow-banning, censorship, political favoritism, etc., the mainstream media couldn’t stop talking about how evil Musk was because he was a manifest “threat to democracy.” Now that Musk has actually released that “democracy-threatening” information, almost all of the major media outlets have fallen completely silent. When it comes to a real threat to democracy—one of the bastions of the modern public square secretly and systematically working with a political candidate in a presidential election, and possibly working with government insiders, too—they believe that the greatest risk is letting the public know what really happened.

Take the link; read the whole article.

Kyle Rittenhouse has also asked for all of Twitter’s internal communications. If Musk responds, we’ll see the depth of his commitment to the truth.

Golly! Where was the Hulk when free speech was being crushed?

Hulk smash indeed.

Again, that’s not how the game is played, and does anyone believe Twitter fascists told the FEC—Federal Election Commission—the truth?


Taibbi strikes back.

Now they’re concerned about covering this asses.  Scott Johnson At Powerline has notes on this first thread: 

Twitter is a powerful instrument for good and evil. Elon Musk’s efforts to create a new Twitter with a favorable disposition to free speech has made him an enemy of the regime. They are crying that this cannot be allowed to stand. The regime is searching for an angle to do to Musk’s new Twitter what old Twitter did to the New York Post reporting. The fight is ongoing and barely visible.

Miranda Devine is indispensable:

Taibbi’s exposition is missing a few pieces. Miranda Devine fills in one of them in the New York Post column “FBI warned Twitter during ‘weekly’ meetings of Hunter Biden ‘hack-and-leak operation’ before censoring The Post.” The Post editors follow up today in ‘FBI’s fake ‘warnings’ about our Hunter story were clearly a coverup to aid Joe Biden.’

There are, of course, multiple FBI links—Baker was a high-ranking FBI lawyer–to this mess:

Twitter of course had its own deep state man serving as deputy counsel of the company. Jonathan Turley takes up this element of the case in “Twitter files reveal familiar name in Hunter Biden laptop scandal: James Baker.” Quotable quote: ‘For many, James Baker is fast becoming the Kevin Bacon of the Russian collusion scandals.’ At his own site Professor Turley called it ‘Six degrees from James Baker.’

Take the link; read the rest.  It’s also interesting to note D/S/Cs are going stark, raving, bullgoose loony over another issue: Twitter is removing child porn:

As Forbes tells it, ‘The social media giant took nine days to remove the content, despite the material constituting illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the plaintiffs say in their complaint. It was only after the content had been viewed hundreds of thousands of times, and a Department of Homeland Security agent had demanded the content be taken down, that Twitter finally took action.’

Yet, as recently as April, the company claimed it could do little to stop child porn. In a memo unearthed by The Verge, one Twitter official said the company ‘cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale.’

Amazing how easily things are to “detect” when one is actually looking for them. More, gentle readers, as it develops.