Big thanks to DaGoose for consolidating The Files so far:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now he wants to buy it!



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-offers-buy-twitter-101906337.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-filed:



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musk-refiles-twitter-disclosure-show-221958940.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-just-took-a-92-stake-in-twitter-what-may-happen-next-111313363.html

Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.

What should be done? https://t.co/aPS9ycji37

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) March 26, 2022

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-stock-rockets-after-elon-musk-takes-stake-valued-at-more-than-3-billion-11649070782

Thank you for that
*BOOKMARKED*

TWITTER LIED and THE WORLD, as we know it, DIED

It’s not that we don’t care. We’ve just lost hope that anything will be done about it

As always until the media as we know it destroyed this nation cannot and will not survive. How the media is destroyed is the question. Best place to start is for the people to go after the advertisers first and call them out for supporting news organizations that lie and coverup facts in order to manipulate America.

TWITTER LAYS OFF ENGINEERS WORKING ON AD TEAM: INFORMATION

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) January 5, 2023

I'd hold off on any drops while this speaker fight is ongoing.

Like how the Hunter Biden story was held back?

Twitter was literally taking orders from FBI and dem congressmen/senators on who to ban and what stories to vanish/suppress.

When you have FBI at high ranking positions in a private company that’s easy. Let alone a culture top down infested with communists. They love them some authority.

My reasoning is so that the twitter drops are not ignored anymore then they already are. The Speaker fight is obviously dominating the news cycle.  On the other hand if the planned drop has any evidence that KM or any of the players in the speaker fight were involved then drop away,  it'd be relevant.  

Elvis Chan, the FBI agent at the center of the Twitter Files, thinks fewer blacks voted in 2016 compared to 2012 because of RUSSIA-not the fact that in 2012 a black president was on the ballot

There are many more findings like that in his 150-page thesishttps://t.co/ybNLHp7Tzv

Luke Rosiak  (@lukerosiak) January 4, 2023

He says non-black turnout being high in 2016 meant Russian propaganda worked, while turnout behind high in 2020 meant it didn't.

He says American schools should "indoctrinate" more so that 2016 doesn't happen again.

Luke Rosiak  (@lukerosiak) January 4, 2023

Chan heralded the removal of "a right-wing meme that accused the FBI of misusing the Steele dossier to obtain a surveillance order on Trump associate"--a criticism of the FBI that is true.

Luke Rosiak  (@lukerosiak) January 4, 2023

.@josephmenn, why didn't you mention in your WaPo reporting that Antifa member Chad Loder incited violence, including deadly violence? He also celebrated violent crimes when he praised Antifa "martyrs," including domestic terrorist Willem van Spronsen & gunman Michael Reinoehl. pic.twitter.com/CiRFLJzSis

— Andy Ngô \uD83C\uDFF3??\uD83C\uDF08 (@MrAndyNgo) January 5, 2023

Joseph Menn is a contemptible liar. Twitter policy has always been to suspend accounts that clearly & repeatedly incite violence.

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) January 5, 2023

Guy needs to make a trip to GITMO. Won't be surprised when he takes off to China.

That motherfucker needs hauled before a court.

See VI AG when you poke into business Brandon wants kept secret.

I thought black people's inability to use the internet was one of the arguments against voter id laws? How does this guy even figure they'd be able to find that propaganda?

DEVELOPING: We are exploring all legal options, including suing @AdamSchiff personally for defamation

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) January 6, 2023

BREAKING: Thousands Of @Twitter Bots Have Been Created Over The Last Few Hours & They Are Continuing To Be Created!
A MASSIVE #PROPAGANDA PUSH IS BEING PREPARED FOR!
No Word From @elonmusk Or @TwitterSafety Yet On This Developing Story! https://t.co/tiwsoO1rt7

— John Basham \uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF2 (@JohnBasham) January 6, 2023

Anyone else noticing this? https://t.co/hB435mVyqI

Hodgetwins  (@hodgetwins) January 6, 2023

Significant increase in bots among my followers recently, @ElonMusk, @Twitter.

Tom Fitton  (@TomFitton) January 6, 2023

Weird today I was followed on Twitter by thousands of bots - you know people with zero followers and no profile. Something is up.

Roger Stone  (@RogerJStoneJr) January 6, 2023

Are you being followed by tons of bots tonight?

— Eric Spracklen\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8 (@EricSpracklen) January 6, 2023

I randomly get a bunch of followers with pictures of models, no followers, no tweets, and sometimes they will DM me about crypto \uD83E\uDD23

Mouse Wrangler  (@BatCatzz) January 6, 2023

Here a new version with everything integrated into a single spot.


THE TWITTER FILES - PART ONE
TWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 2, 2022

Recounting the internal drama at Twitter surrounding the decision to block access to a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in October, 2020.

Key revelations: Twitter blocked the story on the basis of its “hacked materials” policy, but executives internally knew the decision was problematic. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” is how comms official Brandon Borrman put it. Also: when a Twitter contractor polls members of Congress about the decision, they hear Democratic members want more moderation, not less, and “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.”


THE TWITTER FILES - PART ONE SUPPLEMENTAL
THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER

THREAD: Twitter Files Supplemental

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 6, 2022

A second round of Twitter Files releases was delayed, as new addition Bari Weiss discovers former FBI General Counsel and Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was reviewing the first batches of Twitter Files documents, whose delivery to reporters had slowed.


THE TWITTER FILES - PART TWO
TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS.

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART TWO.

TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS.

Bari Weiss  (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022

Bari Weiss gives a long-awaited answer to the question, “Was Twitter shadow-banning people?” It did, only the company calls it “visibility filtering.” Twitter also had a separate, higher council called SIP-PES that decided cases for high-visibility, controversial accounts.

Key revelations: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.” With help from @abigailshrier, @shellenbergermd, @nelliebowles, and @isaacgrafstein.


THE TWITTER FILES - PART THREE
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP - October 2020 - January 6th

1.     THREAD: The Twitter Files
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP
Part One: October 2020-January 6th

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022

First in a three-part series looking at how Twitter came to the decision to suspend Donald Trump. The idea behind the series is to show how all of Twitter’s “visibility filtering” tools were on display and deployed after January 6th, 2021.

Key Revelations: Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Also, Twitter was aggressively applying “visibility filtering” tools to Trump well before the election.


THE TWITTER FILES - PART FOUR
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP - January 7

1. TWITTER FILES, PART 4

The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban

Michael Shellenberger  (@ShellenbergerMD) December 10, 2022

This thread by Michael Shellenberger looks at the key day after the J6 riots and before Trump would ultimately be banned from Twitter on January 8th, showing how Twitter internally reconfigured its rules to make a Trump ban fit their policies.

Key revelations: at least one Twitter employee worried about a “slippery slope” in which “an online platform CEO with a global presence… can gatekeep speech for the entire world,” only to be shot down. Also, chief censor Roth argues for a ban on congressman Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh),” and Twitter changed its “public interest policy” to clear a path for Trump’s removal.


THE TWITTER FILES - PART FIVE
THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE.

THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

Bari Weiss  (@bariweiss) December 12, 2022

As angry as many inside Twitter were with Donald Trump after the January 6th Capitol riots, staffers struggled to suspend his account, saying things like, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.” As documented by Weiss, they found a way to pull the trigger anyway.

Key revelations: there were dissenters in the company (“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation”), but are overruled by senior executives like Vijaya Gadde and Roth, who noted many on Twitter’s staff were citing the “Banality of Evil,” and comparing those who favored sticking to a strict legalistic interpretation of Twitter’s rules — i.e. keep Trump, who had “no violation” — to “Nazis following orders.”


THE TWITTER FILES - PART SIX
THE FBI SUBSIDIARY

1. THREAD: The Twitter Files, Part Six
TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 16, 2022

Twitter’s contact with the FBI was “constant and pervasive,” as FBI personnel, mainly in the San Francisco field office, regularly sent lists of “reports” to Twitter, often about Americans with low follower counts making joke tweets. Tweeters on both the left and the right were affected.

Key revelations: A senior Twitter executive reports, “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.”


THE TWITTER FILES - PART SEVEN
THE FBI AND TTHE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP

1. TWITTER FILES: PART 7

The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020

Michael Shellenberger  (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

The Twitter Files story increases its focus on the company’s relationship to federal law enforcement and intelligence, and shows intense communication between the FBI and Twitter just before the release of the Post’s Hunter Biden story.

Key Revelations: San Francisco agent Elvis Chan “sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story. Also, Baker in an email explains Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”


THE TWITTER FILES - PART EIGHT
TWITTER AND PENTAGON'S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN

1. TWITTER FILES PART 8

*How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon’s Covert Online PsyOp Campaign*

Despite promises to shut down covert state-run propaganda networks, Twitter docs show that the social media giant directly assisted the U.S. military’s influence operations.

Lee Fang  (@lhfang) December 20, 2022

RELATED ARTICLE
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts
Lee Fang takes a fascinating detour, looking at how Twitter for years approved and supported Pentagon-backed covert operations. Noting the company explicitly testified to Congress that it didn’t allow such behavior, the platform nonetheless was a clear partner in state-backed programs involving fake accounts.

Key revelations: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Post in 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020.


THE TWITTER FILES
TWITTER AND "OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

1.THREAD: The Twitter Files
TWITTER AND "OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 24, 2022

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who
The Christmas Eve thread (I should have waited a few days to publish!) further details how the channels of communication between the federal government and Twitter operated, and reveals that Twitter directly or indirectly received lists of flagged content from “Other Government Agencies,” i.e. the CIA.

Key revelations: CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.”


THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

1. THREAD:

THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

– By censoring info that was true but inconvenient to U.S. govt. policy
– By discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed
– By suppressing ordinary users, including some sharing the CDC’s *own data*

David Zweig  (@davidzweig) December 26, 2022

David Zweig drills down into how Twitter throttled down information about COVID that was true but perhaps inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.”

Key Revelations: Zweig found memos from Twitter personnel who’d liaised with Biden administration officials who were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on reporter Alex Berenson. Zweig also found “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.


THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN

1.THREAD: The Twitter Files
How Twitter Let the Intelligence Community In

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) January 3, 2023

THE TWITTER FILES: TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON”

1.THREAD: The Twitter Files
Twitter and the FBI “Belly Button” pic.twitter.com/nfOGQGlvUM

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) January 3, 2023

These two threads focus respectively on the second half of 2017, and a period stretching roughly from summer of 2020 through the present. The first describes how Twitter fell under pressure from Congress and the media to produce “material” showing a conspiracy of Russian accounts on their platform, and the second shows how Twitter tried to resist fulfilling moderation requests for the State Department, but ultimately agreed to let State and other agencies send requests through the FBI, which agent Chan calls “the belly button of the USG.” Revelations: at the close of 2017, Twitter makes a key internal decision. Outwardly, the company would claim independence and promise that content would only be removed at “our sole discretion.” The internal guidance says, in writing, that Twitter will remove accounts “identified by the U.S. intelligence community” as “identified by the U.S.. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.”

The second thread shows how Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended.



THE TWITTER FILES - SUPPLEMENTAL

1.THREAD: Twitter Files Supplemental

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) December 18, 2022

RELATED:

DHS backed censorship program

1/ THREAD\uD83D\uDEA8 #TwitterFiles@elonmusk slams CISA censorship network as 'propaganda platform.'

This DHS-backed censorship consortium used 120 analysts to censor millions of social media posts on elections and covid-19.https://t.co/88YpFKoTuJ

kanekoa.substack.com  (@KanekoaTheGreat) December 28, 2022

US Political Misinfo Twitter Detection AI List

BREAKING: US Political Misinfo Twitter Detection AI List

Thread Below ??

Kristen Ruby  (@sparklingruby) December 12, 2022

Former Twitter employee shares exclusive details with me on AI, Access to DMs, and more.

BREAKING: Former Twitter employee shares exclusive details with me on AI, Access to DMs, and more.

Thread below ??

Kristen Ruby  (@sparklingruby) December 9, 2022

Whistleblower Report
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22186683/twitter-whistleblower-disclosure.pdf

CDC Thread on secret Twitter partner portal

/1 \uD83D\uDEA8\uD83E\uDDA0BREAKING: Following the #TwitterFiles, AFL has obtained new documents uncovering a secret Twitter portal U.S. Govt officials used to censor dissenting COVID-19 views and violate the First Amendment.
 
Follow along for disturbing findings from the 500+ page release ??

America First Legal  (@America1stLegal) December 6, 2022

Feds at Facebook

1. After learning that Twitter employs at least 15 former FBI agents, I searched Facebook. What I found is alarming

Facebook currently employs at least 115 people, in high-ranking positions, that formerly worked at FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS:

17 CIA
37 FBI
23 NSA
38 DHS

Thread\uD83E\uDDF5

Name Redacted  (@NameRedacted247) December 19, 2022

Feds at Google

1. Google currently employs at least 165 people, in high-ranking positions, from the Intelligence Community.

Google’s Trust & Safety team is managed by 3 ex-CIA agents, who control “misinfo & hate speech.”

Here’s the breakdown:
CIA-27
FBI-52
NSA-30
DHS-50
ODNI-6

Thread\uD83E\uDDF5

Name Redacted  (@NameRedacted247) December 27, 2022

GLOSSARY OF “TWITTER FILES” TERMS
Government Agencies and NGOs

CISA: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

CENTCOM: Central Command of the Armed Forces

ODNI: Office of the Director of National Intelligence

FITF: Foreign Influence Task Force, a cyber-regulatory agency comprised of members of the FBI, DHS, and ODNI

“OGA”: Other Government Agency, colloquially — CIA

GEC: Global Engagement Center, an analytical division of the U.S. State Department

USIC: United States intelligence community

HSIN: Homeland Security Information Network, a portal through which states and other official bodies can send “flagged” accounts

EIP: Election Integrity Project, a cyber-laboratory based at Stanford University that sends many reports to Twitter

DFR: Digital Forensic Research lab, an outlet that performs a similar function to the EIP, only is funded by the Atlantic Council

IRA: Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian “troll farm” headed by “Putin’s chef,” Yevgheny Prigozhin



Twitter or Industry-specific terms

PII: Can have two meanings. “Personally identifiable information” is self-explanatory, while a “Public Interest Interstitial” is a warning placed over a tweet, so that it cannot be seen. Twitter personnel even use “interstitial” as a verb, as in, “Can we interstitial that?”

JIRA: Twitter’s internal ticketing system, through which complaints rise and are decided

PV2: The system used at Twitter to view the profile of any user, to check easily if it has flags like “Trends Blacklist”

SIP-PES Site Integrity Policy — Policy Escalation Support. SIP-PES is like Twitter’s version of a moderation Supreme Court, dealing with the most high-profile, controversial rulings

SI: Site integrity. Key term that you’ll see repeately in Twitter email traffic, especially with “escalations,” i.e. tweets or content that have been reported for moderation review

CHA: Coordinated Harmful Activity

SRT: Strategic Response Team

GET: Global Escalation Team

VF: Visibility Filtering

GUANO: Tool in Twitter’s internal system that keeps a chronological record of all actions taken on an account

VIT: Very Important Tweeter. Really.

GoV: Glorificaiton of Violence

BOT: In the moderation content, an individualized heuristic attached to an account that moderates certain behavior automatically

BME: Bulk Media Exploitation

EP Abuse: Episodic abuse

PCF: Parity, commentary and fan accounts. “PCF” sometimes appears as a reason an account has escaped an automated moderation process, under a limited exception

FLC: Forced Login Challenge. Also called a “phone challenge,” it’s a way Twitter attempts to verify if an account is real or automated. “Phone challenges” are seen repeatedly in discussions about verification of suspected “Russia-linked” accounts

IO: Information Operations, as in The GEC’s mandate for offensive IO to promote American interests.

When I took office, I swore that I would protect the Constitution. Here’s why. \uD83E\uDDF5(1/9)

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

We now have hard evidence that President Biden’s Administration colluded with social media companies to censor differing viewpoints and silence “misinformation” that was later deemed true. (2/9)

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Here, a White House employee asks Twitter to silence Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known critic of the White House’s COVID-19 narrative. (3/9) pic.twitter.com/kIVv60W8Gt

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Here, the Biden White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren (4/9) pic.twitter.com/BlFunGWc3Z

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Here is an example of Big Tech toeing the line for Biden. (5/9) pic.twitter.com/7bDD3S9pbe

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Here’s more collusion. (6/9) pic.twitter.com/NUKccGD7QH

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

The truth no longer matters to the White House. They “Really couldn’t care less about products unless they’ve having measurable impact” on suppressing speech. (7/9) pic.twitter.com/AnTOmwW9Wa

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Here is evidence that this scheme starts “at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH.” (8/9) pic.twitter.com/QhjrwEalyv

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

“These emails confirm what we’ve known all along, the Biden Admin. has been colluding with social media companies to stifle opposing voices. I will continue to push back against this blatant attack on the 1st Amendment with every tool at my disposal.” -@AGAndrewBailey (9/9)

Attorney General Andrew Bailey  (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

This is exactly what I suspected would happen.  The states would take action because the federal government will not.  

10th will come into play and the SCOTUS will eventually get involved.

States need to take action, especially if the White House was trying to suppress the voice of sitting legislators.  Seems like anyone banned for "misinformation" on things that turned out to be true could sue for defamation as well.

Man I hope Missouri pushes their shit in.  Hopefully he will be a good replacement for Schmitt.

As an intellectual exercise, say the States or a State sues. Who do they sue and imagine, say they win, who gets punished and how? Imagine it's the most favorable course of events and outcome. I'm not trying to be a dick here, I honestly want to know how this could play out if the world was just.

Kris Kobach gets sworn in Monday as Kansas AG as well. He knows the score.

The states have more legal power than most think. The problem will be execution of any punishment.

It will be true test of the 10A.  Not since the 1860s have states rights been tested to this level.

That is the big question.  By Elon releasing the information it implicates Twitter and opens them up to lawsuits.  But unless someone from Twitter made statements such as "XYZ account was banned for misinformation" by their own determination I don't see that sticking.  If Twitter made statements that someone was banned for misinformation because the FBI, DOJ, White House, Adam Schiff, or any of the other government officials lied to them then it seems like that would be defamation and a civil rights violation.  

Then if you factor in entities that were running for an election and/or paying to advertise on the platform, such as for campaign ads, and were suppressed by request of the government, that transitions into election interference.  Using government resources, positions of power, to influence an election seems like that would be a big deal.  Adam Schiff and people in the White House should be charged.  The DOJ wont' do it, so states which have the power to run their own elections need to make the cases and run it through the courts.

18 U.S. Code   595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Good to see that you’ve posted this.

I came in just now to add it to the thread.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-the-fbi-hacked-twitter-lee-smith

How the FBI Hacked Twitter

After journalist Matt Taibbi published the first batch of internal Twitter documents known as the Twitter files, he tweeted that the company’s deputy general counsel, James Baker, was vetting them.

“The news that Baker was reviewing the ‘Twitter files’ surprised everyone involved,” Taibbi wrote. That apparently included even Twitter’s new boss, Elon Musk, who added that Baker may have deleted some of the files he was supposed to be reviewing.

Baker had been the top lawyer at the FBI when it interfered in the 2016 presidential election. News that he might have been burying evidence of the spy service’s use of a social media company to interfere with the 2020 election, is rightly setting off alarm bells.

In fact, the FBI’s penetration of Twitter constituted just one part of a much larger intelligence operation—one in which the bureau offshored the machinery it used to interfere in the 2016 election and embedded it within the private sector. The resulting behemoth, still being built today, is a public-private consortium made up of U.S. intelligence agencies, Big Tech companies, civil society institutions, and major media organizations that has become the world’s most powerful spy service—one that was powerful enough to disappear the former president of the United States from public life, and that is now powerful enough to do the same or worse to anyone else it chooses.

Records from the Twitter files show that the FBI paid Twitter nearly $3.5 million, apparently for actions in connection with the 2020 election and nominally a payout for the platform’s work censoring “dangerous” content that had been flagged as mis- or disinformation. That “dangerous” content notably included material that threatened Joe Biden and implicated U.S. officials who have been curating the Biden family’s foreign corruption for decades.

The Twitter files have to date focused on FBI and, to a lesser extent, CIA election interference. However a lesser-known U.S. government agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also played a significant role in shaping the 2020 vote. “CISA is a sub-agency at DHS that was set up to protect real physical infrastructure, like servers, malware and hacking threats,” said former State Department official Mike Benz, now the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. “But they expanded ‘infrastructure’ to mean us, the U.S. electorate. So ‘disinformation’ threatened infrastructure and that’s how cybersecurity became cyber-censorship. CISA’s mandate went from stopping threats of Russian malware to stopping tweets from accounts that questioned the integrity of mail-in voting.”

We have some insight into CISA’s de facto censorship of Twitter because their private-sector partners boasted about such activities in promotional material. One such public-private partnership was the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a censorship consortium consisting of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Graphika, a D.C.-based private company founded by former national security officials. According to a document from the Twitter files release, Graphika is employed by the Senate Intelligence Committee for “narrative analysis and investigations.” For CISA, Graphika and its EIP partners served as an intermediary to censor social media during the 2020 election cycle.

CISA targeted posts questioning the election procedures introduced into the election process on account of COVID-19, like mass mail-in ballots, early voting drop boxes, and lack of voter ID requirements. But instead of going to the platforms directly, CISA filed tickets with EIP, which relayed them to Twitter, Facebook, and other tech companies. In “after-action” reports, the Election Integrity Partnership bragged about censoring Fox News, the New York Post, Breitbart, and other right-leaning publications for social media posts and online links concerning the integrity of the 2020 election.

The censorship industry is based on a “whole of society model,” said Benz. “It unifies the government and the private sector, as well as civil society in the form of academia and NGOs and news organizations, including fact-checking organizations. All these projects with catchphrases like building resilience, media literacy, cognitive security, etc., are all part of a broad partnership to help censor opponents of the Biden administration.”

Notably, Baker was enlisted in one of the civil-society organizations at the same time he joined Twitter as deputy general counsel. According to Benz, the National Task Force on Election Crises is something like a sister organization to the Transition Integrity Project, the group founded by former Democratic Party officials and Never Trump publicists who war-gamed post-2020-election scenarios. “The outfit Baker was part of,” said Benz, “effectively handled the public messaging for an organization that threatened street violence and counseled violating the constitution to thwart a Trump victory.”

Baker’s presence at Twitter, then, and his review of the Twitter files, was deeply disconcerting. “This is who is inside Twitter,” the journalist and filmmaker Mike Cernovich tweeted at Elon Musk this spring. “He facilitated fraud.”

Musk replied: “Sounds pretty bad.”

In fact, Musk has done more in two months to bring to light crimes committed by U.S. officials than William Barr and John Durham did during their three-year investigation of the FBI’s election interference activities during the 2016 election. Musk now owns what became a crucial component of the national security apparatus that, seen in this light, is worth many times more than the $44 billion he paid for it.

The FBI prepared America’s new public-private censorship regime for the 2020 election by falsely telling Twitter, as well as other social media platforms, press outlets, lawmakers, and staff members of the White House, that Russians were readying a hack and leak operation to dirty the Democratic candidate. Accordingly, when reports of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden and giving evidence of his family’s financial ties with foreign officials were published in October 2020, Twitter blocked them.

In the week before the election, the FBI field office in charge of investigating Hunter Biden sent multiple censorship requests to Twitter. The FBI has “some folks in the Baltimore field office and at [FBI headquarters] that are just doing keyword searches for violations,” a company lawyer wrote in a Nov. 3, 2020, email.

The documents also show that Twitter banished Trump after misrepresenting his posts as incitement to violence. With U.S. intelligence services reportedly using informants to provoke violence during the January 6th protest at the Capitol, the trap closed on Trump. Twitter and Facebook then moved to silence the outgoing president by denying him access to the global communications infrastructure.

The FBI unit designated to coordinate with social media companies during the 2020 election cycle was the Foreign Influence Task Force. It was set up in the fall of 2017 “to identify and counteract malign foreign influence operations” through, “strategic engagement with U.S. technology companies.” During the election cycle, according to the Twitter files, the unit “swelled to 80 agents and corresponded with Twitter to identify alleged foreign influence and election tampering of all kinds.”

The FBI’s chief liaison with Twitter was Elvis Chan, an agent from its Cyber Branch. Based in the San Francisco field office, Chan was also in communication with Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, Reddit and LinkedIn. Chan demanded user information that Twitter said it could not release outside of a “legal process.” In exchange, Chan promised to secure temporary security clearances for 30 Twitter employees a month before the election, presumably to give staff the same briefings on alleged Russian information operations provided to U.S. officials in classified settings.

But Twitter executives claimed they found little evidence of Russian activity on the site. So Chan badgered former head of site security Yoel Roth to produce evidence the FBI was serving its advertised mission of combating foreign influence operations when in fact it was focused on violating the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Chan briefed Twitter extensively on an alleged Russian hacking unit, APT28, or Fancy Bear, which was the same outfit that was claimed by Hillary Clinton campaign contractors to have hacked and leaked Democratic National Committee emails in 2016. According to Roth, the FBI had “primed” him to attribute reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop to an APT28 hack-and-leak operation. Needless to say, the FBI’s reports—and subsequent “disinformation” claims—were themselves blatant disinformation, invented by the FBI, which had been in possession of the laptop for nearly a year.

The FBI’s penetration of Twitter constituted just one part of a much larger intelligence operation—one in which the bureau offshored the machinery it used to interfere in the 2016 election and embedded it within the private sector.

Twitter was more than a one-way mirror: The FBI also seems to have embedded its own spy structure within the social media company to siphon off the personal data and behavior of users. Dozens of former intelligence officials were installed within Twitter after the election of Donald Trump. Some had active top secret security clearances. Twitter’s director of strategy was Dawn Burton, former FBI Director James Comey’s deputy chief of staff. Perhaps most significant was Baker himself, who appears to have led the FBI’s internal organization at the platform. Efforts to reach Baker for comment on this story were unsuccessful.

Baker left the FBI in 2018 under a cloud of suspicion. In 2017, the Justice Department investigated him for leaking to the press, and the Republican-led House of Representatives later investigated him for his role in Russiagate. Former congressional officials say that as part of the bureau’s 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign, Baker authored the warrant to spy on Trump’s inner circle.

After he departed the law enforcement agency, CNN rewarded him for his “resistance” activities—which boosted the network’s ratings to record levels—by hiring him as a legal analyst. The Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution brought Baker on board to contribute to its collusion-conspiracy website “Lawfare.” DOJ again investigated him in 2019 for leaking to the media while at the FBI. In June 2020, Baker joined Twitter as deputy general counsel. With his security clearances still active, he was Twitter’s liaison with U.S. intelligence agencies, where he reinforced the FBI’s external pressure from inside Twitter to censor the Biden laptop story.

Under Baker, Twitter became more than just an instrument to censor the opposition; it also spied on them. Newly released court documents show that Twitter coordinated with the DOJ to intercept the communications of users potentially dangerous to the Biden campaign, like Tara Reade, ​the former Biden Senate staffer who alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her decades earlier. The DOJ subpoenaed her Twitter account, likely with the purpose of giving the company cover for finding out which journalists had contacted her about her allegations.

The cozy two-way relationship between the government and the social media company, which Baker helped oversee and ultimately used to interfere in the 2020 election, was years in the making. In 2014, Twitter filed suit against the DOJ and the FBI, Twitter v. Holder. The San Francisco-based social media platform had been served Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to collect the electronic communications of some of its users, and Twitter said that in the interests of transparency, it wanted to release a public report with the precise numbers of warrants it had been served. FBI General Counsel James Baker refused. Twitter could disclose the number of warrants in broad, inexact ranges, for instance between 0-249, but not the exact number, even if it was zero.

To press its case, Twitter hired Perkins Coie, a prominent Democratic Party-aligned firm that had represented several presidential campaigns—John Kerry’s, Barack Obama’s and eventually Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run, during which the law firm would hire Fusion GPS to produce the discredited dossier of Trump-Russia reports under the byline of British ex-spy Christopher Steele that became the center of Russiagate.

The firm’s lead attorney for Twitter v. Holder was former DOJ cybersecurity expert Michael Sussmann. He and Baker were friends. The FBI lawyer thanked him in a September 2014 letter for a recent meeting that included Twitter’s top lawyer Vijaya Gadde and others, but affirmed that giving specific numbers would reveal “properly classified information.” Why that would endanger sources and methods, as the government claimed, Baker never explained. But no one at DOJ knew more than Baker about FISA, the most intrusive surveillance program that U.S. intelligence services have in their arsenal.

Even during his time in the private sector Baker had worked on FISA issues. In 2008, he’d taken a job at Verizon, where George H.W. Bush’s former Attorney General William Barr was general counsel. Baker was assistant general counsel for national security, and thus an entry point for his former DOJ colleagues, facilitating their access to material obtained through FISA and other surveillance programs. It wouldn’t have occurred to him or Barr to want to publish, as Twitter said it did, the number of FISA warrants that law enforcement served their private-sector employer. They were DOJ men, and FISAs are highly classified. Few outside the intelligence community had ever seen one, until the Trump era.

An April 2017 story in The Washington Post disclosed that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page, making FISA part of the national lexicon. The Post story, sourced to law enforcement and other U.S. officials, far exceeded what Twitter was prevented from publishing for national security reasons. It named the subject of a FISA warrant, and revealed that the warrant targeted a presidential candidate’s circle.

“Baker authored the Page FISA and signed off on all of it,” Kash Patel, a member of President Trump’s National Security Council, told me. Patel also served as Devin Nunes’ lead investigator for the House Intelligence Committee’s probe of FBI crimes and abuses committed during the bureau’s Trump-Russia investigation. Recently, reports have also surfaced that the DOJ was spying on Patel and other Nunes staffers while they were investigating the FBI and DOJ.

Patel continued. “When I was at DOJ,” he said, “Baker had a reputation of being a FISA guru. The Page FISA was crafted by someone who knew what questions not to ask, and how to use language to get it past a FISA court judge without fully disclosing facts they knew would have disqualified the warrant.”

Baker told congress that he didn’t normally work on FISAs in his job as the FBI’s top lawyer, but this FISA was especially sensitive: It allowed the bureau to sweep up a presidential campaign’s electronic communications, including those of a certain Republican candidate. So, Baker said, he “wanted to make sure that we were filing something that would adhere to the law.”

But the Page FISA was unlawful. The FBI had simply laundered the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump dirt into a surveillance warrant so it could justify spying on the candidate in support of her Democratic rival. “The FBI wanted the warrant, so they wrote it in a way to get it even though they knew it was a fraud, as our investigation would expose,” said Patel. But with Baker squaring away the package, who was going to question the FISA guru?

By fall 2016, Baker had become the preferred drop box for the Clinton team to push anti-Trump dirt into the FBI. His friend, the journalist David Corn, passed him more Steele reports, which he handed off to FBI colleagues investigating the GOP candidate. Baker also agreed to a meeting with a former associate who wanted to pass on research from cyber experts about a supposed secret computer channel between a Russian bank and Trump. That was Michael Sussmann.

Five years later, the special counsel appointed to investigate the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe would charge Sussmann with lying to the FBI. Specifically, he’d lied to his friend Jim Baker: When Sussmann met with him in September 2016 to pass on Trump-Russia information, he told Baker he wasn’t representing a client when in fact he was working for the Clinton campaign.

Given what we know now, it’s clear that special counsel John Durham’s case against Sussmann was even more troubled than it first seemed. His star witness, Baker, wasn’t a hero in the story but a co-conspirator, to whom Durham gave a pass so he could charge Sussmann with a process crime.

Obviously, Baker knew his friend was representing the Clinton campaign—that’s what Perkins Coie lawyers do: represent Democratic Party presidential campaigns. But the two would want to cover their tracks, so before their September 2016 meeting, the Clinton lawyer sent Baker a text saying that he had information to share, and he wasn’t representing a client. This would have proven Durham’s case about Sussman lying to his friend Baker at the FBI, except Baker never told the prosecutor about the text. Neither did the DOJ’s inspector general, who had Baker’s phones, until it was too late to use the evidence in court.

What few understood was that the issue wasn’t just the 2016 election but the 2020 vote, too. Baker had to tread carefully or else risk exposing the job for which Sussmann had helped plant him at Twitter. It was one of the spy service’s most sensitive operations—infiltrating social media platforms to fix a presidential race. So Sussmann was acquitted—and the FBI’s hack of Twitter continued.

The Twitter files’ disclosures about the coordination between the company and spy agencies to fix presidential elections sheds light on the nature of Twitter v. Holder, which was eventually decided in the government’s favor shortly before Baker joined the company. Twitter filed the suit because it believed in transparency—and to reassure users that the platform wasn’t being used to spy on them, or not most of them. But something else was going on behind the scenes: Social media platforms were already being assimilated into the intelligence services.

Documents leaked in 2013 by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden showed that the NSA was mining social media platforms to build profiles on Americans. Previously, the NSA was required to stop searching the contact chain of a foreign target when it reached a U.S. citizen, but a 2010 change in policy allowed the intelligence services to trace the contacts of Americans so long as there was a “foreign intelligence” purpose. That is, even at the dawn of the social media revolution, the spy services saw social media as a surveillance tool, like FISA.

In response to Snowden’s disclosures, then-President Barack Obama gave high-minded speeches about balancing civil rights and national security. But by the time Twitter filed its 2014 suit, the White House had already chosen to turn surveillance programs against its domestic opponents. Obama’s intelligence chiefs spied on U.S. legislators and pro-Israel activists opposed to Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative, the Iran nuclear deal.

The Obama administration also realized that it could lean hard on monopoly social media platforms in order to gain political advantages—and it could make companies that weren’t compliant pay a price. First strike got you a dressing down from the White House: Weeks after the 2016 vote, for instance, Obama pulled Mark Zuckerberg aside at a conference in Peru and read him out about not doing more to keep Russian disinformation off Facebook. The reality is that Russia spent around $135,000 on Facebook ads, a small percentage of what presidential campaigns typically spend on a single day before lunch. But Obama wasn’t worried about Russia—he struck deals with Vladimir Putin to advance his own idiosyncratic foreign policy goals, like the nuclear agreement with Russia’s ally Iran. Obama’s problem was Trump.

As he was leaving office, Obama stamped the U.S. government’s seal of approval on Russiagate, ordering his spy chiefs to draft an official assessment claiming Putin helped put Trump in the White House. Since then, in Deep State parlance, “Russia” equals Trump and stopping “Russian disinformation” means censoring Trump, his supporters, and anyone else opposed to the national security apparatus’s takeover of the public communications infrastructure. Since Zuckerberg didn’t keep Trump off Facebook in 2016, he had to put up $400 million to drive votes to Democrats in 2020—and even that wasn’t enough. In 2021, Democratic Party insiders working together with Zuckerberg’s Big Tech competitor, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, sent a fake whistleblower after him to testify before congress that Facebook was bad for teenage girls.

The censorship regime would regulate out of existence anyone who resists it. To make the case for the hegemony of government censors, it found an eminent pitchman: Barack Obama.

In April, as Musk first said he wanted to buy Twitter and save free speech, Obama embarked on a “disinformation” tour, which took him to several college campuses to promote the un-American virtues of censorship. He first visited his hometown to speak at a University of Chicago conference, “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.” Other guests included Anne Applebaum, an early advocate of the collusion conspiracy theory who pushed the spy-service fiction in dozens of her Washington Post columns. Also in attendance was former CISA head Chris Krebs, now famous for congressional testimony in which he claimed the 2020 election was the most secure ever.

EIP principals from the Stanford Internet Observatory were featured speakers at the daylong seminar at the Palo Alto university where Obama made the second stop on his April “disinformation” tour. Regulation, Obama told the Stanford audience, has to be part of the answer to solve the disinformation crisis. In other words, he went to Silicon Valley to threaten his listeners that he would ruin their financial model by stripping away social media’s liability exemptions.

The purpose of Obama’s speech was to present a choice to his audience: Either you impose a scorched-earth policy against the establishment’s opponents, or else you will face the kind of regulation that every company knows will be its death knell. Moreover, if they made the right choice, Obama showed, there was money in it for them.

“In effect, Obama announced that the funding channels are open for people who want to do disinformation work,” said Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. “It’s like what happened with climate change. If you were an academic who wanted federal funding for anything, you made sure you made reference to climate to get grants. Same now with disinformation. Obama was saying, ‘here’s where the puck is moving, so skate here if you want federal funding.’”

To reward EIP for greasing its path to the White House, the Biden administration awarded all four consortium partners with grant money. The Stanford and Washington units received $3 million from the National Science Foundation “to study ways to apply collaborative, rapid-response research to mitigate online disinformation.” Graphika won nearly $5 million from the Pentagon after the 2020 election for “research on cross-platform detection to counter malign influence,” and another $2 million in 2021. Since 2021, the Atlantic Council received $4.7 million in federal grants, mostly from the State Department, a total far exceeding its previous awards.

In retrospect, the failure of the Russiagate conspiracy theory accelerated the spy service’s takeover of social media. Though no one is likely to be held accountable anytime soon, or ever, it was enough that the details of the operation were exposed by Patel and Nunes. In response, the spy agencies moved much of their operations out of the federal government and into the private sector, where even if congressional investigators found it, there wasn’t much they could do. Republicans could threaten to regulate social media, but their threats were empty. They might even find themselves—and their campaign ads—banned from Twitter.

The public-private sector merger worked only because, as a unifying myth for the U.S. elite, if not as a legal or political maneuver, Russiagate was a great success. If there were any fears of how news of the FBI’s spying operation on a presidential campaign might be received by the press, civil rights activists, and the left, the reception to Russiagate dispelled those concerns. The media offered itself up as a platform for information operations and published illegal leaks of classified information while the rest of the ruling class promoted a conspiracy theory and celebrated the assault on the constitutional rights of their fellow Americans as a success story.

The Republican attorney general of the United States, William Barr—the ultimate DOJ insider—knew the FBI was working to fix the 2020 election and did nothing to stop it. His Justice Department had the laptop in its possession and Barr knew it was authentic. He told reporters this spring that he was “shocked” Biden lied about his son’s computer in the Oct. 22, 2020, debate with Trump. “He’s squarely confronted with the laptop, and he suggested that it was Russian disinformation,” said Barr, “which he knew was a lie.” Yet agents under Barr’s authority were briefing that lie to social media platforms, the press, Congress, and even the Trump White House.

“There were 80 FBI agents in the unit working on foreign disinformation,” Patel told me. “It was about a presidential election, so it would require authorization from the FBI director and the attorney general. Barr knew.”

Barr resigned from the administration a month after the election, outraged that Trump kept pushing him to investigate election fraud when, according to Barr, there was no evidence of it. And yet on his watch, law enforcement agencies under his authority ran the biggest election interference operation in U.S. history. William Barr did not respond to a request for comment.

It seems Barr’s contempt for the president he served blinded him—along with the class of people to which he belongs, Democrats and Republicans alike—to an essential fact: A whole-of-society industry designed to shape elections and censor, propagandize, and spy on Americans was never simply a weapon to harm Donald Trump. It was designed to replace the republic.

Should we start by not using services like AWS and actively promoting buying stuff there?

Was it really the FBI or certain individuals "from the FBI" who conformed with what that company's (Twitter) agenda?

Knowing what we know about how Twitter has been a very radical left-leaning corporation that prioritized hiring leftists and those politically-correct and affirmative-action individuals that were not from any alphabet-soup agency, I have many doubts about how innocent they are.  All this stuff about "the government forced them" is sounding like a CYA for corporations that have been actively helping the current status quo and the groups in power.

TL/DR: they could have hired honest and straight former employees from those .gov agencies but opted to not do so.  

It has been proven that the "Russian collusion" program was a lie and it was backed by several individuals in the government and since they had positions of power, it means the government itself.

Did anything happen to those individuals and/or organizations?  

The only thing coming out are more distractions keeping the lemmings and goldfish population's 30-seconds memory and attention span away.

And here we go.gif

From the article:



Who built this "industry" and has been supporting/funding it?

Who is benefiting from all this?

https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump#

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

"Bit of both" is also a (very real) possibility.

Our masters, that's who.

It is. Twitter was infested top down and all too willing and happy to “help”. It is both.

True believers, for the cause. Twitters mission became “changing governments and society for the greater good.  We can’t let 2016 election happen ever again”.  You have to remember. These people truly believe at their core they were stopping the next Hitler fascist (trump).

That fbi/cia and myriad of gov agencies etc co-opted the mission is of no surprise because their goals aligned perfectly. Those “agents” were in high positions of power at Twitter. And communist absolutely love them some gov authority.

This isn’t some conspiracy theory. It’s a fucking fact. All these releases prove it so.

It is so much much worse than I had ever imagined. Trump - “they’re wire tapping my campaign”. Oh that’s just crazy talk.

A merger of state and corporate power.

Mussolini smiles.

One question I have is if Twitter was built from the ground up as a propaganda tool of the government like Facebook was or did they take over a free speech tool once they saw the risk it posed.

they took it over when they forced jack out

This.

Jack resigned in Nov. 21, the above article shows .gov elements were there far before that.

Jacks actions seem to suggest he knew and when it went completely out of his control he resigned. His actions with musk appear to support that, but musk isn't afraid to call out thing that happened under jacks watch.

You need to look at the history of Twitter and their board. He was forced out long before that. He may have not resigned but he had no power nor influence.

That board became infested with Indian communists.  First thing Elon did was fire the board.  That’s why I keep saying that company was infested top down. From the BOD, to the heads of every department. Infested and they were dug in deep.

Yet they accuse the Right of being the Fascist .

This one shows the SSCI as part of the deep state team:

25.Twitter was taking requests from every conceivable government body, beginning with the Senate Intel Committee (SSCI), which seemed to need reassurance Twitter was taking FBI direction. Execs rushed to tell “Team SSCI” they zapped five accounts on an FBI tip: pic.twitter.com/hWnkOX292C

Matt Taibbi  (@mtaibbi) January 3, 2023

Remember, the snake mark warner, member of the SSCI, easily got a copy of the Carter Page FISA application and most likely directed James Wolfe to leak it to Ali Watkins on Mar. 17, 2017.  This copy of the FISA app had at least one know leak tracer, the origination date was changed from Oct 21st to Oct 19th, 2016.  The ny slimes and wapost both used the Oct 19th date (cold links on purpose):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/31/what-we-know-about-the-warrant-to-surveil-carter-page/?utm_term=.460b46c070dd
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/4/1738508/-This-Destroys-the-Nunes-Memo
This also explains why the dates were redacted in publicly released version of the FISA application.  The reason we know the real date is Oct 21st, 2016 is from the Grassley memo:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-03-15%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20

The House intel committee, led by Devin Nunes, the House justice committee, and Senate judiciary committee did not get to see the Carter Page FISA app until until early 2018.  And they didn't get a copy, but were only allowed to view the app at the DoJ and take notes.  The DoJ stonewalled them, won't give them a copy, while willingly complied with the SSCI.

If you think Simple Jack wasn't sucking fedboi cock the whole time, I have a bridge to sell you.

Outstanding.  

Not a peep about this from local news sources.  Go figure.

It is STILL happening. I went HARD against the covid narrative last night in one of Catturd's thread, slamming people and dropping memes.

Woke up today to a suspension.

The fact that the top leadership at the DOJ and FBI haven’t thrown “rogue agents” under the bus tells you everything you need to know about who at FBI was behind it.

There are still rules and suspensions if you violate them.
Did they not give you any reason for the suspension?

If the world turned just the 10th amendment would apply and people would stop  play acting like the 14th amenedment passed when we know for a fact it didn't.

Slightly more real world: state doesn't sue, state just withholds its taxes from the fed .gov and then fedgov realizes they actually ARE the weaker one in this fight.

1/ My first #TwitterFiles report: how @scottgottliebmd - a top Pfizer board member - used the same Twitter lobbyist as the White House to suppress debate on Covid vaccines, INCLUDING FROM A FELLOW HEAD OF @US_FDA!

Thanks @elonmusk for opening these files.https://t.co/UbHlmtjELP

Alex Berenson  (@AlexBerenson) January 9, 2023