Further Updates And Observations On The Musk-Taibbi Twitter Revelations [Updated Further!]

This is going to be only one post when it ought to be about five. I’m restraining myself; here is another example of a story that has me in a self-flagellating mood because I have so mismanaged my life, time, opportunities and talents that I am reduced to fulminating futilely on an obscure blog that does nothing to effect any substantive change, at a period in our culture’s journey when ignorance and malevolence threaten the nation’s essence.  Meanwhile, the likes of Alyssa Milano, Milo Yiannopoulos, and social media “influencers ” have millions of followers who heed their “wisdom.”

On top of all the obstacles, many of which are of my own making, that make anything I write here little more than self-indulgence, Musk dropped his truth-bomb on a Friday night, virtually assuring minimal public attention, never mind dooming the topic to the shadows on Ethics Alarms where tumbleweeds roll down the metaphorical streets every Saturday.

Well, that’s enough bitching. At least you know my state of mind as I write this.


  • The post from last night covers the basics. I began by writing, “So far, not surprisingly, the mainstream media isn’t covering the story encompassed by Musk’s internal records about how Twitter helped bury the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.” As of this morning, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post, among most of their fellow Left-leaning propagandists masquerading as journalists, have covered it yet. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Thus we have another episode that serves as a smoking gun that should convince the willfully blind that we really do have a Pravda-style journalism establishment now, but won’t.
  • I agree with critics who are are knocking Musk for the manner in which he chose to release the evidence. He didn’t do it directly, but through a substack pundit, and through the annoying device of  dozens of serial tweets with attachments. Okay, his new toy is struggling as the Evil Empire tries to destroy him and it for attempting to foil their public manipulation machine. Nevertheless, this was not the time to try to boost Twitter use; it was a time to be clear, transparent, and direct.
  • Signature significance: multiple leftist political figures and reporters are attacking the messenger, Taibbi, because he is publicizing facts that undercut the efforts of the Axis of Unethical Conduct to defeat Trump and install their favorite party and ideology in places of power. Here’s progressive activist Max Berger:

“Talking points!” Now here’s NBC’s Ben Collins, stating that Taibbi “threw it all away,” meaning his membership card in the mainstream media Democratic propaganda club:

The corrupt cognitive dissonance attack on Taibbi by using “the richest man” sneer is a theme of these attacks, as if the value of facts is measured by who presents them. Desperate stuff. This guy is a frequent New York Times contributor:

“Good work” to these unethical, awful people means “he helped us boost progressives while undermining conservatives.”

  • Iconaclast Glenn Greenwald, like Taibbi a fugitive from mainstream media corruption who camps out at substack, is predictably disgusted. In his own tweetstorm, he writes,

The story deserves way more attention than it will get from media propagandists.Not one media outlet that spread this CIA lie [that the laptop story was a Russian fabrication] – that everyone knows is a lie – has admitted that they did this or explained what happened. That’s because they lied on purpose. And that’s why these media employees are so enraged at Taibbi: they hate being reminded of their fraud. I’ve been covering this story for almost two years. Remember: I quit the media outlet I co-founded when they censored my story based on the CIA’s lie – which@theintercept had ratified and laundered the week before – because anyone who wanted to could see what was going on then. This is the biggest media scandal in a decade. Most major media outlets united to disseminate an absolute lie concocted by the CIA: the Biden archive was “Russian disinformation.” These docs show what we already knew, but offer new, specific proof: 1) Dems explicitly demand more censorship from Big Tech. 2) Dems have an open line to do it. 3) Twitter knew it was lying when censoring the Biden story days before the 2020 election…Finally, don’t let the mindless chirping of disinformation agents in the largest corporate media outlets distract from what these docs reveal. That’s what they’re trying to do: turn themselves into a sideshow of clichéd insults to train their followers to believe this is trivial. Watching little obedient dweebs at NBC, CNN and the Daily Beast claim *Matt Taibbi* is a servant to power is the most brazen case of projection I’ve ever seen. Taibbi spent his career and still does exposing Wall St and CIA’s lies (Russiagate). They are their loyal mouthpieces. It’s because – as devastating as it is to their self-image as brave dissidents and radicals – nobody in any power center regards *them* as threatening. They’re their servants, useful tools for these institutions of power. No Dem politician or group would be censored by Big Tech. Do any of these fucking posers on the liberal-left ever wonder why CIA worked with their favorite corporate media employees to sabotage Trump, not Biden? Do they ever ask why corporations and Big Tech follow commands from Media Matters, not right-wing groups? When they unite for their melodramatic routine about how “sad” it is to see our “downfall” what they mean is they know we harbor contempt for their hegemonic liberal institutions. We have always regarded CIA, Wall St, corporate media with scorn and still do: that’s *them.*…The reason these people insist Taibbi’s story is trivial is they will not and cannot recognize any scandalous or improper behavior by leading Dem politicians. Ask them to name any. Any critique of leading Dems is automatically, to them, a fraud, a “nothingburger.” They’re Dems.


  • The rationalizations being weaponized by the Axis is #52. The Underwood Maneuver, or “That’s in the past” and #51, The Apathy Defense, or “Nobody Cares.” Everybody has forgotten about that, so why can’t you? Why can’t you move on? Even Greenwald says that Musk’s documents “show what we already knew,” but “we” doesn’t include most of the public, who have been deliberately confused about the episode. If everybody knew, then why does the news media still write virtually every day that claims that the 2020 election was “stolen” are “completely baseless”? They write that because they are still trying to disguise what occurred.
  • Finally, this from Althouse commenter Christopher B.:

I’m going by memory here but I believe Musk said in one of his earlier Tweets that the material would be posted on Twitter itself. Does it drive traffic there? Sure, but eating your own dog food to prove something works is a pretty common theme among tech companies. If Musk’s vision of Twitter is a place where uncomfortable subjects can be discussed then a discussion Twitter’s (im)moderation policies on Twitter itself is a logical start. The other thing it does is put the material on Twitter so that you don’t get contextless hot take. How many people actually follow a link to an article in a tweet rather than taking their cues from the posted comments? I’ll be the first to admit that I most often react to posts at many sites based on the excerpt and the poster’s comments without necessarily reading the underlying article, and a Tweet with a link doesn’t have anything but the posters reaction.

Tiabbi sent a message to his SubStack subscribers in advance of these postings (I didn’t put 2 and 2 together when I read it) that indicates he’s going to do a longer form posting, probably to SubStack I would guess, and seemed to hint at a book length version.

LATE ADDENDUM. From Max Abrahms, Associate Professor of political science at Northeastern University. (Now watch him get fired…)

15 thoughts on “Further Updates And Observations On The Musk-Taibbi Twitter Revelations [Updated Further!]

  1. Jack,
    Thank you for your coverage last night and this morning of Musk’s revelations and your take on the reportage thus far. Last night I found no coverage on the TV news except for Fox News coverage, and this morning only the conservative online sites are adding any follow-up. Evil deeds remain afoot here!

  2. Typical lefty reaction to all this: “So Biden was grifting for a little dough. So what? He’s better than Trump. And he could have made more money if he’d gone to Wall Street, you know, like the Clintons. Politicians are noble servants. They deserve a little grease. People would have elected Biden over Trump even if they thought all the stuff on the laptop was factual. It’s a nothing burger. Move on. [Insert preferred Dem talking point here, such as ‘Working families are struggling.’]”

  3. I don’t comment very often, but I just want to thank you, Jack.

    You are one of the few sources that give me balance each day.

    Thank you!

  4. Keep up the good work, Jack. This story is big, and deserves to be covered – and every logical, well spoken, level-headed analysis is one more that will get it toward the coverage it deserves.

  5. Just searched the ‘front page’ of NYT.com. Unlike the past few weeks’ Musk-o-Rama of critical stories and hysterical OpEds, not one mention of Musk or Twitter.

  6. I’m restraining myself; here is another example of a story that has me in a self-flagellating mood because I have so mismanaged my life, time, opportunities and talents that I am reduced to fulminating futilely on an obscure blog that does nothing to effect any substantive change, at a period in our culture’s journey when ignorance and malevolence threaten the nation’s essence. Meanwhile, the likes of Alyssa Milano, Milo Yiannopoulos, and social media “influencers ” have millions of followers who heed their “wisdom.”

    Tangential, I know, but have you ever considered writing an editorial piece in your professional wheelhouse and trying to get it published on Quillette or Bari Weiss’s substack, or someplace like Legal Insurrection? I don’t know of a lot of experts in your specific field, so if there’s a rich legal ethics angle on something the editors might find your take interesting (and link back here in your byline.) It would boost your ideas to their audience and also probably drive more readership back here.

    Just a thought, probably won’t get you celebrity numbers, but I’ve found success online tends to favor those who “show up” in virtual form and ask the director to give them a shot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.