More Twitter Revelations…Crickets Or Denials From The Complicit Mainstream Media And The Left’s Censorship Beneficiaries

Keep it up, guys. With every effort to deny that what happened was what happened, the corrupted U.S. journalists and their employers erode public trust in their profession further, and with it their power. Eventually, there will be a breaking point and an ugly reckoning. Good. They have been asking for it. Yeah, keep up the gaslighting and denial. The fools really think they can bury the story. Even at Memeorandum, which is usually an objective news aggregator, the tweeted revelations by Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi are invisible. (Top story as I write this: a soccer reporter has died.) Very disappointing: I thought they were better than this. Still, the site’s bias is worth knowing about. I will not trust it as I have in the past.

Here’s a smoking gun: look at the transcript of an NPR interview with Newt Gingrich. Newt is unethical slime, but he’s very intelligent unethical slime, and when his personal agendas don’t interfere with his analysis, he is worth listening to. (I learned more in a private two hour seminar with young Newt when he was a Congressman than I learned in many full Government courses at Harvard.) Pay special attention to the NPR interviewer’s refusal to deal with reality that implicates NPR:

MARY LOUISE KELLY: But that has been what he has wanted to talk about – I mean, his repeated false claims about a stolen election, which I have to note you supported and talked about and spread. That did seem to fall flat with midterm voters. Is – how big a problem is that for Republicans?

GINGRICH: Look. I’ll be cheerful about coming back some time, and we can devote an entire interview to whether it was a rigged election – not necessarily stolen but certainly rigged. And we can start with all the Twitter information, and we can start with Zuckerberg’s $415 million.

KELLY: I just need to pause you there because it’s not me saying this. This is dozens of courts across the U.S. that have rejected claims of rigged elections.

GINGRICH: No, no. They rejected claims of stolen elections. Nobody ever looked at rigging.

KELLY: For the record, do you believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected president?

GINGRICH: For the record, I believe that he won under the terms that were set up, and I think that the entire elite system cheated in every way they could to defeat Donald Trump.

KELLY: I need to push you on this before we go on. I’m not hearing you say you believe he was legitimately elected.

GINGRICH: I believe he won under the rules, and I think that the system that elected him did everything it could to rig the game, including, for example, Twitter kicking off the incumbent president of the United States, kicking off the New York Post. I just did a podcast about this that we’re releasing with a New York Post reporter who – Miranda Devine, who can walk you through step by step.

Bingo. Newt is right, and not just because his is the Ethics Alarms position and has been all along: the election was rigged, but it is impossible to know if it was stolen.Thinking it was is a reasonable opinion. For Kelly to use the courts’ rejection of Trump’s (incompetent) lawyers lawsuits as evidence of anything other than the fact that hard evidence of voting fraud could not be found shows that she is either ignorant of the law or part of a cover-up (I vote both). Her point is like saying someone (like me) is lying when I state that O.J. murdered his wife and Ron Goldman because a jury acquitted him. The evidence is there; we know better. We also know that the election was rigged, by Twitter and many others, including NPR and the news organizations denying and trying to hide the emerging truth.

Here’s the latest: Matt Taibbi’s tweet-stream, the third so far. Remember that there are attachments to many of the tweets, which you will need to go to Matt’s feed to see.

THREAD: The Twitter Files THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP Part One: October 2020-January 6th: The world knows much of the story of what happened between riots at the Capitol on January 6th, and the removal of President Donald Trump from Twitter on January 8th. We’ll show you what hasn’t been revealed: the erosion of standards within the company in months before J6, decisions by high-ranking executives to violate their own policies, and more, against the backdrop of ongoing, documented interaction with federal agencies. This first installment covers the period before the election through January 6th. Tomorrow, @Shellenbergermd will detail the chaos inside Twitter on January 7th. On Sunday,  @BariWeiss will reveal the secret internal communications from the key date of January 8th. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.” Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways.

The bulk of the internal debate leading to Trump’s ban took place in those three January days. However, the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots. Before J6, Twitter was a unique mix of automated, rules-based enforcement, and more subjective moderation by senior executives. As @BariWeiss reported, the firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most all of which were thrown at Trump (and others) pre-J6. As the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed – increasingly struggled with rules, and began to speak of “vios” as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway. After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies. Here’s Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth, lamenting a lack of “generic enough” calendar descriptions to concealing his “very interesting” meeting partners. These initial reports are based on searches for docs linked to prominent executives, whose names are already public. They include Roth, former trust and policy chief Vijaya Gadde, and recently plank-walked Deputy General Counsel (and former top FBI lawyer) Jim Baker. One particular slack channel offers an unique window into the evolving thinking of top officials in late 2020 and early 2021. On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters.”

There was at least some tension between Safety Operations – a larger department whose staffers used a more rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats – and a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy execs like Roth and Gadde. During this time, executives were also clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content. While we’re still at the start of reviewing the #TwitterFiles, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day. Policy Director Nick Pickles is asked if they should say Twitter detects “misinfo” through “ML, human review, and **partnerships with outside experts?*” The employee asks, “I know that’s been a slippery process… not sure if you want our public explanation to hang on that.” Pickles quickly asks if they could “just say “partnerships.” After a pause, he says, “e.g. not sure we’d describe the FBI/DHS as experts.”

This post [linked to Matt’s tweet] about the Hunter Biden laptop situation shows that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI):

Roth’s report to FBI/DHS/DNI is almost farcical in its self-flagellating tone: “We blocked the NYP story, then unblocked it (but said the opposite)… comms is angry, reporters think we’re idiots… in short, FML” (fuck my life).

Some of Roth’s later Slacks indicate his weekly confabs with federal law enforcement involved separate meetings. Here, he ghosts the FBI and DHS, respectively, to go first to an “Aspen Institute thing,” then take a call with Apple.

Here [again, the document is attached] the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets, the second of which involves a former Tippecanoe County, Indiana Councilor and Republican named @JohnBasham claiming “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.” The FBI-flagged tweet then got circulated in the enforcement Slack. Twitter cited Politifact to say the first story was “proven to be false,” then noted the second was already deemed “no vio on numerous occasions.” The group then decides to apply a “Learn how voting is safe and secure” label because one commenter says, “it’s totally normal to have a 2% error rate.” Roth then gives the final go-ahead to the process initiated by the FBI…

Examining 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 were absent here.


1. Note the last sentence. Nah, there’s no Deep State, and law enforcement agencies weren’t directly undermining the Trump administration! The recent talking point by the election-rigging deniers is that while the Biden campaign’s efforts to censor information on Twitter isn’t a First Amendment violation, similar activities by the Trump administration might be. But here, it was agencies within the Trump administration actively working to assist Biden and undermine Trump—to constrain free speech and manipulate what voters could learn— to benefit Democrats.

If you think they did this without coordination with the Democratic Party, I have a cool bridge to sell you.

2. Trump’s head, being the kind of head that it is, must be exploding with all this stuff, erupting like Monaloa. It was clear early on in his administration that one of the objectives of the non-stop disrespect, demonization and Big Lies was to push Trump into a meltdown so the Axis and other critics could say, “See? We told you he was unstable!” (This goes to my Captain Queeg analogy) To their surprise and mine, Trump managed to hold it together (mostly) until the very end, after the election, when he behaved irresponsibly and abominably. His recent outburst about defying the Constitution was in the same category.

3. I want to keep score on how many reporters, pundits and MSM sources have the gall to continue to repeat the talking point that Trump’s claims about the 2020 election are “lies” and “baseless.” This is, if nothing else, a base.

4.Who the fuck are these arrogant, puffed-up Twitter hacks to take it upon themselves to decide what the public can read regarding national affairs and information bearing on an election? How dare they? How dare anyone defend them? How dare any informed, educated, patriotic and ethical American, including journalists, not be furious about what happened?

5. I am sorry about the vulgarity, but damn, this is infuriating. I read one pundit this morning saying that conservatives were trying to create an imaginary “right to post.” That’s right: the ruthless, totalitarian lefists really think a democracy can thrive when the major avenues of information and communication are controlled by censors who use their power to benefit a single party and its objectives.

6. PolitiFact? POLITIFACT??? This is the authority these conspirators used as authority to claim tweets were untrue? Here’s the Ethics Alarms dossier on that completely and clearly partisan “factchecking” organization. Using it all by itself is sufficient to prove prove bias.

9 thoughts on “More Twitter Revelations…Crickets Or Denials From The Complicit Mainstream Media And The Left’s Censorship Beneficiaries

  1. Damned straight. “The ruthless, totalitarian leftists really think a democracy can thrive when the major avenues of information and communication are controlled by censors who use their power to benefit a single party and its objectives” because those censors are smart and good, and that party is right and good and as soon as the other party, the Republicans, are eliminated and there is no longer any opposition to single party rule by the right and good party, everything will be PERFECT.

    • And oh, by the way, the “soccer reporter” was smart and good and even had a gay brother. He wore LGBTQ regalia while in Qatar to annoy Qatari officialdom. His brother has said the Qataris murdered his brother. So, this is a big story. It’s not a nothing burger like Matt Taibbi and Twitter, which we already knew about.


    • I like the commentary over at Althouse that points out lefties first said Twitter censoring anything was a right-wing conspiracy and now they’re saying it’s old news, and everyone knew about the censoring months ago.

      • That’s a well-worn rut with these sorts of things now.

        1. It’s not happening.

        2. Even if it did happen, it would be a good thing.

        3. Of course it happened, everybody knew it, and it’s no big deal.

        They undermine and downplay it at the beginning, then later use the fact that the suppressed and ridiculed story didn’t gain traction when first revealed as evidence that it isn’t worth covering when incontrovertible proof surfaces later. It’s diabolical, and it’s depressing that this shit seems to work every time.

          • I think that’s a big part of it. It really helps to have an uncritical, doctrinaire audience. Then you don’t need to worry about such things as consistency or logic. You can just say whatever you want and trust that your audience will agree as long as you use the right keywords and phrases to signal thst you’re on the correct team.

  2. If you think they did this without coordination with the Democratic Party, I have a cool bridge to sell you.

    Someone who was involved in Watergate was once asked who initiated the cover up. He replied that nobody had, they just all knew that it was what their remit called for and each sprang into action and did what matched with that – what we might now call emergent behaviour, stemming from a particular culture. So I find it quite plausible that there was no such co-ordination with the Democratic Party, simply because it is very possible that nobody felt they needed to consult about what (in their eyes) was clearly called for and they would simply have been OKed about anyway.

  3. Here is Michael Harriot’s take.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.