Will Adam Schiff’s Claims Now Be Blocked On Twitter?

Twitter LogoJust a day after more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed on to a letter declaring that the recent disclosure of emails from the Hunter Biden laptop is likely Russian disinformation, the FBI reportedly confirmed that the material does not appear to be Russian disinformation. While former officials like John Brennan insisted that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” the FBI appears to have found no such evidence thus far. This followed a similar conclusion from the Director of National Intelligence in response to House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff saying that the story was pure Russian disinformation. The question is whether Twitter and Facebook will now bar access to Schiff’s statements pending further review since the actual intelligence agencies are suggesting that this could be democratic disinformation. After all, a former Twitter executive is calling for President Trump to be barred from all social media until after the election to prevent “misinformation.” The burden of being a free speech advocate is the the answer is clearly no. Those, like Schiff, who have called for censoring material on the Internet still should benefit from the protections of free speech.

From a free speech perspective, it does not matter if the Schiff statement and the letter have “all the classic earmarks of a [Democratic] information operation,” we all benefit from a free and robust discussion of such issues. We do not need these companies to censor or inhibit stories to protect us from misinformation.

The letter itself is striking not only in its sweeping conclusion (without actually reviewing the laptop or the emails), but it signatories. This includes some of those who have been associated with the Russian investigation of the Trump campaign, which was based in part on the Steele dossier. That dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, was recently found to have been based on information supplied by a known Russian agent.

Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who helped devise the contract.

Of course, the contents of the Steele dossier were reported in detail by the media. The reporting covered thousands of articles. It turns out that the FBI warned early in the investigation that Steele may have been used to spread Russian disinformation — a view that was strengthened by the disclosure of Steele’s many source.  To this day, the media has largely ignored this story and how it was used to spread possible Russian disinformation.

If this is not disinformation, the emails magnify concerns that Hunter Biden was involved in a pay-to-play scheme. The emails appear to refer to Joe Biden receiving money and certainly refer to influence peddling.

I have previously stated that I remain suspicious of the timing and means of this disclosure. I want to see it investigation including the role of figures like Rudy Giuliani. Conversely, I have also been struck by what the Biden campaign has not said in response to the story.  Both sides of the story should be investigated.  However, there is a virtual news blackout on the contents of the emails even though (even with hacking) the emails could be legitimate. As discussed earlier, this is what a state media looks like . . . without the state apparatus.  Major networks are still reporting that this is clearly Russian disinformation and dismissing the story.  There is a clear effort to avoid scrutiny of the emails for just two more weeks. However, the disinformation claim is now being reportedly challenged by intelligence agencies. It does not matter. This is a fact too good to check.   We are left with an entire media establishment turning blue holding its collective breath for weeks to see if they can make it across the line. There is an easier approach. It is called journalism. You investigate and report on both sides, including a demand that Hunter and Joe Biden respond to these specific emails as well as conflicting past statements. Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult.

 

313 thoughts on “Will Adam Schiff’s Claims Now Be Blocked On Twitter?”

  1. Merriam-Webster
    ______________

    PATHOLOGICAL

    pathological adjective

    path·​o·​log·​i·​cal | \ ˌpa-thə-ˈlä-ji-kəl

    Definition of pathological

    1 : of or relating to pathology – pathological research – A pathological examination led to the diagnosis.

    2 : altered or caused by disease – pathological changes in the body also : indicative of disease pathological symptoms

    3 : being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal – a pathological liar – pathological fear
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    LIAR

    liar noun

    li·​ar | \ ˈlī(-ə)r
    \
    Definition of liar

    : a person who tells lies – has a reputation as a liar

  2. Lets see if we can find a pattern here. We can look at the socialist nations of the world and ask ourselves this question. Do we know that these nations control what their people see and hear? Which political party has more influence on what the press tells us in America? Up until now it was possible to get the opposing view out to the public. Now, the most powerful sources of information are censoring those that have an opposing view and are openly trying to justify their actions. These actions are being defended by only one political party. The first step is to tell you that you can’t voice certain opinions. The second step is to physically force you to comply. If one of our political parties comes to power, the scrutiny of Twiter and Facebook will disappear. Your freedom is at stake.

    1. Yeah Thinkit, you nailed it! It’s been seconds since I heard something Trump just said or Tweeted. The poor guy can’t get his message out at all. And Mitch McConnell? Forget about it. Yeah this is a GD police state and freedom fighter patriots like you and mespo – he suggested hanging Jake Tapper this morning – are our last defense.

      Give me a break.

    2. I remember when conservatives favored private property rights. Twitter and Facebook are private companies. What scrutiny of them do you wish the government to maintain? What measures do you want the government to take against these private enterprises to preserve our freedom?

      1. Hey Peter. I make exceptions where global corporations as big as some nations are concerned. They give the US no loyalty and I give them none in return

        Break them, crack them up, cut them down to size

      2. I guess you don’t know too much Sanpete. Among other things support for property rights doesn’t mean a company is supposed to be immune from libel.

        1. That was random. Is that supposed to answer one of the questions I asked? If so, try to be more clear about your answer and how it would preserve our freedom.

            1. No essay required or desired, just something that makes sense.

              If you’re trying to say you think Facebook and Twitter (the subject here) should be broken up or something, you’ll need to actually say it.

          1. That answers your statement: “conservatives favored private property rights. Twitter and Facebook are private companies.” That statement would have been in the top portion of the email sent by the blog to you so don’t act so innocent.

            1. More randomness! I haven’t received any email from this blog, if that matters to your peculiar free association.

              1. That means the address you have provided doesn’t lead to your account or you would be getting plenty of emails.

                But even if you use only the blog you should be able to understand what the discussion and who you are responding to.

                I should mention that once again you are being insulting.

      3. While we’re at it, I’d bring RICO charges against BLM, ANTIFA, and all the constellation of outfits funding them and their summertime protection racketeering. Up to and including George Soros. Use asset forfeiture laws to strip them and especially him of every remaining nickel and claw back the billlions he gave to Open Society foundation. That will be restitution for all the victims of the summer of 2020 urban chaos, riot, looting, arson, assault, murder and mayhem.

        He could put his property rights in a pipe and smoke them while he rots the last few years in jail. Oh, after a fair due process trial of course. But no bail for the billionaire jetsetter. He can;t run away to Davos for his annual shindig at the WEF

        You’re dealing with a whole new crop of “conservatives” now Petey and not gonna let some liberal bromides from the 18th century stand in the way

  3. Let’s have at it. let Hunter Biden release all his emails, and let Ivanka, Don Jr, Eric, Tiffany and Barron release all of theirs. Then let’s go through them and compare levels of corruption, self-dealing, foreign conflicts of interest and nepotism.

    Who do you think would win that game?

    1. Evidence for one is in black and white. The other is only speculation. If the left had proof (a laptop) of coruption by the Trump family it would be out there. The argument of a child is, O Yah, O Haw, Your Poo Poo.

        1. False, this is implicit within DNI’s statement that IT IS NOT RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION and FBI’s confirmation of the same. .

          Biden has not denied the autheniticity either leaving it an obvious conclusion that it is hunter’s laptop and the emails authentic

          keep on lying about this and we will keep on telling the truth

          1. If you read the FBI statement, they don’t confirm it’s not Russian disinformation.
            Ratcliffe is a Trump shill.

    2. There are legitimate claims against Hunter with proof. There are no legitimate claims against Trump’s children.

      You demonstrate a thinking process that needs to be overhauled.

  4. TGet rid of all of these products: https://reclaimthenet.org/de-google-your-life/

    Many people have turned to Parler. There is a vicious 360 degree attack on the First Amendment. Libraries aren’t circulating hard backs and are purging books. Things which don’t fit the current BS narrative are being removed from the net. People are being separated from each other because they are terrified of Covid. Get over the fear. Turn off the TV. Turn off NPR. don’t trust he corporate government. Stop complying. NOW

  5. Turley Keeps Saying He’s Skeptical But–

    But he can’t shut up about this. How funny!

    The truth is that Turley, like all Trump defenders, is livid that mainstream media hasn’t stopped the presses to focus on only this. Why should they?? Trump says or tweets 20 crazy things each day. But we’re supposed to reelect Trump because Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani somehow got hold of Hunter Biden’s emails?

    This entire, stupid development only reinforces the impression that Republicans are shameless hypocrites. Trump is totally insane but his mental state shouldn’t be an issue, according to defenders. Instead the whole nation should dwell on Biden’s son for the rest of this campaign. ..F U..!!

    1. why? good question

      because Hunter Biden has obviously not only violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices act but Joe Biden has too… important for voters to know how Joe Biden corruptly and personally profited off deals with China, Ukraine, and Khazakstan

      then there are the illegal images. a smaller matter but a shockingly offensive one

      1. Kurtz is flat out lying. There is no evidence Joe Biden knew about any of this, let alone profited from it and the “emails” about China “occurred” when Joe was a private citizen. Kurtz doesn’t care about corruption, he cares about keeping his scumbag cult leader in office.

        1. “. . . the “emails” about China “occurred” when Joe was a private citizen.”

          Which emails document the corruption that began while Joe Biden was vice president.

          Notwithstanding your use of scare quotes, the emails continue to remain authentic.

          1. Sam, none of the “emails” “document” corruption by Joe. The Ukrainian “email” is ambiguous about whether a meeting had occurred or was maybe goingto happen in the future. The China “emails” were dated in 2017 at which time – if memory serves – the President was Trump and theVP was Pence.

            1. If I were you, I’d stick to the diversionary tactics.

              The 2017 emails convict both Bidens. That communication confirms the terms of the corruption that began as early as 2011, at which time — if memory serves — Joe Biden was vice president. The nexus is the China Entrepreneur Club — an appendage of (and cover for) communist China.

              The China emails document corruption that began while Biden was vice president. Criminal conspiracies have many tentacles and a very long memory.

      2. Mr. Kurtz, that’s a lot of unfounded allegations in one paragraph.

        The funny thing is Trump’s own children have been doing the same thing they accuse hunter Biden of.

        Turley can’t bring himself to agree that any of this is legitimate at all. It really does look like a really bad attempt at framing hunter Biden. The computer shop owner is legally blind. What possessed him to get into the laptop in the first place? He’s already admitted he’s a huge trump supporter, and he can’t answer basic questions about the nature of who dropped off the laptops.

        Given how much the Trump administration has been lying, including being shown by their own investigations that their claims have turned out to be nothing burgers.

        This just reeks of desperation and the media recognizes it for what it is. A poor clumsy attempt at creating a “scandal”.

        1. Turley runs a one gate that lets in Fox, Trump, the GOP, and conservatives and then he blasts CNN, MSNBC, and democrats. You don’t need a program to know which team he’s on and where his invitations are coming from. He thinks he’s hiding out as an objective and principled law professor but a 12 year old can see through him.

    2. Thanks for the laughs! Apologists like you should apply with the Biden campaign if you aren’t already on the payroll. Hunter Biden has been an addict all of his adult life. He sold America out to feed his habit with the full knowledge of his FATHER! FU!!! When CW 2.0 begins, I will do my best to throw all of the trash OUT of America.

  6. I remember when Trump debated Hillary, and Hillary claimed the Russians were behind the hacking of her campaign’s emails, and Trump claimed it could have been some 400 pound guy in New Jersey.

    Turns out after multiple investigations that Hillary was 100% correct and Trump knew it at the time. But again, Turley wants the press to give full credence to Team Trump saying something did not originate from Russia, right before an election.

    1. wrong, that was a big lie too. it was a leak not a hack. there may have been hacks alongside but the volume of data stolen was too big to come merely over the wires.
      it had to be downloaded by a DNC insider with workstation access on to a thumb drive

      bandwidth is the issue. i realize many people are too stupid to understand this but Bill Binney explained it and tested it and it’s the result that the mass media suppressed too

      here was a little bit of light which shined on the subject nonetheless

      https://alamedasun.com/letters/10977

    1. Free speech as against the government, its a fig leaf that obscures the reality that technology and MONEY provide a big megaphone for the rich corporate powers- facebook google amazon twitter– to project their own opinions more loudly than the rest of us. exponentially more loudly. censorship by government is a trivial concern at this time in history in the US. censorship by corporations is what we need to worry about. obviously!

      This is reality like it or not. This reality needs to be grappled with by conservatives who in their slavish adherence to capitalist dogmatism, ever fear attacking the money powers.

      But when it comes to silicon valley., that’s exactly what must be done.

  7. This all comes about from the mischief that selective interpretation of §230 produces.
    These social media companies got super rich and super powerful based upon a governmental protection from civil actions related to what is posted on their internet sites.
    They all started out with loud proclamations of free speech, and letting the creators, writers and artists post what they wanted, as long as it wasn’t facially illegal. And it was that way for a while, enticing and luring people to participate in their offerings with little to no censorship.
    Then, after the got huge participation, with peoples’ livelihood invested in them, and they had cemented their monopolies, they came down heavy with the hammer of arbitrary, unaccountable censorship of content they did not like, §230 be damned.
    The best interpretation of §230 is the simplest — Those social media platforms are open and unmoderated except for content effecting explicit crimes, then they keep they §230 civil protections.
    The second they start censoring content, then they lose the statutory protections, and are open to liable laws like any other publisher.

    1. You must mean “The second they start censoring content, then they lose the statutory protections IN WAYS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF SERVICE THAT ALL OF THEIR USERS ALREADY AGREED TO”.

      Those Terms allow for some kinds of censorship. If people didn’t want to accept those Terms, they shouldn’t have created accounts.

      1. The terms set up by section 302 were to permit them to censor things like child pornography not political speech. I think they are in violation of public policy and can be considered monopolies. The real problem is with our legislators who are paid off in various ways to promote the success of these companies. Whether any type of suit against them would prevail would be speculation. Perhaps we could go against H-1B workers as potential national security threats.

  8. I am old enough to remember I never heard anything about the dossier before the 2016 election. There was a media blackout on it. I did hear before the 2016 election, however, that there were likely new Hillary emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. It turned out there were not.

    So tell me again how these pre-election disclosures and lack of disclosures in 2016 were oh so unfair to Donald Trump?

  9. DONT WORRY GUYS, CHINESE NATIONALS ARE BUSY CENSORING WHAT YOU CAN SEE AT FACEBOOK

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/20/meet-your-chinese-facebook-censors/

    “There are at least half a dozen “Chinese nationals who are working on censorship,” a former Facebook insider told me last week. “So at some point, they [Facebook bosses] thought, ‘Hey, we’re going to get them H-1B visas so they can do this work.’ ”

    The insider shared an internal directory of the team that does much of this work. It’s called Hate-Speech Engineering (George Orwell, call your office), and most of its members are based at Facebook’s offices in Seattle. Many have Ph.D.s, and their work is extremely complex, involving machine learning — teaching “computers how to learn and act without being explicitly programmed,” as the techy Web site DeepAI.org puts it.”

    FREE SPEECH IS DYING IF NOT DEAD. private companies like Facebook swallowed it up with technology.

    IT’S ALL INFORMATION WARFARE NOW

      1. I know it’s like yelling. But I yell a lot.

        You have to cut through the chaff to be heard. You know the google buries stuff they don’t like, right?

        1. Kurtz, when people are brain dead they don’t understand what that video means. They don’t understand the potential risks.

Leave a Reply