The First Amendment Option: An Easy Way For Musk To Restore Free Speech on Twitter

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in the Hill on one way for Elon Musk to re-introduce free speech values on his newly acquired social media platform. Pro-censorship advocates like former President Barack Obama may have given Musk a roadmap for restoring free speech on Twitter.

Here is the column:

For free speech advocates, Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter could prove the most impactful event since Twitter’s founding in 2006. The question, however, is how Musk can accomplish his lofty goal of restoring free speech values to social media. He first would have to untie the Gordian knot of censorship in a company now synonymous with speech control. The answer may be simpler than most people think. Indeed, anti-free-speech figures in the country may have given Musk the very roadmap he’s looking for: the First Amendment.

The purchase of Twitter alone will have immediate and transformative changes for free speech. The control over speech on social media required a unified front. Free speech is like water, it tends to find a way out. With social media, there was no way out because of the unified front of companies like Google, Apple and Facebook. Facebook is actually running commercials trying to convince people to embrace their own censorship. This message was reinforced by Democratic leaders like President Biden, who demanded that these companies expand censorship and curtail access to harmful viewpoints.

Now this market has one major competitor selling a free speech product. The fear is that Musk might be proven right and that Twitter could become larger and more profitable by allowing more free speech. Facebook has not had much success in convincing customers to embrace censorship, but it may find shareholders wondering why the Facebook board (like the Twitter board) is undermining its own product as a communications company committed to limited speech.

Another immediate change could be the forced exodus of a line of ardent censors from the company, with Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal (hopefully) at the head of line. Agrawal is one of the most anti-free-speech figures in Big Tech. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal quickly made clear that he wanted to steer the company beyond free speech and that the issue is not who can speak but “who can be heard.”

However, once such figures are removed from Twitter, the question is how to re-establish a culture of free speech. The answer may be in the very distinction used by Democratic politicians and pundits to justify corporate censorship.

For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.

Corporations clearly have free speech rights. Ironically, Democrats have long opposed such rights for companies, but they embrace such rights when it comes to censorship. The Democratic Party embraced corporate governance of free speech once these companies aligned themselves with their political agenda. Starbucks and every other company have every right to pursue a woke agenda. Social media companies, however, sell communications, not coffee. They should be in the business of free speech.

Democrats have continued to treat the First Amendment as synonymous with free speech, as a way to justify greater censorship. Just last week, former President Barack Obama spoke at Stanford to flog this false line. Obama started by declaring himself, against every indication to the contrary, to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything that he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.” He was able to do that by emphasizing that “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.”

Well, what if it did? The Constitution does not impose the same standard on Twitter — but Musk could. He could order a new Twitter team to err on the side of free speech while utilizing First Amendment standards to maximize protections on the platform. In other words, if the government could not censor a tweet, Twitter would not do so.

The key to such an approach is not to treat Twitter as akin to “government speech,” a category where the government has allowed major speech controls. Rather, tweets are very much as Musk has described them: akin to speech in “the digital town square.” If the government could not stop someone from speaking in a public forum like a town square, Twitter should not do so through private means.

The value to tying private speech to First Amendment jurisprudence is that there is a steady array of cases illuminating this standard and its applications.

Such a rule would admittedly allow a large array of offensive and objectionable speech — just as the First Amendment does in a public square. That is the price of free speech.

This is, admittedly, not a perfect fit. Twitter needs to protect itself from civil liability in the form of trademark, copyright and other violations in the use of its platforms. Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations.

Social media companies long had these limitations before plunging headlong into the type of content-based speech regulations made infamous by Twitter. Musk can use the baseline of the First Amendment with these limited augmentations to re-create the type of relatively open forums that once characterized the internet.

I have long admitted to being a type of “internet originalist” who prefers precisely the digital town square concept embraced by Musk. Adopting the First Amendment standards would create a foundation for free speech that can be tweaked to accommodate narrow, well-defined limitations.

The greatest challenge is not the restoration of free speech but the retention of such a site. Notably, figures like Hillary Clinton have suddenly turned from advocating corporate censorship to calling for good old-fashioned state censorship. Last week, Clinton called on the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a massive censorship measure that has received preliminary approval. Coming after Musk’s bid for Twitter, Clinton and others now want to use European countries to offer the same circumvention of the First Amendment. Rather than use a corporate surrogate, they would use an alternative state surrogate to force Twitter to censor content or face stiff penalties in Europe.

Musk will have to fight that battle when it comes. In the interim, he can rally the public, as he did Twitter shareholders, to the cause of free speech.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

246 thoughts on “The First Amendment Option: An Easy Way For Musk To Restore Free Speech on Twitter”

  1. The way ro apply 1A standards to the internet sites is to repeal sec 230. Unleash 1 A tort to protect truth.

  2. “For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.” (Turley)

    Coming from a constitutional scholar, that is a puzzling statement.

    First, this: “. . . by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies.”

    1A (and the entire U.S. Constitution) is in fact a limitation on government action, not on private action. The Founders’ entire project was: Protect citizens from the government encroaching on individual rights.

    Then there’s this: “The distinction was always a dishonest effort . . .”

    That (ad hominem) reply belies a plain reading of 1A: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” The key words there are, of course: “*Congress* shall make no law . . .”

    If pointing out such a “distinction” is “dishonest,” then blame the Founders.

    Incidentally, if 1A *does* apply to private action, then private citizens cannot establish a religion — any religion, anywhere.

    1. Denying the fact that the left intentionally uses private censorship to achieve anti-1A goals does not make it less true.

    2. Hmm, . . . your constitutional interpretation appears to be in line with SCOTUS’s decisions in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, to wit: The 13th and 14th Amendments — y’know, dealing with racial discrimination — only applied to the federal government and did not apply to private citizens. Sound familiar? Luckily, those infamous decisions were effectively overturned in the 1960’s.

  3. Is the universal right to “think freely” lost? The use of algorithms and censorship combined with the scripted news cycle is leading us into subconscious slavery. Will anyone speak about it?

    1. Mitch , It’s scary ho wmany sheeple fall in line to be ushered and parrot the garbage of “the state”. People should and will speak out about this…until the new ministry of truth gets some real teeth and becomes that which George orwell predicted in his book 1984.


    This exchange unfolds beneath the column “Garland Stonewalls”, April 27:

    Anonymous says: April 27, 2022 at 10:40 PM

    Trump Granted $700 Million In Pandemic Relief To Trucking Firm That Didn’t Qualify

    Federal officials on Wednesday were asked to investigate whether an Overland Park Kansas trucking company broke federal law when securing a $700 million loan through a federal pandemic aid program — a sum that accounted for 95% of the money allocated to the program.

    A report by the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis that found the administration of former President Donald Trump ignored the advice of Department of Defense experts by granting the company a loan through a program to help firms considered critical to the country’s national security continue to operate through the pandemic.

    Thinkitthrough says:April 28, 2022 at 2:17 PM

    Anonymous must come from a long line of cherry pickers. She must assume that we won’t read past the second paragraph of any link she provides. Further down in her link you will find the following paragraph. Attorney Marc Kasowitz said the company voluntarily cooperated with the committee, providing documents that show how the loan was used. He said the loan enjoyed bipartisan support and helped save 30,000 jobs during the height of the pandemic. So ready to jump. So little thought.

    Here the Blog Stooge cloaks himself as ‘Thinkthrough’, his favorite puppet. Thinkthrough is supposed to be the star of these threads. A far-right wacko’s idea of an intellectual. You see, Thinkthrough sounds ‘well-thought-out.’ ..Get it..? Ornery tubs of lard consider Thinkthrough the wisest of commenters!

    So here the stooge, as Thinkthrough, seizes upon that passage in a news story where the lawyer gives a statement on behalf of his client, a trucking company that received $700 million in pandemic relief from the Trump administration. This bail-out is controversial because officials at The Pentagon warned the administration this company was nonessential to national security. Which contradicted the entire case for said bail-out.

    This story originated in the Kansas City Star, a legacy paper that goes back generations. The trucking firm in question is located in the KC metro region. There is much to report on this matter. The Kansas City Star has published a highly professional investigative piece.

    And the excerpt Thinkthrough found is basic mainstream media. Mainstream readers expect to see statements from lawyer’s or authorized representatives. That’s standard practice in real journalism. Yet the stooge is astonished to see balanced reporting. He’s not used to that! The stooge expected the article to be a ‘mainstream hit piece’.

  5. You said, “most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms”.

    I disagree,

    Anti-Caucasian social media proponents are more numerous than ever in the history of this Country.

  6. I sense a second J6 coming here courtesy of the federal government. Once Twitter is owned by Musk, the feds unleash real people (or bots) to post harmful, racist, dangerous things on the service and then DEMAND serious censorship or else face criminal charges brought by the new Truth Ministry run by, of all people, Mayorkas.

  7. How can Turley say that he is a free speech “absolutist” after this statement of his in this very piece? — “[M}ost sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy.” So he does want some monitoring of social media. Where does Turley draw the line?

        1. He knows where to find me if he has something to say. Given how much I contribute to his blog, he should have run across some of my criticisms by now! If he hasn’t, then that proves he doesn’t peruse his blog one iota.

          1. Seems more likely he’s seen your comments and has rightly concluded you can be ignored.

          2. He knows where to find me if he has something to say. Given how much I contribute to his blog, he should have run across some of my criticisms by now! If he hasn’t, then that proves he doesn’t peruse his blog one iota.

            You are a legend in your own mind. There was a time when JT acknowledged the top 5 contributors. They were worth reading. Not only were their contributions prolific, they were of reasonable and rational “legal” blog quality. Once the trolls descended onto this blog, he ceased identifying the top 5. I’m sure he has the data showing the top 5, but is reticent to acknowledge them because:

            Like all sites, we attract trolls and juvenile posters who want to tear down the work of others. It is a sad reality of the Internet and the worst element of our species. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them. They are trolls and live under cyber bridges for a reason.

            If you’re not feeling the love from JT, it likely has nothing to do with how much you contribute, but the value of your contributions.

                1. I wish you could teach me how to cross out words and italize them. Bravo!

                  1. Let’s see if this will post without trying to recognize the characters.

                    Italicize: uses the with an i inside at the beginning and with /i inside at the end. Same process for strike through, but using an s inside. Bold has a b inside.

      1. Only a coward would whine that JT isn’t telling them where he draws the line. Grow a spine and find out for yourself.

          1. Your idea explains your daddy issues with JT. Children need lines until they’ve developed the moral and ethical boundaries to function independently in civil society.

            Our host is a constitutional scholar. You routinely complain when he writes a post about how Democrats violate those lines. You’re not looking for limiting lines, you’re looking for violating lines, just like every Leftist.

            1. Olly claims:

              “You routinely complain when he writes a post about how Democrats violate those lines.”


              I routinely complain when Turley writes a post while ignoring how Republicans violate the same lines.

              You say:

              “You’re not looking for limiting lines, you’re looking for violating lines, just like every Leftist.”


      2. You quoted Turley as saying “offensive TERMS” – that is not quite the same as “offensive”.

        Regardless the phrase leaves room for a great deal of ambiguity – but I doubt even you fail to grasp that he was not refering to subjective hurt.

        Most of us would assume that “offensive terms” would be things like the N word,

        I would note that is also obvious by Turley’s reference to his own blog.

        I would assume that you are aware that posts containing words from a wordpress offensive word list will get blocked.
        Hence my frequent use of bat$hit crazy as that bypasses the filter and was acceptable to Darren.

        Put simpley though I can not read his mind – we all post on this blog and have reasonable clues as to what “offensive terms” are not allowed.

        I have no problem with Twitter – under Musk or not banning a limited list of “offensive terms” – so long as the list is public and can not trivially be expanded because some snowflake went running to their emotional support lizard.

        I do not know for sure what Musk will do, but based on his public remarks it is very likely that whatever the “censorship” he allows will be based on clear publicly available rules. We will not have any more of this shadow banning nonsense, or being suspended or expelled without being able to cite a clear violation of a publicly available policy that can be read in 15 minutes and does not require a lawyer to understand.

        Me, I am for unlimited free speech. If some post on Twitter is actually illegal – i.e. incites violence or is child pornography – that is the responsibility of law enforcement to prosecute.

        It is important NOT to censor “offensive speech” – that is quite literally what the first amendment is there to protect.
        We do not need the first amendment to protect inoffensive speech.

        1. You say:

          “Me, I am for unlimited free speech. If some post on Twitter is actually illegal – i.e. incites violence or is child pornography – that is the responsibility of law enforcement to prosecute.”

          What about “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903 and played a key part in popularizing belief in an international Jewish conspiracy. Good speech has never worked against anti-semitism. It still abounds. There is always a market for it.

          What about Q-Anon’s pedophilia conspiracy theories? Which motivated a guy nearly to commit violence in D.C.

          What about Infowars’ conspiracy theory that the Sandy Grove massacre was a hoax? Which was excruciatingly painful to the parents of the murdered kids.

          These statements are not only offensive, but they are made in bad faith. All are protected free speech however.

          But you expect Musk to ignore the threat and undeniable harm these lies do? Maybe you can sleep at night with this on your conscience; I can’t. They are free to voice their hate, but I’ll not have a hand in spreading it. Not unlike the religious cake maker who refused to provide a service which offended his moral conscience.

          1. Ok, so I guess we just put jeffsilberman in charge of what is offensive and not allowed and he gets to censor whatever he pleases. Just like what we have now on Twitter (pre-Musk), Facebook, YouTube, Google, Apple, etc. There ya go, problemo solved. Uh huh, sure. Some of your examples above are just ideas. Are some of them crazy? Well sure, but why do YOU get to tell a person they cannot be heard? You don’t like it? Don’t read it then. For cryin’ out loud, they kicked BabylonBee off of Twitter. I guess they are just over-the-top offensive, eh?

            1. If I owned Twitter, I would decide. For now, I decide who I refuse to listen to and who is not welcome in my home.

              I don’t defend any decisions by Twitter. I have no idea why someone was banned by Twitter. Maybe it was justifiable by them or maybe not. I don’t know.

              But there are lines that should not be crossed. Even Turley recognizes that.

          2. All of your examples are acceptable speech. If criminal or civil actions are taken against the speaker as s result, the problem is adequately addressed.

            You don’t want a hand in “spreading hate”? You are not compelled to own the company doing the spreading. Your remedy is limited to sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and minding your own business.

      3. JT’s blog uses WP’s wordlist blocking filter.

        We cannot know what JT thinks, but we can know the meaning of what he said from what happens on

        We do not need to talk to him.

        I have had posts blocked – Darren politely explained way – and I avoid those “offensive terms”.

        I would note that JT did not say “Offensive posts” – which is what you are pretending.

        All posts offend someone.

        1. Offensive terms or offensive posts. A distinction without a difference.

          The meaning of “offensive” is “causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.” Whether one word or more, the bottom line is that the tweet causes deep hurt or great anger. Turley, as we know, condemns our “age of rage.”

          BTW, you are offensive to me because you upset me- deeply.

    1. Turley said where he draws the line – and most of us are aware of that – are you pretending there is significant confussion ?

      If I post that you are stupid – the post will go through.

      If I call you an N…. it will not and I might get banned.

      If I use words like $hit it will get caught in the WP filter and Darren will ask you to avoid $hit in the future.

      If you post child pornography – you will get arrested – whether that is on Twitter or here.

      Anything that fails Brandenberg V Ohio
      “The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”
      Can be prosecued by law enforcement.

    2. Every site owner gets to decide for themselves. This freedom is infuriating to the left.

      1. I am certainly not infuriated: who really cares about Turley’s inconstistencies? I am just pointing out that the Professor does not practice what he preaches.

  8. Johnathanic Turley:
      It’s not ‘Democratic politician so-and-so’, nor the ‘Democratic Party’, nor ‘Democratic governor so-and-so’ 
       …anymore than it’s the ‘Republicanic Party’, etc.
      Please pass it on, as it’s quite aggravating to keep reading that adjective being idiotically used as a noun.
       Thank you.

    By the way, how are corporations exempt from First Amendment constrictions, when they’re Creatures chartered by the State??
      “Asking for a friend”, as they say.

    1. The adjective Democratic is being used as an adjective.
      Republican is both an noun and an adjective.

    2. You don’t like Democratists? Well, Democranians will just have to live with it; free speech and all. Do the Democratish thing and live with it.

      Maybe try an undergrad intro to the US constitution to understand the very basics of democratism.

      1. It sounds like this anonymous is suggesting an underground course in Stalinizing America and denying free speech

  9. Free Speech In The News:

    Tennessee Republicans To Create Commission For Controlling Books In Scool Libraries

    A last-minute amendment to give a politically appointed textbook commission final approval over books in Tennessee school libraries sparked a Capitol protest and heated debate in the General Assembly on Wednesday.

    The legislation, HB 2666, passed the Senate earlier this month as a relatively straightforward bill to add members to the state’s textbook commission and task the commission with providing guidance for schools when reviewing materials to ensure they are “appropriate for the age and maturity levels” of students.

    But the bill’s House sponsors sparked an uproar among some librarian and parent groups this week with an amendment that would require the commission to issue a list of “approved” materials Tennessee schools could provide to students.

    On Wednesday morning, Rep. Jerry Sexton, R-Bean Station, withdrew the controversial amendment requiring the commission to issue its own list of approved materials, but submitted a new version requiring the commission to review the collections in every Tennessee school library.

  10. Hospitals and police have to deal with this while people like Svelaz try to indoctrinate and confuse 5-year-olds. The kids don’t need such conflict and confusion at age 5. They need to be nurtured and taught the things 5-year-olds can understand.

  11. Sergeant Major orders:

    “Don’t get into petty arguments with “trolls and juvenile posters”. They’re not here to add anything constructive to the blog. They are here to agitate others. Ignore them. It is easy.”

    You are correct that trolls are here to agitate. I ignore many people on this blog for that very reason. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Imagine that.

    Thanks for your service.

    1. How do you let a troll know he’s a troll when even a mirror won’t work?

  12. The Left is not having a meltdown. More like their heads are exploding. Cool beans

    1. Yes, almost schadenfreude, but this is not misfortune of the left but their rightful fortune.

  13. The nascent development of the internet’s strength in human discourse and the actions of tyrants to control what is allowed to be broadcast could be compared to the pamphleteers’ of the mid to late 1700’s with one exception “free speech”, today free speech is being throttled by sensitive Woke dilettantes. In days of yore, reaching the preverbal town square was within reach of most citizens wishing to state their position on whatever matter, unbridled from fear of being silenced. Today there are few if any avenues to express ones views that are not controlled, censured or outright banned by the above mentioned dilettantes. America has thrived despite unrestrained, rakish, shameless, unprincipled or intemperate speech to be the greatest nation ever imagined. God Bless this United States of America.

  14. Why couldn’t the guidelines allow any free speech with one condition, the one posting the speech self-label their post (ie: political, violence, adult content, nudity, etc)?

    In that system almost all speech is allowed and users (or parents) could set up “viewing-filters” removing any content they don’t want to see. If you dislike politics or violence, just block those filters. Users only get in trouble by not labeling their own content correctly.

    If Musk was really smart he would hire Ira Glasser (documentary “Mighty Ira”) – maybe America’s top free speech champion and respected by both conservatives and liberals.

  15. OT


    “Judge won’t let Clinton collusion tweet be admitted in Sussmann trial”

    “Hillary Clinton’s tweet touting Trump-Russia collusion claims will not be allowed as evidence in the trial against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann despite efforts by special counsel John Durham. On Halloween 2016, Clinton tweeted, “Donald Trump has a secret server … It was set up to communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank.” Clinton later tweeted, “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” She also shared a lengthy statement by then-Clinton campaign adviser, and President Joe Biden’s current national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow,” Sullivan claimed. “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.” Sullivan added, “We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia.”

    “On Wednesday, Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, denied Durham’s efforts to bring the tweet up at trial.”

    – WaEx

    1. Thank you for this news. God Bless Durham and his best efforts. It was less than interesting but utterly predictable that Hillary Clinton would bash “Foreign dictators and ‘domestic” demagogues” whilst speaking at Madeline Albright Memorial Service yesterday. The church roof almost collapsed under the weight of her hypocrisy. Fortunately her oversized ego held all aloft. Just wait until Durham punctures her balloon.

      1. Rusted warns:

        “Just wait until Durham punctures her balloon.”

        You mean the Durham witch-hunt?

        You see what I did there? I reacted like Trumpists did to the Mueller investigation.

        Two can play your game….

        1. Yet Durham is not hunting Witches.

          There was a real conspiracy to frame Trump for a non-existant collusion with Russia.

          Durham is conducting a real investigation into that REAL conspiracy.

          The Steele dossier is fake, the successful effort to pawn it off to the FBI as fact is REAL.

          Just as the ludicrously stupid claim that the hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation is fake.
          While the laptop its contents and the misconduct of the Biden’s is real.

          The claim that the 2020 election was perfect is fake
          while the evidence of large scale coordinated fraudulent ballot harvesting is real.

          Not a witch in sight.

          1. Say says:

            “There was a real conspiracy to frame Trump for a non-existant collusion with Russia.”

            -Fake news.

            “Durham is conducting a real investigation into that REAL conspiracy.”

            -Durham is orchestrating a Hoax.

            “The Steele dossier is fake, the successful effort to pawn it off to the FBI as fact is REAL.”

            -All conducted in GOOD FAITH.

            “While the laptop its contents and the misconduct of the Biden’s is real.”

            -No proof.

            “The claim that the 2020 election was perfect is fake
            while the evidence of large scale coordinated fraudulent ballot harvesting is real.”

            -The Big Lie.

            “Not a witch in sight.”

            -You are blind, my friend.

  16. OT

    John Durham has his work cut out for him.


    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    – Barack Obama

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    “EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: Obama’s CIA Director Brennan in Europe at Exact Same Time Deep State’s ‘Secret Society’ Met in England with Strzok, Page and McCain Lackey Kramer”

    “Obama’s former CIA Director John Brennan was in Portugal in late November 2016. Brennan is widely believed to be the architect of the Trump – Russia collusion hoax. We wondered – what else was Brennan doing in Europe? We’ve now pieced together that the Deep State’s ‘Secret Society’ had a meeting in England at the exact same time! Is this why Brennan was in Europe?

    “As we reported yesterday, former US Attorney Joe diGenova discussed his thoughts after the Mueller testimony in front of Congress last week. He confirmed much of what has already been posted and at the end of his excellent interview, he said –

    ‘By the way, just remember, John Brennan was the tip of the spear. This was his conspiracy from day one. John Brennan, don’t forget that name. He’s at the end of this entire, he’s at the beginning of the entire conspiracy.’

    diGenova’s interview leads nicely into breaking information we have gathered regarding Brennan’s actions under the Obama administration.

    Former CIA agent Sabrina De Sousa knows Brennan’s actions well. Former President Obama and his CIA Director John Brennan ignored her pleas for help and left her to rot in an Italian prison. After the election, her situation was alleviated by the Trump Administration for which she is grateful. De Sousa shared with us that John Brennan made a trip to Europe in late November 2016 shortly after the Presidential election. What was Brennan doing in Portugal and who else did Brennan visit on his trip to Europe immediately after the 2016 election? Brennan wasn’t the only Deep State operative to be in Europe at this exact same time.

    Deep State gang members were all in London at this exact same time. Obama’s corrupt leaders at the FBI were connected with many of the Deep State players and British linked spies in London. These players met around the world. Christopher Steele met with Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson and the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr in Washington D.C. shortly after the election in November 2016. Steele also met with State Department employees in Washington before the election.

    Former Arizona Senator John McCain and his assistant, David Kramer, were told of the dossier by an associate of Steele’s, and former British diplomat, Sir Andrew Wood, on November 18th of 2016. Kramer turned around and ten days later met Steele in Surrey, England on November 28th, 2016. Ironically, at the same time that Steele was working with the McCain team, the FBI was working on their first meeting of the “Secret Society” that would occur in London. Lisa Page referred to this society in a text to her alleged lover Peter Strzok in early November 2016. Then later in the month a group of FBI agents flew to London at the same time Kramer was in England meeting Steele. Page and Strzok text about this too. Brennan was a card carrying member of the ‘Secret Society’ and he was at their inaugural meeting in England along with Deep State crooks Strzok, Page and John McCain’s assistant, David Kramer.”

    – Joe Hoft

    1. The thing most shocking to me was the release of the opinion signed by 51 intelligence agents on the Hunter Biden revelations. Only two possibilities with that. One is that they were all incompetent. And the other, most certainly, was that their plan was to influence the election so that Donald Trump would lose. There is something wrong with that. To me, that is what needs to be thoroughly investigated.

  17. I really do not understand what is going on with free speech. We have this story with Musk, but then we have this story about a Disinformation Governance Board:

    What do you do if the government (with their corporatist buddies) are the source of disinformation, etc?

    But, if Ms. Jankowicz “has been on the job for a couple of months, but Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas only revealed the disinformation board’s existence this week in testimony to Congress” why isn’t there any information about this that I can find on A DuckDuckGo search doesn’t pop up anything with keyword search terms, nor does a search directly on the website.

    If she has expansive duties (yikes!), shouldn’t she be on this ( list? And, shouldn’t this have been brought to Congress’ attention before even getting formed, or at least at its inception?

    “Lora Ries, a former Homeland Security deputy chief of staff and director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, called the board “an overtly political ploy” to try to chase opposing viewpoints from the political debate ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

    “The left can no longer use COVID restrictions or now, seemingly Twitter, to mislabel and hide legitimate information American voters should have in casting their ballots. Instead, they are standing up this board to declare what the left believes is mis- or dis-information,” Ms. Ries said.”

    I agree it is a political ploy, but this isn’t a left vs right issue. Both parties (and corporatists) are catching crawdads with their manipulation of information.

    1. Prairie Rose, imagine if you will a meeting of the Department of Homeland Security board. “This is a news story by a Democrat friendly news organization so it must be the truth (see Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation). This is a news story by a Republican friendly news outlet so it must be disinformation. A thorough investigation should be made of these writers who are spreading this disinformation.” The Department of Homeland Security is an organization with investigative powers similar to the FBI and the CIA. It’s obvious that their intent is to target American citizens who speak against the party leaders. No doubt a very similar board exists in China. Soon there will be a point system whereby your rations will be decreased if you step out of line. If you don’t like what the central government teachers are teaching your children you will soon be investigated to determine if you are a threat to the nation. You’ll soon come around when you feel the gnawing of an empty stomach and your child asks, “can I please have some more mommy?”

      1. Thinkitthrough,
        This is a game of ‘keep away’ by TPTB. Patriot Act went in under the Rs. NDAA with its indefinite detention went in under the Ds. It is set up so that the people on particular ‘teams’ are set against each other so the rails are greased to undermine civil liberties to the greatest effect, as far as I can tell.

        “It’s obvious that their intent is to target American citizens who speak against the party leaders. No doubt a very similar board exists in China.”

        Not so sure the Rs actually care about this. They sure were gung-ho about feeding that beast back with Newt Gingrich and letting China into the WTO (as was Biden), then with George W. Bush’s ‘get out there and shop’ to boost the economy post-9/11–shop and buy a bunch of Made in China crap. Nice lay-up.

  18. OT: Before he left office, President Donald Trump made good on his vision that hospitals should be transparent about the prices they charge patients for services.

    His administration proposed a rule that those prices must be posted online in real time for everyone to see.

    If it was price disclosure at the grocery store or the gas station, it wouldn’t have been revolutionary. But, the hospitals went crazy!

    In a recent study, 857 out of 1,000 hospitals audited weren’t complying — a full year after the Biden administration finalized the price transparency rule.

    Hospitals are slow-walking price transparency. And we found that the Biden administration has yet to levy a single fine!

  19. OT




    “Federal Informant in Trump Probe Found Dead After He’s Reported Missing”

    A federal informant who turned over documents in an investigation into Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank was found dead in Los Angeles on Monday after he went missing last year. Valentin Broeksmit, 46, was reported missing last year, according to LAPD. According to the Los Angeles Times, a janitorial team at Woodrow Wilson High School found Broeksmit’s body Monday morning. Broeksmit was the son of a Deutsche Bank executive who committed suicide in 2014.

    Broeksmit supplied records to Fusion GPS, journalists, FBI agents and others…

    after he gained access to his deceased father’s Deutsche Bank files and email accounts. Forensic News Network reporter Scott Stedman worked with Broeksmit and said Valentin struggled with drugs on and off. The cause of death is unclear but authorities say foul play is not suspected.

    The Los Angeles Times reported: Valentin Broeksmit, an informant who worked with federal authorities investigating former President Trump’s relationship with the German financial giant Deutsche Bank, was found dead Monday on a high school campus in the El Sereno neighborhood. Broeksmit, 46, was reported missing by friends and family a year ago, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. He was last seen driving a red 2020 Mini Cooper around 4 p.m. on April 6, 2021, on Riverside Drive at Griffith Park. His car was found, but Broeksmit remained missing — until Monday, when the L.A. County coroner’s office identified his body. Cleaning crews at Woodrow Wilson High School found Broeksmit’s body just before 7 a.m., according to Sgt. Rudy Perez with the Los Angeles School Police Department. There was no evidence of foul play or unusual circumstances, according to Capt. Kenneth Cabrera with the Los Angeles Police Department. Broeksmit, the son of Deutsche Bank executive Bill Broeksmit, handed off a trove of confidential documents to federal authorities who were investigating the troubled financial institution, according to a 2019 profile in the New York Times. His father had killed himself in 2014, and Valentin Broeksmit went on to share his father’s files with numerous journalists and government investigators, including a trip to an FBI office in Los Angeles, the newspaper reported.

    – Cristina Laila

Comments are closed.