Clinton-Linked Dark Money Group Targets Advertisers to Stop Musk From Restoring Free Speech Protections

In the shift of the left against free speech principles, there is no figure more actively or openly pushing for censorship than Hillary Clinton. Now, reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies in the corporate world to coerce Musk to restore censorship policies or face bankruptcy. The effort of the Clinton-linked “Accountable Tech” reveals the level of panic in Democratic circles that free speech could be restored on one social media platform. The group was open about how losing control over Twitter could result in a loss of control over social media generally. For Clinton, it is an “all-hands on deck” call for censorship. She previously called upon foreign governments to crackdown on the free speech of Americans on Twitter.

We have been discussing how Clinton and others have called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. It seems that, after years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.

Accountable Tech led an effort to send a letter to top Twitter advertisers to force Musk to accept “non-negotiable” requirements for censorship.

General Motors was one of the first to pull its advertising funds to stop free speech restoration on the site.

Of course, the company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.

The letter is open about the potential cascading effect if free speech is restored on one platform: “While the company is hardly a poster-child for healthy social media, it has taken welcome steps in recent years to mitigate systemic risks, ratcheting up pressure on the likes of Facebook and YouTube to follow suit.”

The letter insists that free speech will only invite “disinformation, hate, and harassment” and that “[u]nder the guise of ‘free speech,’ [Musk’s] vision will silence and endanger marginalized communities, and tear at the fraying fabric of democracy.”

Among other things, the letter demands “algorithmic accountability,”  a notable inclusion in light of Democratic politicians demanding enlightened algorithms to protect citizens from their own bad choices or thoughts.

In addition to Accountable Tech, twenty-five other groups signed the letter to demand the restoration of censorship policies, including Media Matters and the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Accountable Tech has partnered in the past with Hillary Clinton’s Onward Together nonprofit group.

I have no objection to boycotts, which are an important form of free speech. However, this boycott action is directed at restoring censorship and preventing others from being able to post or to read opposing viewpoints.

If consistent with their past records, these companies will likely cave to these demands. While the public has clearly shown that they want more (not less) free speech, these executives are likely to yield to the pressure of Clinton and other powerful figures to coerce Musk into limiting the speech of others on his platform.

These campaigns only add support to Musk’s push for alternative revenue sources, including verification fees.  As I previously wrote, we can show that there is a market for free speech by supporting Twitter in trying to reduce the dependence on corporate sponsors. If Musk remains faithful to free speech, many customers are likely to join his platform and support his effort to reduce censorship on social media.


364 thoughts on “Clinton-Linked Dark Money Group Targets Advertisers to Stop Musk From Restoring Free Speech Protections”

  1. The only ones that want to squash free speech are those with positions that can’t stand on truth nor merit, and need to scrub and destroy their hard drives.

  2. Just an errant thought on architecture: Doesn’t the grotesque and evil design of the FBI building just look as if it belongs in East Germany or the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

    By contrast the old KGB building, the Lubyanka, is actually rather elegant, beautiful even, and fit for what Western democracies once were?

    The old Gestapo building on Prinz Albrecht street in Berlin looks less totalitarian than the J Edgar Hoover building.

    Even the Castra Praetoria looked better than the FBI bunker and we know how well the Praetorians worked out.

    Can the personality of a building infect the personalities of those within?


    All these buildings leaked stinking flowing streams of evil as if the corpses of giant trolls were rotting within.

    The buildings differ but the occupants are frighteningly similar.

    1. It is called Brutalism architecture, but I don’t think it was named that because of the word brutal. It is ugly like a lot of buildings with that style of architecture. Your question is interesting. “Can the personality of a building infect the personalities of those within?” My answer is yes. Think about how you feel when your surroundings change.

      1. Entering some of the great cathedrals in Rome or the Borghese Gallery elevated my spirits. Walking alone through a forest of fir and white pine does the same. The FBI building struck me as oppressive even when I used to like that agency. We can still build beautiful and uplifting buildings, but we don’t.

        1. That said, I think the current ugly and oppressive building is well designed and well named for the role the agency has chosen to play now. The only thing better might be a building designed as a giant McDonald’s play center filled with vomit coated rubber balls.

      2. S. Meyer, By the way, thank you for the reference to Brutalist Architecture. If I ever knew about it I forgot. It seems related to Bauhaus style–also crappy looking –but is more oppressive and reminiscent of an expensive Furher Bunker, suitable for Wray though.

        If they are going to go with a totalitarian mindset they should replace the bunker with something like the Lubyanka–be fascist thugs with style. Maybe Hugo Boss style uniforms would work with Wray’s gay, LGBwhatever hair style and he could goose step on polished marble floors in a decent building instead of something that looks like a giant septic tank that popped out of the ground.

      1. Most of those buildings predated Nazi Germany, many being built decades if not centuries earlier. What the Nazis built were large capacity structures, for spectacle and mass gatherings, to manipulate people/emotions.

        In the ‘USSA’ those are known as stadiums, arenas, and convention centers… and serve a similar purpose.

        I would argue the FBI building is representative of the personalities who commissioned and occupy them.

  3. (AP) “Attorney General Merrick Garland named a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into the presence of classified documents at former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.”

    Turley has argued for a special counsel, so no doubt he’ll approve.

    1. I would be more impressed if Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate himself and Wray and the FBI.

      Willy Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Special counsels should be directed to where the crime is.

      1. You don’t even name any crimes you believe Garland has committed, much less do you provide evidence of them.

        1. Before conviction sufficient evidence wasn’t produced on Al Capone for any of his heinous crimes. In fact there was never enough evidence to convict him on them so they got Capone on tax evasion. If Al Capone was a powerful Democrat in control of the DOJ and FBI, he wouldn’t have been convicted of that either.

          The logic of ATS is near non-existent. ATS must have thought Al Capone innocent. With his style of thinking would anyone think ATS is smart?

        2. ATS: “You don’t even name any crimes you believe Garland has committed, much less do you provide evidence of them.”
          What led you to believe that this was a court rather than a blog’s comment section where one can assume that others share one’s general knowledge and need not present it according to the rules of evidence?

          1. It’s a legal blog. Either you can name a crime and present evidence or you cannot. Looks like you cannot.

            1. ATS: “It’s a legal blog. Either you can name a crime and present evidence or you cannot. Looks like you cannot.”
              Looks like you have never been to law school. That doesn’t happen in law school either except in an elective and usually short course in trial practice in which you can do a mock trial. A legal blog is more like law school lite than the entirely different experience of making and presenting a case in court. Didn’t they teach you that in the Lubyanka?

              1. Young, et al: I think the Anonymous who is always demanding “evidence” is not an attorney. I think he told me that once in a posting.

                1. Lin,
                  I seem to recall that admission of his. It shows. On the other hand I would tag you as a lawyer without your saying so. That also shows. I remember hearing that studying law would change the way we think. I doubted it at the time but I have come to see that it is true to a degree. Oddly, I found that studying philosophy was sometimes, not always, more of a detriment than a benefit to understanding law. I once thought philosophy was more elegant than law. Law seemed intellectually proletarian and less worthy. But I was wrong. I have profound respect for it and, like most of us here, recognize that Professor Turley does too. That is why we are so dismayed to see the lawlessness in our government from either party.

                2. Correct. I have a Ph.D. in a STEMM field, and as I told you earlier, evidence is central to both social scientific and STEMM research. Odd that you lawyers dismiss it as something that one only addresses in a trial.

                  1. ATS: “evidence is central to both social scientific and STEMM research.”
                    And yet in those fields there is a “Replication Crisis” with the discovery that much of the “evidence” vanishes upon re-examination almost as if it were bogus, about which, in fact, much has been seen to be error or fraud. In those cases where federal money has been involved a Qui Tam suit under the False Claims Act might be appropriate…Triple damages are nice.

                    So called “Science” has fed us a lot of b.s. lately and lots of money often seems a driving factor.

                    1. Existing evidence doesn’t “vanish.” In any honest scientific research, you look at both confirming and disconfirming evidence. What you’re trying to say is that on further investigation, there is sufficient disconfirming evidence that it outweighs the confirming evidence, so the hypothesis must either be abandoned or significantly narrowed. That’s a routine part of scientific research. Fraudulent work occurs, but you should understand the difference between fraud and honest investigation that involves both confirming and disconfirming evidence.

                    2. If he has a PhD in culinary sciences, basket weaving or home economics, then I am Russian. Oh wait, Peter Shill accused me years ago of being a Russian troll because of my “Estovir” handle…which is Latin 😅

                      I have never seen such a degradation of medicine since COVID began. The CDC and NIH were once bedrock sources of guidance for physicians. No more. It has long been said that a good physician must spend 20% of their timing reviewing and updating their knowledge of the basic medical sciences to be current. All done solo on your own time. We can no longer trust the CDC. With the collapse of credibility within public medicine, physicians are going to fall into 2 camps: hacks and getting by.

                      If Americans knew how broken medicine is today, they would be marching in the streets with torches

                    3. ATS: Perhaps you could share with us any government funded research that you have done.
                      Just asking for friends.

                    4. ATS: “What you’re trying to say is that on further investigation, there is sufficient disconfirming evidence that it outweighs the confirming evidence….”


                      What I was actually saying is that a fair amount of researchers were lying and cheating to keep their grants intact and careers advancing.

                    5. Thanks for correcting me as to what you were actually trying to say about your personal belief. Ironically, you will not test your belief by gathering evidence for and against.

                      I’ve published NSF-funded research, but I’m not going to cite those works here. You think I’d dox myself simply to satisfy your desire? LOL.

                    6. “The CDC and NIH were once bedrock sources of guidance for physicians”

                      Didn’t they show severe chinks in their armor during the AID’s crisis?

                    7. Work again on your reading comprehension. As I said: fraudulent work occurs, but that doesn’t mean that “a fair amount of researchers were lying and cheating to keep their grants intact and careers advancing.” The evidence you’ve provided so far shows a small amount globally, well under 1%.

                      Out of a random sample of 1000 scientists, how many are you suggesting engage in “lying and cheating to keep their grants intact and careers advancing”? What fraction, for you, constitutes “a fair amount”?

                  2. You do not use your skills in a debate. Instead, you choose to act the part of a charlatan. You would be better accepted if your methodology for analyzing political events were the same no matter which side was involved. You don’t, so that makes you a hypocrite. Add to that the twisting of words that makes you a deceptive person. Finally, when you add facts that have been proven wrong, and you know it, that makes you a liar.

                  3. S. Meyer: “Didn’t they [NIH and CDC] show severe chinks in their armor during the AID’s crisis?”


                    I think they did. For one thing they lied about the risks of getting AIDS. If you weren’t gay, a drug user or a recipient of blood your chances of getting it were too low to register on the meter. They seem to be doing the same nonsense with monkeypox. Among other idiocies we hear from some quarter is that the name is racist. Really? Please explain to me how mentioning monkeys is racist? I am sure to be entertained.

                    Fauci kept pushing AZT during the AIDS crisis which turned out to be harmful and not very effective. That sounds familiar.

                    One thing that I hadn’t realized until I read Kennedy’s book on Fauci was that Fauci and Collins share in the royalties from drug sales. I think I am ethical but even I can see the temptation to talk myself into believing that a drug is good if I get a sort of Keystone Pipeline pumping cash into my account. If you are taking the public shilling you owe your allegiance to the public and you shouldn’t allow temptation to get in the way. I expect officers in drug companies to favor their products but not people like Fauci.

                    In any event, even without royalty income, we made a mistake in letting Fauci and Collins have so much influence in directing research money. People doing research are terrified of offending them. We had the one instance of an investigator saying in an email that the Covid virus likely came from the Wuhan lab and then, after a call from Fauci, reversing himself and declaring it was preposterous to think it came from the Chinese lab that Fauci seems to have helped fund through a cut out.

                    I hope somebody in the new House dares to truly look into these things and learn the truth, but too often the tendency for both parties is to do show events for grandstanding. I don’t even watch them anymore. If I want to throw up I will gag myself.

                    1. Fauci kept pushing AZT during the AIDS crisis which turned out to be harmful and not very effective.

                      AZT is very effective and still used today. The errors back in the early days of using it were due to exceedingly high dosages. At lower dosages it is effective


                      D’Andrea G, Brisdelli F, Bozzi A. AZT: an old drug with new perspectives. Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Jan;3(1):20-37. doi: 10.2174/157488408783329913.

                      As for the errors by Fauci, CDC, NIH, et al in the early 80s re: HIV, they were egregious. The medical sciences are not Catholic dogmas; they are never monolithic. Vigorous debate propels medicine forward. When HIV was identified in the early 80s scientists had little knowledge about the immune system, specifically T cell immunity. HIV has tropism for CD4 T cells but back in those days, T cells were seen as mysterious. Monocytes, Macrophages, Dendritic cells or DCs (innate immune cells) were collectively seen merely as phagocytes and that was it. DCs are now known to be Professional Antigen Presenting Cells meaning they retrieve foreign antigens captured in the circulatory system and present them to CD4 and CD8 T cells via Major Histocompatibility Cells (MHCs). DCs were discovered in the early 70s, and when HIV was identified 10 years later, either physicians knew next to nothing about DCs or did not believe they existed. Whenever a new discovery is made in medicine, it takes years for the new paradigm to be embraced. MHCs were poorly understood at the molecular level, and the notion of peptides from antigens being captured by innate immune cells, aside from degrading them via phagocytosis, to present them to the adaptive immune system (B and T cells) was beyond the reach of understanding at that era.

                      Even today, the discussions at the highest levels in public health continue to beat the same tiresome drum about B cells and antibodies, when it is actually T cells that provide us protection from COVID. Antibodies play a lesser role in COVID protection. Innate immune cells like monocytes and dendritic cells “cue” T cells to destroy COVID infected cells.

                      The current discussion in medicine by both strictly full time clinical physicians and researchers / academic physicians is that trust in medicine is gone. It should not have come to this especially since all Fauci, CDC and NIH officials had to do was what they did back in the 90s when discussing AIDS: admit that they were wrong.

                    2. Young, they were arrogant and spun information (even to physicians). If I remember correctly, a clerk or pharmacist recognized that a new disease existed. He noted a sudden use in requests for a specific pharmaceutical.

                      I also believe some credible people came up with answers about the disease’s nature and spread long before the CDC. A great book was “And the Band Played on,” written by Randy Shilts, who died from the disease.

                      The San Francisco bathhouse controversy tells the whole story and lets one know how the left values its ideology over the lives of millions.

                  4. ATS says: “I have a Ph.D. in a STEMM field”

                    So what. That degree does not mean you have a strong mind with sharp critical thinking skills. Clearly you do not, as evidenced by your comments here. Just sayin.

                3. They all lie, Lin. Their sole purpose is to cause mayhem. Their is nothing authentic about them

                  Thoughts on the LSAT being dropped?

                  The MCAT is a vigorous test that ironically has been seeing an increase in median scores over the past few decades with med school applicants. If your MCAT score is lousy, you can forget medical school. Besides a college GPA, what else does it take for a law school applicant to get an interview to a law school?

                  Law School Accrediting Panel Votes to Make LSAT Optional

                  1. Estovir: “Besides a college GPA, what else does it take for a law school applicant to get an interview to a law school?”


                    Skin color.

                    See Yale and Harvard controversies.

              2. I’ve never been to Lubyanka, so I can’t possibly have learned anything there.

                You once again respond by focusing on me and not on your claim, which you cannot substantiate.

                1. One stereotype of STEMM people that is true is that they lack much of a sense of humor.

                  But they are often accidentally funny.

                  You actually thought you had to tell me that you had not been to the Lubyanka???


                  1. No, I recognized it as a bad joke, but that’s the way I respond to bad jokes. Had you made a good joke, you would have gotten a different response.

            2. It is a legal blog – that discusses far more than criminal law.

              We have innumerable acts of political corruption by the Biden’s as an example.
              There is zero doubt their actions were immoral and unethical, but it is an open question whether they are illegal.

              And still we legitimate discuss them.

            3. Wrong! It’s not a legal blog. Many of those who comment are lawyers, but a Juris Doctor degree is not a prerequisite. Free speech!

              1. Catherine, I think referring to this as a ‘legal blog’ is more a matter of the usual subject matter than the qualifications or certificates of those who choose to comment.

            4. ATS: Here’s some info for you to chew on:

              “In 2010, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder picked Jack Smith to run Public Integrity Section.

              Smith took out VA Gov. Bob McDonnell as a potential Republican presidential candidate–on bogus corruption charges.

              Supreme Court reversed, 9-0.

              Now Smith is back–to take out Trump.”

              1. I didn’t know that, but sadly it is no surprise. If they reopened Alcatraz to imprison Trump I would still vote for him and watch him pardon himself for whatever paper mache, phony charges put him there, and then celebrate as he settled the hash of these Bolshi criminals once and for all. And that is why they are in such a panic to stop him.

        3. So our standard of conduct for the highest law enforcement officers in the land is – no proof beyond a reasonable doubt they committed a crime ?

          The left has already established that no crime is needed to impeach someone.
          Just impeach him – several times if needed.

    2. The only reason that Garland should ask for an SC would be if Garland beleives the DOJ is hopelessly corrupt.

      SC’s exist when Government is investigating itself, or when DOJ would appear to have a conflict.

      Trump is not president. From Biden through to the lowest FBI agent there is no conflict with Trump.

      My guess is that Garland is seeking to apease Biden.
      This is a hot potato. DOJ already looks politically corrupt under him.

      It is also probably an effort to thwart House oversight. We saw that with Trump SC investigation #1.

      Regardless, if the law is followed there is no cause.

      There are only 3 possibilities.

      The documents were moved by Trump or at his direction while president to a secure location at MAL.
      The documents were moved by Trump or at his direction while president to a insecure location at MAL.
      The documents were moved by Trump or at his direction after he left office

      If #1 – no crime.
      if $2 – no crime and documents are declassifed by virtue of moving them to an insecure location as president.
      There is no evidence at all of #3.

  4. and to the late 60s -early 70s it was we libs who pushed the Free Speech Movement that originated in berkeley….and now we are fascists!!

  5. Have you ever watched a pool of water penetrate dry ground,-the way it slowly infiltrates, spreads, creates new veins along the way, but disappears from the surface?
    We can expect, as it spreads into American soil, that there will be continued efforts to create an Orwellian “2084” — a Universal Hegemon that dictates the superior correctness of One Way, One View, One Belief System, One End.
    Dissent, contrary view, alternate conclusion, -or even open discussion– need not apply.
    -By analogy only, it is eerily similar to China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative– an attempt to eventually control all of Asia and Europe-under the specious auspices of enhancing economic equity, but in fact, securing Chinese domination….
    Reminds me of Clinton’s infiltrating through dark funding “Onward Together…..”

      1. Amazing, isn’t it, that fact-free comments or opinions-posing-as-facts create the same effect “if left unchecked!”

    1. Even with talk of bankruptcy Twitter is in a strong position with Elon Musk’s deep pockets to weather this transition. Fox News is the most vilified, and is also the most successful news station. Twitter usage is at an all time high. Somebody has to advertise on Twitter.

    2. Let’s laugh at this fool. Musk has managed to create the most advanced companies and become the richest man in the world. This blogger wants to tear him down, but can’t, so he acts the part of a fool.

      1. In other words, you have no counter to the fact that Musk has told multiple lies about himself.

        Ad hom is your go-to response when you have no factual counter.

        1. Most of us do not even listen to this kind of nonsense from the left anymore.

          We watch as those in power on the left lie everytime they open their mouths – and they do so to the harm of the rest of us.

          No one beleives you when you accuse others of lying.

          You do not recognize meaningful lies when they bite you in the ass.

  6. Wait I just read your article….and I am suppose to be the conspiracy theorist…the problem? Then what are you? Do you really think …Hillary tried to shut down speech? Or buy speech? You don’t in your heart really think that. Because I can discern … are not. Faithful. You pretend to love nature
    ..but what can you tell us about it? Have you gathered wild rice…? Harvested honey? Done maple syryup? No you’ve taken a hike. You’ve only taken a hike. But you’ve never pushed shoulders past the real people. act like you care…do you? At least when Hillary was senator she pretended to care about hipp a guinea pigs….we shouldn’t let her forget! Ever. Speak to that now!

  7. Whoopi Goldberg fully masked an shot up gets Covid for the second time. I heard that she called Joe Biden and ask him what the hell were you talking about? Just Joe being all about the science. Some on this blog have said that if you got the jab your symptoms would be milder. It seems curious that along with their statement they never provide a study that supports their conclusion. Why not, their being all about the science you know?

    1. To paraphrase Goldberg: it’s not a vaccine-vaccine, it’s a non-sterilizing, therapeutic treatment, maybe. Evaluate the risk and proceed accordingly. That said, N95-certified respirators and drop the pretense of protecting granny or anyone else.

  8. Now safely after the election the FBI and DOJ admit that the only thing they found when they staged their spectacularly ugly raid on Trump’s home was souvenirs.

    They had to have known that almost at once, but they said nothing until now.

    Who signed the affidavit saying that anything but that was on the property? Whoever it was, he seems to have lied.

    Who in the agencies kept feeding b.s. to the media [who jumped to repeat it] that Trump had national security secrets, that he expected to profit from them, that he had nuclear codes? Whoever it was should be exposed, shamed, fired and put in prison.

    Don’t expect any apologies for this latest fiasco.

    The country has gone insane. The alphabet agencies and co-conspirators in the media are fanning the insanity.

    They used to be careful of their reputations but now they have become so full of themselves they don’t give a damn what we think.

    The Republican House can’t abolish the FBI by itself, but it can investigate it and it can sharply reduce its budget. Nothing would be nice. I imagine they do some good things but we have local law enforcement for that. The evil the FBI has been seen to do casts a long shadow of decay over the entire country.

    1. The J. Edgar Hoover Building could be used for the ‘homeless’ and for the illegals Governor Abbott is sending their way. At least the country will get some benefit from the wretched and grotesque architecture. Even the Lubyanka is more attractive and likely has the same class of people working in it.

    2. “Now safely after the election the FBI and DOJ admit that the only thing they found when they staged their spectacularly ugly raid on Trump’s home was souvenirs.”


      Your article doesn’t have any statements from the FBI or the DOJ. It has a statement from Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and Josh Dawsey in their own words about what unnamed “people familiar with the matter” told them. The Post article doesn’t have a statement from the FBI or DOJ either. For all you know, these “people familiar with the matter” are Trump’s lawyers, not anyone from the FBI or DOJ.

      Moreover, the Post article does NOT say that Trump had nothing but “souvenirs.” They said that their informants told them that Trump’s motivation “was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos” rather than financial: “That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.”

        1. Before, this gung-ho Troll accepted the FBI role as proof positive when it looked suspicious.
          Did he ask for proof? No. Today all he asks for is more and more proof.

          That is why he is known for lying and deception.

          Young. he lives up to everything I have said about him.

          1. Is there anything in your history that proves you not a Troll? No. Proves you not a liar? No. Proves you not deceptive? No.

            The proof is in your ill-tempered words which are littered all throughout the blog.

              1. All you are able to do is throw your empty word, projection. Why? Because all these things said about you are true and you can’t prove otherwise.

                Go back in time and pick a contentious issue. You were WRONG and continue to be WRONG, never apologizing, instead you continue to lie.

                1. Not my job to disprove your ad hom opinion.

                  It’s sufficient that I point out that it’s ad hom, and you responded with ad hom because you have no factual counter re: the substantive issue about the errors in Young’s original post.

        1. Talking facts with people that think the world is flat, is almost impossible. Their mind is made up regardless of facts or truth.

          1. “Their mind is made up regardless of facts or truth.”

            You talking about yourself, Fishy? All your opinions (not to be confused with ‘facts or truth’) have been assigned to you. You do not think, you regurgitate propaganda.

    3. Political prosecution for holding unclassified, non-viable information past the due date. Just another witch hunt after more than 16 trimesters of the hunters’ braying truth through projection.

      1. He hasn’t produced evidence in any court documents that the documents marked classified were declassified, and the alleged crimes do not hinge on their classification status.

        1. Anonymous – You are correct that it is not a crime to have “classified documents or information”, nor is it a crime to keep “Presidential Papers.” So, what do you say is “the alleged crimes”? Disclosing “national defense information” under the Espionage Act? If so, please tell us what is the factual basis for such a claim.

    4. Rest assured, the Deep Deep State “Swamp” superRINO “Bumpkin from Bakersfield” is going to repeatedly impeach Biden, the DOJ, FBI personnel et al. and stretch to the limits Congressional “overreach.”


    5. They couldn’t hide their malfeasance anymore as FBI whistleblowers started coming out of the woodwork by the dozens.I hope someday soon the people responsible for these blatant Civil Rights violations against U.S. citizens & especially President Trump will come to light and if prosecutable, be prosecuted to the fullest.

    6. Sad for Trump the looney left not only control most media they might also write the history. US News has Trump ranked as the 2nd worst of all time. “U.S. News averaged presidents’ scores from three separate metrics: C-SPAN’s 2021 Presidential Historians Survey, Siena College’s Presidential Expert Poll and the Presidential Greatness Rankings conducted by professors at the University of Houston and Boise State University.”

  9. Wait!

    If America suddenly enjoys free speech, it will undoubtedly be revealed that every aspect and facet of the communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.

    At that point, as it did in Dobbs, the Supreme Court will be compelled to strike down every last vestige of unconstitutional communism in America.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution.

    Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto.

    The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

  10. General Motors went bankrupt and must have gone out of business, viable free market enterprises purchasing the surviving segments, as government has no constitutional authority over commerce and industry and no authority to conduct commercial activities.

    Obama illegally took control of that means of production, pursued unconstitutional commercial expenditures of taxpayer dollars in that effort, and ensconced an affirmative action beneficiary over many multiple, clearly deserving men with superior legal lineage, legacy, qualifications, acumen and aptitude, as part of the communist dictatorship including its artificial redistribution of wealth and rank.

    William C. Durant was the creator of General Motors and a long line of American CEOs succeeded him, until Comrade General Secretary and Dear Leader Obama’s “Reign of Bourgeoisie Subjugation” that is.

    Mary Barra could not and cannot fail…the party won’t permit it…the party won’t admit it.

    Xi Jinping is pumping many multiple billions into Evergrande et al. as we speak; they, too, will not be permitted to fail.

    Mary Barra couldn’t free enterprise herself out of a wet paper bag, but the American “silent lamb” taxpayers can make it appear that she did, right Barry?

  11. Regarding your statement, “As further evidence…”
    Do you have any idea what “evidence” is?
    (1)It was already explained to you that AccountableTech is not a “standalone organization.” Indeed, Accountable Tech is one of EIGHT registered trade names for North Fund.
    (2)These organizational umbrellas are generally set up as 501(c)(4) under IRS, making their donors anonymous and non-disclosable..Little ole you (as well as me, for that matter) have no idea which/what/how many are buoyed/funded/supported by Clinton or fellow funds.
    Therefore, your negative finding on your little “list” of partners is….[totally meaningless].
    Why do you think it is called “dark money?”

    1. (this was meant as a response to a previous comment by “Anonymous.” Please disregard it if you were not following that exchange.)

  12. Musk is not trying to “restore free speech protections.” Musk has banned many Twitter users for saying things that are protected under the 1st Amendment (and it’s legal for him to do that, just don’t pretend that he’s trying to protect free speech).

    1. No one knows how many have been banned or if banning on a large scale is intentionally being performed. What is known is that Twitter is more open today then it was before when this twit accepted Twitter’s bans. He knows very little but likes to pretend.

      I think Twitter will be reasonably a free speech platform. Time will tell.

      1. Yes, as I pointed out, it’s legal for him to do it.

        But Turley keeps insisting that Musk’s takeover of Twitter will be good for free speech, and there’s no evidence that that’s true.

        1. Of course the evidence exists. Formerly Twitter was censoring eminent professors from Stanford, Yale and elsewhere for writing on topics they were the experts in. That is no longer happening. That is a move in the right direction.

          1. Glad to know that when you add up integers, you only pay attention to the positive numbers and ignore the negative ones. You must have failed math.

              1. How is that relevant to the topic of the net effect of Musk’s actions on whether Musk is or is not trying to “restore free speech protections”?

                If you think there are two negative Musk choices that have a meaningful product, I’m all ears.

          2. “ Of course the evidence exists. Formerly Twitter was censoring eminent professors from Stanford, Yale and elsewhere for writing on topics they were the experts in.”

            Just as Musk is able to do whatever he wants Twitter before musk could choose to censor content if it violated their rules. Turley kept skipping over that pertinent fact so he could portray it as violating something it couldn’t violate.

        2. There is alot of evidence – there has been a 20% increase in active users.
          That sounds like more free speech to me.

          1. Please don’t say such things. The success of a better Twitter will make ATS cry. He might even leave the blog.

  13. The Clinton’s are slimy lying crooked creatures. They should both be in jail, preferably in the same cell, that would be hell on earth for both of them.

    1. And she’s not going to be very sick and need to be hospitalized, which is the point of getting vaccinated.

    2. I have been incredibly fortunate so far. Neither I nor anyone in my familiy has gotten Covid.

      I have done many of the things recommended – and some that are not in the CDC’s list.

      But I also can read the data and nothing actually worked. Masks did not work.
      I still wear a mask when a project requires it. I go into senior living centers for several hours about once a month. But not otherwise.

      I have stopped getting jabbed pending better data on the cardio risks – the cardio problems appear to be cummulative – the more jabs the more likely, and are highest for men.

      Regardless, Covid is a perfect example of the failure of the left’s experts fetish.

      1. I have been incredibly fortunate so far. Neither I nor anyone in my familiy has gotten Covid.

        Unless if you have a documented, debilitated immune system, and you might given your age (i.e. clonal hematopoiesis), you might be better off getting infected with COVID. In this way you develop antibodies and memory T cells ready to defend you the next time you get infected. COVID is here to stay. Develop immune protection now either with natural immunity or vaccination. Like with polio vaccines, flu vaccines, and others, you can still get infected regardless of the vaccine. It’s urban legend that vaccines prevent infection but it is not true. The difference with a vaccine is that you won’t develop severe infectious symptoms, e.g. polio vaccine does not protect you from getting flu-like symptoms if you get infected with polio virus. It does however protect you from developing paralysis. Ditto for flu vaccine, COVID vaccine, etc

        I have gotten infected with COVID twice, as far as I know. The first time was mere sniffles. The second I had no symptoms, but the DNA test at the hospital revealed I had gotten it. Twice vaccinated protected me from severe illness. I get the flu vaccine every year, and sometimes I still get mildly sick, but as stated, the flu vaccine protects one from severe complications (e.g. pneumonia) not mild symptoms


        Thompson MG, et al (2018). Influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza-associated intensive care admissions and attenuating severe disease among adults in New Zealand 2012-2015. Vaccine. 36(39):5916-5925. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.028.

        Now go lick every door knob, every public building stairwell handrail, elevator door and associated buttons, and report back to us. By the way, I don’t accept Medicare nor Medicaid.


        1. By refusing Medicare and Medicaid, you once again show that you don’t take Christ’s teachings seriously. You tout your Catholicism but you are not a faithful Catholic.

          Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

        2. I do not think there is anything that you wrote that is wrong.
          But there are a few things that are over generalizations.

          All vaccines do not work exactly the same – because all diseases are not the same.

          the mRNA technology is likely to radically alter medicine, and has applications far beyond vaccines.
          To the extent that the mRNA vaccines brought a new medical technology through the near impenetrable wall of regulator agencies who would normally prefer than a milion people die of some natural disease, than risk 1 person die from a side effect of treatment – that is a very good thing.
          Sufficiently good that it may outweigh whatever harms the mRNA vaccines may have caused in the long term.

          The flu is pretty much another kettle of fish. starting with “the flu” is not one disease. It is whatever flu-like variant dominates in a specific year.
          The flu vaccine works better some years than others, because we better guess what the dominant flulike disease will be or because vaccine induced immunity to that variant is greater than others.
          Regardless, drawing broad conclusions from a specific flu cycle is risky.

          I do not have a problem with the fact that some of what we did failed.

          I have a problems because in many instance “experts” KNEW it would not work.
          and in others they lied after the fact,
          and in all instances they supressed disenting views.

          And I find it incredible that after the disaster that was our response to Covid that so many people still blindly trust the people who F’d up – quite often people who were not experts – just people with power.

      2. I received a Moderma shot. I have now seen a cardiologist five times in two years. I will never take another mRNA shot.

        1. I am sorry to hear that. Day by day more reports of vax harms are coming out despite government and media censorship.

          We skipped the vax because it was impossible to estimate the benefit vs risk ratio although an experimental drug based on a novel technology backed by little testing was worrying.

          Cardiac problems are admitted now because they are too common to deny, but there appear to be many other bad outcomes, including neurological problems and, maybe, prion diseases. The problem is that our usual oracles, the CDC, FDA, and a good part of the medical community have shown false. We can’t trust them, at least not on this issue. They have squandered a priceless asset. It will not be renewed soon.

          CDC, FDA, FBI, DOJ all appear to be versions of FTX.

        2. I am still trying to follow the link between the mRNA jabs and cardio issues.
          There are a number of studies with conflicting results.

          There has definitely been a dramatic rise in cardio issues concurrent with covid. But the evidence linking them to mRNA jabs is inconsistent so far. I personally strongly suspect there is a link. My Guess is that the problem is associated with how the vaccine is administered.
          If that is true you are playing russian roulette every time you get jabbed.

          But I do not KNOW this, and I do not think it is possible YET to conclude that with certainty.

          But I agree with you that I am unlikely to get another mRNA covid jab until this is cleared up.
          I probably will not anyway. The last jab I got slammed me. Each one has been hitting me progressively harder.
          The first we just typical vaccination soreness for a day. The side effects of the last were worse than mild cases of Covid.
          I was in pretty bad shape for a week.

          Separately – even if as appears likely to be the case the mRNA covid shots were a mistake, mRNA is still likely to be incredibly important medical technology in the future.

          Whether the mRNA vaccines were effective or not – there were several “design errors” that can be corrected in the future.
          The vaccine itself contains an actual virus, that virus is encased in a substance to fascilitate delivery and to prevent your immune system from targeting the virus that is actually there to produce the spike protein that your immune system is supposed to develop antibodies too.

          So first it appears the substance encasing the virus was not the best choice.
          Regardless, we will learn and hopefully do better.
          Next the choice of the spike protein as the part of covid to generate anitbodies to appears to be a mistake. The spike protein is harmful in and of itself, and it is not a stable part of the virus – which is why the original vaccine does not work on omicron.

          Regardless, I think the technollogy is amazing and has limitless future potential.

          1. John, the technology is amazing and does have remarkable potential.

            But it is noteworthy that the inventor of the underlying technology, who also holds the patents on it, believes the current ‘vaccine’ is unsafe and should not be administered.

            Your experience of more severe reactions with each jab is not unusual. It seems that a lot of the deaths and terrible injuries have occurred after getting the boosters. Some of my siblings and cousins have been very much in favor of the vax [claiming that they ‘follow the science’] but at least two of them had very nasty reactions after getting a booster. Nobody–actually nobody–can say what will happen in the longer term.

            You are right about administration being a factor in some of the problems. There have been instances where the hypodermic was not asperated to assure that the needle wasn’t in a blood vessel instead of muscle mass before the plunger was pressed. In those instances the vax went into the blood stream and circulated spike proteins throughout the body almost immediately.

            I also agree that at this stage we can’t know with near certainty whether the vax is responsible for cardiac problems, but at this stage the Bradford Hill criteria for causality have been more than satisfied on that issue even if the mechanism and pathway to harm hasn’t yet been charted.

            For any individual the question isn’t whether one can know this with scientific precision but whether the risks assumed by not getting the vaccine are greater than the risks of getting an experimental and potentially toxic substance that now appears not to be very effective in preventing disease.

            We chose to risk the disease rather than the experiment. In the event it appears our choice was fortunate. Treatment with Ivermectin or HCQ actually works. We now have natural immunity which is more robust and broader and enduring that whatever little shield the vax provides. I now know a fairly large number of personal acquaintances, including several doctors and nurses, who have treated their Covid with Ivermectin and had results similar to ours. We felt better within 24 hours, our vital signs and oxygen levels were always good. It was impossible to tell from vital signs that we were sick with anything. But we were. For a week we slept a lot and completely lost appetite, which was kind of a good thing since we lost weight. You can easily go a week without eating without harm. I have done it 3 times. Twice because I had no choice hitchhiking and once because of Covid.

            As for the studies with ‘conflicting results’ you mention, I suppose you know they have to be treated with caution these days. Pharma pays a lot for advertising in those professional magazines and a lot in the media. Again, the similarity to FTX conduct is remarkable. Some of the studies of Ivermectin use low doses and are started later in the disease and without concomitant therapy. Designed to fail. In the field, where doctors are treating actual patients great results are found with appropriate doses begun early in the disease and continued for a least 5 days along with zinc and other treatments. I don’t care who publishes nay-saying studies in whatever prestigious journal. They can’t convince me with their ‘prestige’ and ‘science’ that the Sun isn’t overhead at Noon when I can see it.

            1. I agree with pretty much everything you have said – with the proviso that much of what you are saying is probably true rather than proven true.

              The absence of certainty is one of MANY reasons why things must be individual choices.
              It is also why institutional fact checking is unethical.
              We could hardly have had a better proof of that with covid – where on point after point the fact checkers have ultimately proven wrong.

              “fact checking” is done by debate.

              I do not want Twitter under Musk Fact Checking Sen Warren – all the rest of twitter users can manage that fine.
              Just as I do not want twitter fact checking Alex Berenson on the vaccine.
              If another Twitter user thinks he is wrong THEY should post the fact check.

              It is a mistake for institutions to bet their own credibility with fact checks – when they inevitably prove wrong – it is THEIR credibility that suffers.

              The CDC can provide advice – though frankly I would just eliminate them.
              But the choices should be up to each individual.
              And each of us will be subject to the positive or negative consequences of our choices.

        3. There are about a bazillion studies that have been do that have demonstrated that Vitamin D reduces the likelyhood of getting covid by ATLEAST 20% – and possibly as much as 35%.
          That it makes the likelyhood of death if you get it 20-35% less likely, that it makes the severity of Covid if you get it dramatically less.

          That even small doses of Vitamin D have atleast a 20% benefit and that high doses produce the best results.
          Small and medium doses are safe. High doses require taking some other vitamins to prevent some problems.

          VitD is even very successfully used as a treatment for Covid.

          And yet none of the “experts” are talking about Vitamind D.

          Why ? Because it is cheap, and readily available, no one is getting rich off it.

          I would note that it is actually more effective and safer than the vaccine.
          Though its effectiveness is lower, that is a sustained effectiveness for as long as your vD levels can be raised to normal.
          While the effectivenes of the Covid vaccines deteriorates rapidly with time.

          I have been taking 4000 iu of vD per day since the start of Covid. I have also where possible been getting lots of sun.

          So far I have not gotten Covid.

          I credit vD. I could be wrong. But it is a good choice anyway, and it has benefits well beyond covid.

          1. John, I think you are right about vD judging by what I am reading and your personal experience. It is not a course we have followed but may in the future. Meanwhile, I am more than satisfied with the results we got from Ivermectin.

            Odd, isn’t it, that people still rave about the unethical ‘horrors’ of the Tuskegee Study but ignore the Covid jab.

            The Tuskegee Study was just that, an observational study. Nobody was given anything but free lunch. It is said they were denied treatment when antibiotics finally became available, but they weren’t ‘denied’ when they weren’t offered treatment in the first place. It was an observational study intended to learn the course of the disease. The participants were not locked in cages like monkeys. They lived in the community, had access to knowledge and outside treatment equal to that of their neighbors, and could quit the study anytime they wanted.

            But I bet that if the Tuskegee Study injected participants with an experimental substance with unknown side effects and cardiac issues arose we would be screaming “Mengle!” and it would be right to do so. There isn’t a whole lot of space between the Nazi doctors’ experiments and the Covid vaccine experiment. Except, of course, the Covid vaccine may end up wounding or killing thousands more people than all of the Nazi doctors combined.

            1. One of the absolutely disasterous stupid things about our handling of Covid is that public health authorities AND social Media AND the press under the idiocy of stopping “misinformation” absolutlely disasterously interfere with bottom up efforts to address Covid.

              The recent vD study I linked was just the latest of many. It has LONG been known that vD is a major factor in raising immunity to most everything. Early in Covid there were vD studies that showed even greater benefits than the one I just quoted.
              I beleive that vD is one of few C19 responses that has gotten little attention that has few if any studies with poor results – still it has received Zero attention.

              The left Rants about HCQ and Ivarmectin.

              What exactly was wrong with trying these – or dozens of other possibilities ?
              Early on in Covid I read a new report about a lab whtat was testing every single known FDA approved drug in existance for effectiveness against Covid. That sounded like an incredibly brilliant idea. Out of several hundred thousand drugs there was a reasonable possibility we would find something effective and cheap.

              There have been dozen’s of HCQ studies. The majority show that it is effective against Covid – both propholatically in preventing it, and as a treatment. Further it is Cheap, readily available and one of the safest drugs in existance – it is safer than aspirin. In nearly all the world it is available OTC.

              Does it work ? Based on the data – I think so. So I KNOW so ? No. But the data is good enough, that If I could get ahold of HCG – which in the US requires a perscription – which until Covid was quite easy to get – as I said it is safe and cheap. If I could get a hold of it, I would use it propholactically. The propholcatic dose is very law – something like 1 pill a week or more. For the overwhelming majority of people even if it does not work there is no downside.

              It is FAR safer than the Vaccine.
              So why exactly was our media, our government, even courts and law enforcement and medical license boards ACTIVELY engaged in preventing the use of something that clearly falls inside the hypocratic oath – First do no harm.
              There is no downside to voluntary HCQ use.

              I would note that exactly the same is true of Ivarmectin – except that there is better data to support not just that it works but that it works better than the C19 specific drug the drug companies pushed.

              What exactly was wrong with channelling the entire resoruces of the free market – big drug companies, tiny ones, guys working from their garages, to search for something that worked ? Espeically something cheap and safe ?

              Early on a couple of studies came up that indicated that MMR vaccines conveyed about 70% immunity to Covid that was long lasting.
              This arrose because someone noted that covid deaths in the 0-18month age group were higher than 2-5yr olds.
              One of the things that changes in that period is that kids get the MMR vaccine.
              More testing was done and I beleive it was determined that the Measles component was what was effective against Covid.

              My wife and I both got MMR boosters. These were age appropriate for us anyway and followed the first do no harm principle.

              Neither my wife and I have gotten Covid.

              Is that why ? Maybe. or maybe it is just random chance or luck.
              And maybe we will get covid tomorow.

              But was there something evil that we did ? Absolutely not.

              The fight over whether HCQ or Ivarmectin or anything else actually works or not is Horseschiff and completely wrong.

              We find answers by trying lots of things. And each of us should be free to try most anything – expecially things that “do no harm”

              I do not KNOW that the mmr vaccine worked. I do not KNOW that vD worked. I do not KNOW that the mRNA jabs worked.

              I have made my own choices, assessed my own risks. I MUST be free to do so. And you MUST be free to do the same or different – as YOU choose.

              But we have flipped that.

              We have been told We MUST do what experts tell us, and we CAN’T do anything else.
              No one is allowed to look for answers – except the approved government blessed parties.

              This failed.

              The worst thing about Covid was not the disease – it was the mind disease that turned so many into prols.

              1. The covid vaxxines are not about protecting your health. It is part of a larger agenda.
                They are going to try to implement ‘vaccine’ passports as part of the Great Reset plan.
                They are discussing at G20 how to begin roll out of vax passport system in Europe.
                People need to pay attention and really understand what it means.
                Bobby Kennedy explains it: As soon as they hand you that “vaccine passport”…. every right you have….. is transformed into a privilege…. contingent upon your obedience… to arbitrary government diktats.
                And the appropriate response to this tyranny is? Resistance. We resist. We do not comply.
                On a scale of 1-10, this issue is an 11.
                This is the hill to die on if you value your individual freedom and rights.

                1. We are entering a level of obvious totalitarianism. Obvious to those paying attention.
                  Time to wake up, people!

                2. Get this clearly: If we allow them the power to dictate what experimental liquid gets injected into our own bodies, we are no longer free people. The minute they hand you a “vaccine passport,” every right you have is transformed into a privilege, contingent upon your obedience to arbitrary government dictates.

                  Do not compy. Resist the Propaganda and Lies.

                3. Nearly everything the left does is consiously or uncounsciously part of that agenda.

                  I would note that SOME may have some specific goal – like a great reset.
                  But the real goal is broad power – with that most everything is possible

                  It is amazing and terrifying the left at work.

                  In the 90’s the far left was massively antiglobalist. Of course globalism then meant global free markets.
                  Today Globalism means global governance by the elites using anything – Climate, Public Health, War,
                  anything as a tool to gain power.

                  We are int he midst of a massive global political realignment.
                  We best see this in the US where Republicans and democrats have flipped on many issues.

                  Republicans built the global and domestic mass surveilance aparatus – now they are the victims of it and the most vigorous opponents.

                  We spent Decades listening to Democrats rant about dark money and big business in politics – Today nearly all the dark money and big business interests fund democrats.

                  Democrats used to be the part of the working class – increasingly they are the party of the elites, and the enemy of the working class.
                  Democrats were the party of minorities – while this election shows the move to republicans is slower than claimed – minorities are inexorably moving right.

                4. In the end political donations were more important than science.

                  COVID vax makers finally study long-term heart damage as FDA admits bivalent data lacking
                  HHS corrects stats on tripling of COVID-related pediatric hospitalizations, used to justify booster campaign for kids, after analyst calls out bad data. CNN still hasn’t corrected false report.

                  …vaccine makers are finally studying the long-term consequences of vaccine-induced myocarditis and pericarditis.

                  … heart inflammation is two to three times more likely following second doses of Moderna than Pfizer.

                  …The FDA didn’t answer Just the News queries for the evidence Marks used to make his claims, given the bivalent boosters weren’t tested in humans

            2. There is a serious medical ethics problem with Tuskegee, in that it is unethical for a doctor not to treat a known disease when he knows there is a readily available treatment.

              That ws not true at the start of the study. But it was later.

  14. So now we have Svelaz giving his financial advice to Elon Musk. Musk is worth 198 billion dollars. Lets say for arguments sake that musk loses 20 billion on twitter. So what. Svelaz assumes that he knows everything about everything. As the old saying goes Svelaz, if your so damn smart why ain’t you rich. Hubris thy name is Svelaz.

    1. TiT, nope, Just pointing out what other financial analysts have been saying about Elon’s twitter deal. They all agree that it was definitely a bad deal. Just because you are filthy rich doesn’t mean you are smart. Trump is one example. Elon may be good at building rockets. But he’s lousy at running a social media company and it shows. Even multi billionaires do stupid things.

      Losing $20 billion after newly 16 days in is a really bad sign. Especially for someone who touts himself as a billionaire genius.

      I only assume what experts are saying or opining on. That doesn’t mean I claim to “know everything”. I only know I’m smart enough to recognize that Elon Musk made a YUUUGE mistake buying twitter and far more experienced financial experts are pointing out why and how stupid his choice was.

      1. I’m smart enough to recognize that Elon Musk made a YUUUGE mistake buying twitter

        That smart, huh?

        Is it your staggering IQ that gives you the mind reading super power?

        I’m way smarter that you. I understand what I don’t know. I have no Idea what Musks plans and goals he is striving for.
        You claiming that you do, just shows how stupid you are. You dont know, what you dont know.

        1. Iowan2, if you can read you can infer what people are saying based on the context and content. No mind reading required. It’s especially easy when they tell say what they are thinking. Who knew it was possible to know what people are thinking when they…tell you.

      2. Lets see Musk has owned Twitter for all of 5 minutes and you have decided he has failed ?

        SpaceX blew up the first 4 rockets it sent up.
        It took atleast a dozen attempts to get the rockets to land correctly.

        We have addressed this with Trump too.

        In the free market there is nearly always LOTS of failure required to eventually succeed.

        The correct price for anything is what a willing buyer and seller agree to.
        Musk and twitter agreed to a price – that is the correct price.

        Was it a good deal – we will find out in the future.

        I would note that Bezos paid alot for WaPo – he will never get that money back and he continues to fund it all the time.
        It is his idea of public service.

        I have no idea what Musk wants regarding Twitter – I do not need to.
        Whether Twitter was a good deal depends on whether Musk gets what he wants from it.
        and neither you nor I know what that is.

        I would further note that “experts” said SpaceX would be a failure, “experts” said Tesla would be a failure.

        I have no idea where your Musk lost $20B in 16 days nonsense comes from – though I would note that Zuckerberg lost 71B in one day as FB’s stock tanked.

        In less than a year Zuckerbergs net worth has dropped $100B – he is now worth less than 1/4 of what Musk is.
        Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. Zuckerberg is #27. Zuckerbergs current net worth is less than Musk spent on Twitter.

        If you want to rant about a Billionaire F’ing up in the past year – that would be Zuckerberg.

        I would further note, Musk has succeded in 7 straight businesses prior to Twitter.
        Though Musk is far wealthier – that is similar to Trump.
        The vast majority of the richest people in the world have one or two successes.

        Success in multiple areas is the strongest indicator of genius that we have.

        You can bet against Musk if you want. I will be happy to take that bet.

        1. “Lets see Musk has owned Twitter for all of 5 minutes and you have decided he has failed?”

          No, he’s owned it for a couple of weeks now and so far it’s been one mess after another. Social media is not the same as engineering rockets. Apparently it’s more involved than that and his top executives quit because they couldn’t manage what Elon wanted to do. Running a social media business is hard and making money off it is harder. Elon is $44 billion in the hole of an $8billion valued company now. It’s a problem.

          1. You cant even run your troll business effectively and yet here you are with no patents to your name (Elon has 6), never employed anybody, never started, launched or run a legit business and never gotten laid

            C’mon man!

          2. Musk was looking for a high multiple win and perhaps influence to help his other companies. Svelaz doesn’t understand that if one thinks he has a high multiple win, one is able to pay a price higher than what the market dictates.

            I don’t know that any valuation of Twitter at the present time is meaningful.

            How much money did Musk invest to make him the richest man in the world.

            Tesla $1.7 billion IPO —> a $600 billion company. Look at the multiple.
            Musk invested $100 million in SpaceX It is now many multiples
            Boring Company
            Musk sold his shares in Paypal and that gave him multiples as well along with the cash to help him with more profitable businesses.

            Musk has done a lot more and I am sure he had some failures along the way but he is a success.
            Svelaz has never done anything so he never had a business fail on him, but what does he have? He works overtime when he needs a bit more money, That is failure for Svelaz who thinks he knows so much about Musk’s businesses.

          3. “Social media is not the same as engineering . . .”

            I think that the man who co-founded the e-commerce companies Zip2,, and PayPal probably knows a bit more than you do about Internet-based companies.

            1. It’s irrelevant whether he knows more than Svelaz. The issue is whether he knows enough to run the company successfully, and so far, the answer to that is a resounding “no.”

                1. Yes, two weeks in, he’s already seriously harmed the company, both in losing employees he needs and in fleeing advertisers.

                  I think you’d rather make this about me than about the serious problems that Musk has already created, because you have no counter for the latter.

                  1. What foolishness that indicates this person has never held a job where he wasn’t told what to do. He has absolutely no knowledge of the business world.

                    That is why he is where he is and Musk is the richest man in the world.

                  2. “. . . because you have no counter for the latter.”

                    You’re right, I don’t. Because I don’t presume to know things that I don’t know. And I don’t presume to tell a man how to do something, when that man has far more knowledge and experience than I do.

                    But I do know one thing. As opposed to those eaten by envy, I do not cheer for Musk’s demise.

                    1. I’m not cheering his demise or even claiming that Twitter will end in demise. I’m just pointing out the facts that two weeks in, Musk has already seriously harmed the company, both in losing employees he needs and in fleeing advertisers. Maybe he’ll recover, maybe he won’t. But he certainly isn’t handling the transition in a skilled way.

                    2. ATS, can you tell us how Musk has hurt Twitter? Probably not.

                      You might say that many left-wing ideologues quit or were fired. If you understand business, you will immediately recognize how important that is to the success of Twitter. Financially it stops draining capital while getting rid of the trash that made Twitter insufferable.

                      Perhaps you think the $8 charge is unaffordable. No one is forcing anyone to pay $8. It’s a great idea. That some leftist users got angry and disappeared is not a problem. They were not supporting Twitter in the first place. They supported their ideologies demanding that half the nation be censored. Getting rid of trash helps the flowers bloom.

                      Perhaps you think there were some errors. I will provide you with a primer course in business. Businesses learn through trial and error. If you don’t make some errors, you haven’t lived or produced anything.

                      Second lesson: One can look for immediate gains or long-term gains. If you choose the former, generally you will lose, but that is what I expect from people like you. You are a loser in a world of winners and losers. Surely you hate the term, but you aren’t a winner. That makes you a loser.

                      I’ll continue waiting for you to provide intelligent criticism of Musk, but I am not hopeful that will be forthcoming.

                    3. It is HIS company. Everything about it is HIS.
                      Whether is has been “harmed” or not is HIS decision.
                      Musk does nto appear to think he needs these employees – and that decision is HIS.
                      As to advertisers – if Musk wants them back – he can figure out how to get them.
                      But he is free to say good riddance.
                      Most of the advertisers who left are car companies. They would have re-evaluated no matter what.

                      Regardless, we have listened to those of you on the left ranting constantly that Twitter can do whatever it wants.
                      That has not changed.
                      All that has changed is that it might be your oxe that gets gored.

                      My expectation is that Twitter will continue content moderation – to apease foreign countries and the EU.
                      But that it will shift heavily towards highly automated content moderation with publicly available viewpoint neutral rules.

                      regardless, Que Sara Sara.

                      Twitter is Musks problem now – not yours or mine.

                    4. “But he certainly isn’t handling the transition in a skilled way.”

                      Says the one who, no doubt, is an M&A expert, with oodles of such activities on his CV.

                  3. Have you ever noticed that standard, protocol Tx for metastasizing human disease involves a cleansing and purging–indeed, more adversely symptomatic than the disease itself, and making the patient feel even worse,–before containment and eventual regrowth of healthy tissue?
                    You, who demands “evidence” so much, should look this up.

                    1. Actually, I’m well aware of the treatment of cancer, as my mom died from the metastasis of a rare form, and I was with her during her treatments (both standard and experimental) and helped care for her in the year before she died. You do understand that a large fraction of people with cancer die from it, right? And you understand that the “cleansing and purging” you refer to is not guaranteed to be an effective treatment, right?

                      You, who ignore this, should look it up.

                      And since you often like to have the last word, I’ll leave you to it.

                  4. Why is this your or my business ?

                    Those of you on the left have said over and over that Twitter can do as it pleases.

                    Now it is doing as its owner – Elon Musk pleases.

                    It is his $44B company – if he wants to deliberately piss it all away – he is free to do so.

                    I highly doubt that will happen – but my legitimate involvement is simple – do I return to twitter, or not.
                    That is all.

          4. “No, he’s owned it for a couple of weeks now”
            That is inconsequential.

            “so far it’s been one mess after another.”
            It only appears unique because you are focused on Twitter and you want Musk to fail. Becuase if he does not it is near certain the rest of SM must follow – or face massive shareholder lawsuits.

            What you are calling a mess at twitter is miniscule compared to what is occuring at FaceBook.
            Zuckerberg went from something like the 3rd richest person in the world to the 27th in the past 6 months.
            He has laid off 3 times as many people as Musk.

            Musk could currently Buy out Zuckerbergs controlling interest in FB for less than he paid for twitter – that is how bad things are at FB.

            Absolutely SM is a mess right now.

            BTW most of the “problems” so far – I do not give a schiff about. Change is ALWAYS disruptive.

            The fake Eli Lilly account claim is completely meaningless. It is barely noise in the rising Trend of lillys stock.
            But left wing nuts like you are foaming and frothing.

            I do not care if no one on Twitter is “verified”.

            As YOU have been pointing out over and over – The Owners of Twitter can run the company as they please.
            With Musk in charge – aparently that is no longer true – left wing nuts have sicced the FTC on him – which is ludicrously stupid.
            They can not target Musk with the SEC – because Twitter is now private. Musk learned about government interferance with public companies with Telsa – all his other companies are private.

            “Social media is not the same as engineering rockets.”
            Nope, Musk’s first company was Zip2 – an internet company.
            His second was PayPal – an internet and finance company.
            Then Tesla – a Car company.
            SpaceX – a rocket company
            The Boring Company – a tunnelling company.
            And somewhere in there he is doing solar energy.

            So Musk has a fairly broad background and prior experience.
            I would Bet on Musk. You can bet however you want.

            “Apparently it’s more involved than that and his top executives quit because they couldn’t manage what Elon wanted to do.”
            I would expect to see lots more staff leaving or getting fired. That is a good thing.
            Twitter is bloated – Even Dorsey admitted that he hired far too many people after going public.

            “Running a social media business is hard and making money off it is harder.”
            Making money in any business is hard.
            You are likely correct Musk does not know the ins and outs of SM.
            But I am near certain correct – he knows how to run businesses AND he knows how to innovate.

            If you are right and I am wrong – Twitter will fail.
            The world will not end.

            “Elon is $44 billion in the hole of an $8billion valued company now.”
            False in so many ways. Musk paid 44B – he is not in the hole, and more than you are when you pay $100 for a tank of gas.
            Twitter has no current value – it is not publicly traded. you are just guessing.

            Regardless, Musk was NOT actually obligated to go through with the deal – he chose to.
            He might have lost his court case – if he did the court could not force the deal.
            What they could do was force the penalty clause – which was $1B if Musk bailed on the deal without cause.
            Musk decided to go through with buying the company rather than pay the penalty.
            That means HE decided that one way or another he can make Twitter worth MORE than $44B – and probably quickly.

            “It’s a problem.”
            Maybe, maybe not.
            Regardless, it is Musks problem – not yours.

            Far more so that FB or Google or Instagram or TikTok or ….
            Twitter is Musks personal property.
            It is no longer a public company.
            Musk answers to NO ONE.
            Any actual problems are HIS problems.
            He could fire everyone and shut the doors tomorow.

            I have my own opinions as to what he should do – but he is not listening to me.
            And he does not need to.

            I am not surprised that various automakers stopped advertising – Telsa is their competition.

            GM is in financial trouble and the Biden admin tried to get Musk to bail them out.
            He continues to refuse.

            Further Joe Biden has gone to great lengths to favor Ford and GM over Tesla and
            has altered the relationship from healthy competition to open animosity.

            Ultimately Musk is going to have to find a way to deal with advertisers, employees, and regulators – particularly in the EU.
            He is highly unlikely to end up with the free speech platform that Twitter once was.

            My GUESS, is that he is going to change as rapidly as possible from heavily human driven content moderation to completely automated content moderation. The results will likely result in far more supression of left wing nuts that right wing nuts.
            You do not seem to grasp that but under any set of neutral rules – it is the left that will get censored the most.

            But I doubt that the Europeans will allow Musk to end content moderation.

            We are seeing a version of that with the Elizabeth Warren fact check.

            A real free speech platform would not fact check at all – that would be the role of other users.
            That is how free speech works.

            The forum owner provides content neutral rules to assure civility.
            Fact checking is the responsibility of participants.

            I do not care that Musk is charging for Blue Checks.
            I do not care that some people have created impersonation accounts.
            Musk banned Kathy Griffith(he did relent after humiliating her) for that. He banned the Lilly fake
            he is being consistent. That is what is most important.

            He can impose draconian rules – so long as they are content neutral and consistent.

            As to “disruption” – expect alot more.

            Read Schumpeter – disruption is at the core to free market progress.

        2. The correct price for anything is what a willing buyer and seller agree to.


          & the price is only relevant at the moment in time the deal closes.

          Is Musk looking for a long term corporate write off against profits elsewhere???

          Caveat Emptor

          1. I do not pretend to try to read Musks mind.

            I am not sure that your writeoff claim is technically plausible – atleast not if Twitter remains a C corp.

            I want Musk to succeed – and I think that he actually will.

            We are already seeing changes – Sen. Elizabeth Warren got fact checked for a stupid left wing nut remark that all of SM would have let slide for the past several years.

            I would prefer to see SM “fact checks” disappear. I do not want the social media giants deciding what to fact check and what not.

            Ordinary people can do that on their own.

            But the world will not end if Twitter continues to do massive content moderation – but more evenly balanced politically.

            The most important outcome of Musks purchase is that after doing something to change the hyper left wing tilt of SM censorship,
            musk must succeed.

            Any changes Musk makes that works will be adopted by every other publicly held SM company.
            Otherwise there will be shareholder lawsuits.

      3. Who is more “expert” – the richest man in the world ? OR some financial weanies you cite ?

        If these experts came to you and said – invest $100K based on our recomendations – would you do it ?
        If Musk said invest 100K in my new venture – would you do it ?

        1. Does wealth imply expert knowledge? That seems rather reductive. I doubt the Sultan of Brunei would know anything about running an American social media company.

          1. “Does wealth imply expert knowledge?”

            In Musk’s case, yes — because he *created* his wealth. In Pelosi’s case, no — because as a pull-peddler, she *appropriated* her wealth.

          2. “Does wealth imply expert knowledge?”
            “That seems rather reductive.”
            because it is true
            “I doubt the Sultan of Brunei would know anything about running an American social media company.”
            Do not know much about what the Sultan of Brunei knows.

            Regardless YOUR word was imply – Wealth does imply – not expert knowledge so much as the intelligence and skills needed to succeed.
            Imply is not the same as prove. Imply in this conduct would be more accurately framed as does Wealth increase the probability of the skills and intelligence needed ? And the answer is unquivocally yes.

            But we can go further – we can get nearly to prove.
            All we must do is substitute – success for wealth.

            Does past success predict future success – ABSOLUTELY – the probability is enormous.
            Significantly stronger still is Does past success in multiple domains predict future success in a new domain – the answer is to an incredibly high degree of probability.

            Does Musk have the knowledge and skills to successfully run an SM company ? Probably not.
            Is he more likely to succeed than people who are acknowledge to have that knowledg and skill ? Absolutely.
            Musk will learn or buy the skills and knowledge necescary – and he has proven he can do so repeatedly.

            I would note this is also a problem the left does nto grasp with Trump.
            While he has had a few failures – that is not actually unusual among highly successful people.
            He has succeeded over and over, and more importantly in different – sometimes vastly different areas.

            People who succeed have much higher IQ’s than those who do not.
            People who try and fail have higher IQ’s than those who do not try.
            People who succeed many times have higher IQ’s than those who succeed once.

            Are there very high IQ failures – a tiny number.
            Are there low IQ people who succeed multiple times – with near certainty NO.
            You can be smart and fail.
            You can be stupid and succeed – once. But not multiple times.

            Do the overwhelming majority of people with high IQ’s succeed ? Yes.
            Do all people with very high IQ’s succeed multiple times ? No.
            Do all people who succeed multiple times have high IQ’s ? yes.

            Musk mail fail at twitter, but the odds are heavily against that.

            Conversely a gaggle of social media Experts have less than a 1:7 chance of coming in and succeeding – unless they have succeeded before.

            Success is the greatest predictor of future success.
            IQ is the 2nd strongest.
            Domain expertise is probably in the top 5.

            Wealth is not a direct predictor of success. But since most significant wealth is not inherited. Wealth is a very strong indirect predictor of sucess.

            with respect to the Sultan of Brunei – I know little about him – but if he is wealthy – even if that wealth was inherited, and his wealth has increased rather than declined – then his odds of succeeding are still greater than “the experts”

            You have a religious fetish about experts.

            As I noted about – Experise is only in the top 5 predictors of success, and it is NOT necescary.

          3. The catchphrase “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is a reflection of the real probabilities of success.

            While it is frequently wrongly read as some proof of corruption.
            “Nothing succeeds like success.
            Nothing fails like failure.”

            Past success is the best predictor of future success,
            Past failure the best predictor of future failure.

    2. Zuckerberg has lost $100B just in the past year.

      Zuckerbergs net worth is currently less than Musk paid for Twitter.

      I suspect Musk could now afford to buy Facebook if he wanted, at the very least he could afford to buy Zuckerberg out.

      That does not sound to me like someone who is failing.

      I do nor know what Musk will do with Twitter.
      I doubt he will make it into a near absolute free speech platform.
      I do expect that in the long run he will make money.

      We have idiots like Svelaz noting every bad thing that happens on Twitter and missing anything positive – Twitters active user base is up 20%.
      At the same time the problems do not matter – some are temporary, others may not be – we will so.
      Some are industry wide.

      We are headed into a recession. Social Media is getting hammered by the market.
      While users and activity may actually increase during a recession – purchasing will decrease – that is litterally what recession means.
      Advertisers do not actually pay for eyeballs. They pay for sales.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: