Censorship by Surrogate: Why Musk’s Document Dump Could be a Game Changer

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosures in the “Twitter Files” on the coordination of censorship between the company and both Biden and Democratic party operatives. Beyond personally attacking Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi, many have resorted to the same old saw of censorship apologists: it is not censorship if the government did not do it or direct it. That is clearly untrue.  Many groups like the ACLU define censorship as denial of free speech by either government or private entities.  It is also worth noting that this censorship (and these back channels) continued after the Biden campaign became the Biden Administration. Moreover, some of the pressure was coming from Democratic senators and House members to silence critics and to bury the Hunter Biden influence peddling scandal.

Here is the column:

“Handled.” That one word, responding to a 2020 demand to censor a list of Twitter users, speaks volumes about the thousands of documents released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, on Friday night. As many of us have long suspected, there were back channels between Twitter and the Biden 2020 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban critics or remove negative stories. Those seeking to discuss the scandal were simply “handled,” and nothing else had to be said.

Ultimately, the New York Post was suspended from Twitter for reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Twitter even blocked users from sharing the Post’s story by using a tool designed for child pornography. Even Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was suspended for linking to the scandal.

Twitter’s ex-safety chief, Yoel Roth, later said the decision was a “mistake” but the story “set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack and leak campaign alarm bells.” The reference to the APT28 Russian disinformation operation dovetailed with false claims of former U.S. intelligence officers that the laptop was “classic disinformation.”

The Russian disinformation claim was never particularly credible. The Biden campaign never denied the laptop was Hunter Biden’s; it left that to its media allies. Moreover, recipients of key emails could confirm those communications, and U.S. intelligence quickly rejected the Russian disinformation claim.

The point is, there was no direct evidence of a hack or a Russian conspiracy. Even Roth subsequently admitted he and others did not believe a clear basis existed to block the story, but they did so anyway.

Musk’s dumped Twitter documents not only confirm the worst expectations of some of us but feature many of the usual suspects for Twitter critics. The documents do not show a clear role or knowledge by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Instead, the censor in chief appears to be Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former chief legal officer who has been criticized as a leading anti-free speech figure in social media.

There also is James Baker, the controversial former FBI general counsel involved in the bureau’s Russia collusion investigation. He left the FBI and became Twitter’s deputy general counsel.

Some Twitter executives expressed unease with censoring the story, including former global communications VP Brandon Borrman, who asked, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Baker jumped in to support censorship and said, “It’s reasonable for us to assume that they may have been [hacked] and that caution is warranted.” Baker thus comes across as someone who sees a Russian in every Rorschach inkblot. There was no evidence the Post’s Hunter Biden material was hacked — none. Yet Baker found a basis for a “reasonable” assumption that Russians or hackers were behind it.

Many people recognized the decision for what it was. A former Twitter employee reportedly told journalist Matt Taibbi, “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold.”

Obviously, bias in the media is nothing new to Washington; newspapers and networks have long run interference for favored politicians or parties. However, this was not a case of a media company spiking its own story to protect a pal. It was a social media company that supplies a platform for people to communicate with each other on political, social and personal views. Social media is now more popular as a form of communications than the telephone.

Censoring communications on Twitter is more akin to the telephone company agreeing to cut the connection of any caller using disfavored terms. And at the apparent request of the 2020 Biden campaign and the DNC, Twitter seems to have routinely stopped others from discussing or hearing opposing views.

The internal company documents released by Musk reinforce what we have seen previously in other instances of Twitter censorship. A recent federal filing revealed an email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media chief. Crawford’s back-channel communication sought to censor other “unapproved opinions” on social media; Twitter replied that “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.”

At the time, Twitter’s Dorsey and other tech CEOs were about to appear at a House hearing to discuss “misinformation” on social media and their “content moderation” policies. I had just testified on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”

The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

That is precisely what Musk is now alleging. As the documents were being released, he tweeted, “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”

The incoming Republican House majority has pledged to investigate — and Musk has made that process far easier by making good on his pledge of full transparency.

Washington has fully mobilized in its all-out war against Musk. Yet, with a record number of users signing up with Twitter, it seems clear the public is not buying censorship. They want more, not less, free speech.

That may be why political figures such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted foreign governments to compel the censoring of fellow citizens: If Twitter can’t be counted on to censor, perhaps the European Union will be the ideal surrogate to rid social media of these meddlesome posters.

The release of these documents has produced a level of exposure rarely seen in Washington, where such matters usually are simply “handled.” The political and media establishments generally are unstoppable forces — but they may have met their first immovable object in Musk.

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

229 thoughts on “Censorship by Surrogate: Why Musk’s Document Dump Could be a Game Changer”

  1. Trump’s own DOJ attacked him with the full weight of the federal government and with what was well known to be false accusations.
    Not one agent of any entity has been held accountable.
    Now what will AG Garland do?
    Will he go after Joseph R Biden in the same way Rosestein went after Donald Trump?

  2. Yea, more nothing to see hear go on about your business exclamations from the left. It comes from their very core. They fell it deep in the depth of their hearts of stone.

  3. Hey no big deal. It’s now coming out in the Missouri v Joetard censorship case that the FBI met with Twitter on a weekly bases. Of course the leftist Twitter employees never took any of their suggestions seriously. Well mister FBI man I will not censor the New York Post even if you tell me to. Or, yes Mr. FBI man cause you can really screw up my life I’ll happily do whatever you ask cause I hate those extremist Republicans too. What’s that you say? This is coming directly from James Comey? In that case I’ll bend over even farther. Do I get my junior G-man badge now?

  4. Those who regularly subscribe to Turley’s daily reports and who offer comments from time to time are familiar to each other by name, acronym, or initials. It is noteworthy that as I scroll through today’s commentary here, many of the comments are by newbies whose names, acronyms, and/or initials I never have seen before on this blog. This tells me that Turley touched a nerve here and the Washington DC PR firms were pressed into emergency service to flood the comments with “what differejnce anyway does it make”-type exculpatory remarks and/or “but what about Trump and look at what he has done” statements – all designed to take our attention from the main event: THE BIG GUY.

    1. “[M]any of the comments are by newbies whose names, acronyms, and/or initials I never have seen before on this blog.”

      Aka: Burner IDs — used by drug dealers and censorship addicts.

  5. It’s beginning to become clear that Professor Turley’s writings on the subject of free speech and the overt, and covert, suppression of it are attracting more criticism from those who comment at this site. The Twitter Files ‘dump’ may yet turn out to be one of the defining moments in American history — the long-awaited unveiling of how what donald trump referred to as the swamp does its work.

    Also, someone in the earlier comments referred to Matt Taibbi as a ‘left-wing’ journalist. Not if you have been following him for many years he isn’t left-wing.
    He was raised in a strongly Democrat household, yes, and those are his roots. But he’s a big defender of the Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, and he is trying to preserve objectivity in journalism, something that is being sacrificed every day and every week at the current time.

    I shudder to think that a hillary clinton has the power to get the european union to suppress Twitter under Musk’s control —

    And Turley is right — Twitter may have cost Musk $44 billion (that’s with a B) but holy crap, what he’s going to do to try to change the world for that 44 billion we have get to see —- the immovable object – you betcha!

      1. Really? So far the twitter files have been about what everybody else already knew. It seems Musk is overhyping the file dump I order to drum up interest in twitter.

        1. There is a difference between what we thought, and now what we know.

          We now know Twitter was meeting with representatives from the Office of the Director of Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on a weekly basis.

          We now know to what extent Twitter favored the Democrat party (Taibbi called it “unbalanced”).

            1. What does it mean when the Federal Government is meeting with an online social networking company? Are you kidding me? It means one thing only given the other facts presented, fascism – look it up.

              Please tell us the Constitutional basis for the Federal government to be meeting with an online social networking platform…

        2. BINGO…….. Svelaz, ya hit the nail on the head. But Turley keeps them on their edge of their seats with, any day now………..Just like Hillary’s e-mails.

          1. That seems to be the case. Elon is playing the suspense game to keep interest on what may just be a nothing burger. I‘ll patiently wait for the rest of the files to be disclosed. I wouldn’t be surprised if there really isn’t a whole lot that is new or shocking.

        3. So Svelaz, now you are admitting that everyone including yourself knew that the Biden campaign was telling Twitter what to censor. If you knew what was happening why didn’t you speak up before to condemn the federal government for trying to control what we see and hear. You being such a patriot and all. I seem to recall that you said no such thing was happening and now you say you knew all along. No surprise here.

          1. TiT, the Biden campaign is not the federal government. You didn’t notice that? How is a campaign the federal government?

            Plus I never said they weren’t telling twitter what to censor. Legally they can do that since they are NOT a government entity. Funny isn’t it?

            1. Knowing the political make up of some (or half looking at the employees that quit or were fired, and as Matt Taibbi pointed out how ‘unbalanced’ they were) of the Twitter employees, you really dont think they would not go out of their way to censor anything negative about the Biden campaign at the suggestion of some certain government agencies?
              Sure. You could claim that is a conspiracy theory . . . that just so happens to ring true, based off Matt Taibbi’s reporting.

  6. I honestly don’t get why anyone is making a big deal out of Musk releasing this information and Taibbi writing it up, because it’s all information that has surely been sought in expedited preliminary discovery in the Missouri v Joetard censorship case, and will likely soon be released to the public in court records as Exhibits attached in support of either Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

    So all Musk and Taibbi are really doing is capitalizing on the existing situation and garnering the publicity for Twitter and Taibbi that would have been lavished on the court records. Like smart businessmen, Musk and Taibbi are merely cashing in on a treasure trove of free publicity instead of letting it go to waste by having the SAME censorship information splash into the news via the court.

    The REAL news (at least for me) will be the extent to which some of this information would have been unlawfully WITHHELD after being requested via interrogatories, requests for production of documents, subpoenas, and depositions regarding government Defendants and social media co-conspirators in the censorship case. That case will only get MORE interesting than it already is when people start diving into what information Musk and the other social media companies have that government defendants and social media co-conspirators omitted from their discovery responses because “Oops, I forgot about that meeting and those emails” etc.

    1. “I honestly don’t get why anyone is making a big deal out of Musk . . .”

      Because transforming America into a fascist dictatorship is a “big deal” — a big deal, that is, if you value free speech and individual liberty.

  7. Jonathan: On and on you go about the “Hunter Biden laptop scandal”. It’s getting a little tiresome. As Rolling Stone has pointed out: “Taibbi and Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ appeared to add little beyond what former executives have said was a confused and bungled response”. Which is the point I tried to make in a previous comment. Some revenge porn but little to indicate the Bidens were involved in some “vast corruption scandal” you have been peddling for over a year. If anything on Hunter’s laptop shows he broke the law Musk/ Taibbi should report this to federal authorities. Otherwise it looks like this is a fishing expedition and an attempt by Musk to gin up interest in his failing platform.

    Now, if you want to talk about some real “corruption” take a look at Forbes (12/4/2022) and their article “Trump Owed Hidden Debt While in Office”. According to Forbes Trump had a $19.8 million loan from “L/P Daewoo”, a South Korean conglomerate that does business in North Korea. The documents obtained by the NY AG show the loan was outstanding from 2011 to 1016 but Trump gradually paid it off by 7/5/2017–seven months after he took office. The existence of the Daewoo loan did not appear on Trump’s public financial disclosure reports as required by campaign laws. He kept the loan secret. Allen Weiselberg, Trump’s disgraced CFO and admitted felon, said in 2016 that Trump had disclosed all debt connected to Daewoo. That was a lie! Had Trump’s Daewoo loan been revealed during the 2016 campaign this would have raised all sorts of red flags about Trump’s “conflicts-of-interest”–and why he was so cozy with the North Korean leader.

    Now I would think the Hunter laptop story is small potatoes compared to Trump’s corruption while in office. Since Trump is now a declared candidate for 2024 is it possible he has loans from other foreign entities he is not disclosing this time around? I would think this is the kind of “corruption” you might be interested in. But I guess your goal is to bring down the Biden administration and you hope the Hunter laptop files will do that. So far you have come up empty! Too bad you didn’t show the same interest in “corruption” when Trump was in office.

    1. Your “wat aboutism” has little meaning if we’re both right. In that case, which is looking like it may have legs, we need a special counsel to examine what you and Forbes are describing about Trump and what the folks commenting on the Twitter case is claiming about the Biden laptop. Both are very serious and disqualifying allegations that can only be resolved by a competent. fair, open, and honest investigation. I assume you would agree, unless, of course, you are biased.

    2. Dennis McIntyre is just telling us that anything necessary to destroy Trump is okay with him. Dennis has a copy of Machiavelli’s The Prince on his night stand. He makes sure to get his nightly dose from his favorite author before he drifts into his Trump Trump Trump dream world. He prays. Now I lay me down to sleep my promises of Trumps demise to keep. If Trump should die before I wake seven morning prayers on my rosary I’ll make. It’s a religious thing.

  8. It is settled law that when the government uses a proxy, the result and effect is the same. If a police officer asks a hotel cleaning person to look for drugs in a room, that’s a search covered by the 4th Amendment and will rightfully be treated as such by the court when it comes time to prosecute the owner of the drugs. Likewise, when a government official or someone acting on behalf of a government official suppresses free speech, it will be viewed as such and not the acts of a private non-governmental entity. Because some of the suppressed data was related to COVID and the CDC’s handling of COVID, Twitter might be liable for indictment for a fraud violation that, in turn, would leave its executive staff liable for prosecution as Responsible Corporate Officials. The RCO legal doctrine is premised on the concept that those in charge of a company, in this case, Twitter, knew of the underlying crime, fraud, and either aided its occurrence or did nothing to stop or prevent it. The best recent example of this was the 2007 federal criminal conviction of Purdue Pharma LP for fraud in connection with the marketing and promotion of OxyContin. The top three company executives – its President/CEO, Medical Director, and General Counsel pled guilty as RCO to crimes they arguable knew about and failed to prevent. Of course, we would need an administration that was not part of the original crime here to decide to prosecute and that’s a story for another day.

    1. Which case provides the “settled law” for a government proxy? Which case provide the “settled law” for a private campaign?

      1. United States Supreme Court, STONER v. CALIFORNIA(1964), No. 209, Argued: February 25, 1964, Decided: March 23, 1964. (Cops asked clerk to let them search suspect’s room. SCOTUS said it was 4th Amendment protected and threw it out. That was 58 years ago when that issue was setttled. Ditto for private campaign interfering in election on behalf of candidate for federal office.

        1. As for your example, I think the cases are different. I specifically alluded to the facts pertaining to COVID for a purpose. The RCO has been used effectively in cases involving healthcare fraud and, more recently, in cases involving environmental issues. The idea that a fraud was committed by those suppressing valid COVID information for political reasons might give standing to the use of the RCO legal principle to prosecute Twitter company leaders for the fraudulent acts of subordinates they knew or should have known were acting unlawfully and they did nothing to stop or prevent it. At the core of this prosecution theory is a fraud, coupled with the proxy demands of the government that brings into play constitutional issues of First Amendment concern.

          1. So, to clarify, your “settled law”, applies to the Fourth Amendment with respect to searches and seizures and not to the First Amendment with respect to free speech rights. Got it.

            So, it isn’t settled?

            With Manhattan Community Access Corp v. Halleck, a private non-profit organization running a public access television network was not considered a state actor and was therefore not bound to protect free speech rights as a state actor would be expected.

            Interestingly, you seem to be making Sotomayor’s dissenting argument, that the private entity “stepped into the City’s shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor.” Do you agree with Sotomayor and the liberals?

            1. Anon: Even a broken watch is correct twice a day. As for the Constituitonal issue being “settled” or “unsettled,” I rely on the title of Turley’s blog, which is “Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks” or as we say at the bar, the things speaks for itself. In Manhattan Community Access Corp v. Halleck do you think the court might have had a different opinion if the city-managed cable station operators had actually instructed the program staff what to say and what not to say to the public?

        2. Jjc, you said this, “If a police officer asks a hotel cleaning person to look for drugs in a room, that’s a search covered by the 4th Amendment and will rightfully be treated as such by the court when it comes time to prosecute the owner of the drugs.”

          But the case you cited does not say what you allege. A police officer asking a cleaning person to look for drugs in a room would not be admissible in court. The case is about cops asking a hotel clerk to let THEM (cops) search the suspects room. Not a cleaning lady search for the cops.

          1. My example was a general one involving a state-ordered action that by proxy become a state action. When asked to cite a case to back it up, I used the one from the Supreme Court that had a similar fact pattern in which the initial contact with the hotel stff was from a state officer who did not have the authority of a search warrant to search the room in question. When the hotel stff did the bidding of the officer, they were acting as agents of the government. The Supreme Court said that this, in turn, made the search a 4th Amendment search requiring a warrant. The case was tossed. What is under consideration here is when does a private search remain a private search and when does it become one by the state that requires a warrant to overcome the expectation of privacy that a person renting a hotel room expects to have. There are so many cases like this, I’m sure if I had the time I could find one exactly like it but the one I cited should at least elucidate the legal principle I was trying to convey.

  9. Professor Turley,

    If there were evidence of Biden administration (rather than Biden campaign) communications, why did Musk not release any. The “handled” quote refers to pornographic images of Hunter Biden. You conveniently left that detail out.

    Why won’t Musk release the actions “Twitter Files” instead of controlling the dissemination without letting the public view the originals?

    This was smoke, without any fire.

  10. How about we develop a derisive term for media outlets who “report” on a crucial story long after an election concluded. We also need to develop a term for a CEO who claims it was a “mistake” for his company to censor information pertaining to a presidential election. I made a mistake once when I cut a fingernail too short, and I paid for for that mistake. My mistake did not, as far as I know, affect an election of the leader of the free world. Yet, I probably paid more for my mistake than any of the aforementioned attempts to pre-bunk free speech and protect a candidate’s campaign for the highest office in our country.

    1. The legacy media is histrionic (yet again) about a news story reported across the globe that they could not scoop nor report, would not report honestly and were overlooked for Matt Taibbi, a left wing, 30 years career journalist, via a platform they no longer control

      What is more, at last week’s Munk Debates in Toronto, Matt Taibbi and a British gay journalist, Douglas Murray, mopped the floor with Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell where audience members decisively concluded after the debate that the legacy media can not be trusted. Michelle Goldberg was pissy, petulant, and viciously mean-spirited: she immediately attacked Taibbi after his generalized intro comments where he mentioned no one in particular. Her reply was going right for his jugular….so typical of such insecure people. The gay guy hit back and hard. I had never heard of him but he was as pissy as Goldberg but funny. Good entertainment.

      The debate is worth watching

      Journalist Matt Taibbi and author Douglas Murray took on New Yorker contributor Malcolm Gladwell and columnist Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times. Taibbi and Murray argued for the proposition (that mainstream media COULD NOT BE TRUSTED). They won with the largest swing in the event’s history, moving from a 48%-52% voter deficit to a 67%-33% win.

      Taibbi’s number of Twitter followers soared from 600k to > 1.3 Million since the Twitter files. if only CNN could attract that many followers. Twitter is a threat to the legacy media. It is time for a paradigm shift in journalism and how Americans get their news, and that terrifies Democrats

      1. Estovir,
        Musk brought journalist Bari Weiss in to review the files.
        As you aptly put, time for a paradigm shift in journalism.
        The DNC and their mouthpiece in MSM are losing the narrative and that terrifies them.

      2. I watched that debate. I was struck at how indifferent the two legacy media panelists were about the lack of trust in their industry. They simply didn’t care that fewer people see them as trustworthy in general. It was weird but not really unexpected, I guess.

  11. “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”

    Musk is just peddling the narrative that twitter acted under orders without providing proof. The FBI warning twitter that some of the stories may be Russian hacked information is not an order. Warning twitter or Facebook about potential meddling by Russia thru “hacked and Leaked” information is not unconstitutional or an “order”. Too many trump supporters and conspiracy theorists want to conflate a ‘warning’ as an ‘order’ to justify their ever growing paranoia fed by these conspiracy theories.

    Twitter did act by itself. It chose to suppress the information in what it seems like a simple but difficult choice to err on the side of caution than allow the information that could they could have been blamed for if it tuned out to be true. At that time nobody knew with any level of certainty whether the hunter Biden laptop story was true or not. The only reason why it’s more credible now is because the confirmation of the story didn’t happen fast enough not before the election was held. But Turley pushes this “scandal” as if he knew back then what everyone else couldn’t confirm.

    “I had just testified on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate.”

    You can’t circumvent the first amendment with private censorship. It’s impossible. The first amendment does not apply to private censorship. Government suggesting certain things may be misinformation is not ‘coercion’ or an “order’, Because the ultimate decision rests with the private entity. They decided whether to act on the suggestion or not. Nothing in the constitution prevents or prohibits the government to ask something be done. Asking is not ordering or demanding something, There is a very fine line in asking and demanding something. Turley and critics like Musk are abusing that distinction by making claims that they cannot prove true. Mere allegations are usually enough to convince the gullible and the ignorant of some sort of malfeasance afoot and the conspiracy theories take off.

    Turley’s constant accusations of “a vast censorship operation” and “scandals” are only a means to push a false narrative for his gullible readers and the Fox News crowd.

    1. “Government suggesting . . .”

      The Nazis had their apologists. The communists, theirs. And now fascists in America have their own.

      1. Sam, suggesting something is not illegal for the government not it’s prohibited by the constitution. Suggesting something or pointing out something is not ordering or coercion. The government has free speech rights like everyone else. The only distinction is that only the government is prohibited from censoring or forcing speech.

          1. Wiseoldlawyer,

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech

            “Although the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause limits government regulation of private speech, it does not restrict the government when the government speaks for itself. For example, if the government allows private groups to hold rallies in a public park, it may not exclude a white supremacist rally solely because it disagrees with the rally’s message. See Forums. The city is not, however, required to include the white supremacists’ message when it holds diversity programs at its schools. This doctrine does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the Constitution. For example, even though government speech is not regulated by the Free Speech Clause, it is still subject to the Establishment Clause.”

            Or see Rust vs. Sullivan

        1. “. . . suggesting something . . .”

          A government “suggestion” is a horse’s head in your bed.

          That the Left desires to evade that fact makes them despicable fellow travelers.

            1. “[Y]ou have nothing to refute the facts.”

              That government is an institution of physical force (not a suggestion box) is a fact. That you insist on evading that fact makes you an Apologist for those wielding that force against innocent citizens.

    2. Please show us where free speech touched you, tell us of your trauma, let’s see the wounds you have suffered from hearing words and reading tweets from meanies and truth-tellers telling truths you don’t want to hear; share your pain.

      PS you’re speaking to the choir w/r/t the fact that mere allegations convince the gullible – we saw half the population go collectively nuts, and have stayed that way, since HRC lost her election.

    3. If you are acting as a surrogate of government and are moderating content at either their behest, or even at their suggestion it is most definitely a violation. You cant do an end run around the Constitution by farming out your dirty work to a private entity.

      1. Currentitguy,

        It’s not a violation. Because the choice if left to the private entity to make the decision. Suggesting a course of action is not “acting as a surrogate”

        Here’s what many people don’t get. In October 2020, when the laptop story broke, Joe Biden was not president. The Democratic National Committee (which also asked for Twitter to review tweets) is not an arm of the government. It’s a private political party. Twitter is not an arm of the government; it is a private company. Oops.

        The government can ask private corporations to take action without implicating the First Amendment. In fact, Taibbi last night said that Twitter “received” and “honored” deletion requests from the Trump White House.

        But there’s no evidence of any such coercion (at least so far) in the Hunter Biden story, and unless and until there is, the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop is the story of private individuals making decisions they were entitled to make. It is not the story of a government run amok.

      2. “If you are acting as a surrogate of government and are moderating content at either their behest, or even at their suggestion it is most definitely a violation.”
        Indeed, a violation of trust by both government and private, third party. Once either or both promote themselves as the arbiters of who can say what, that trust is lost.

    4. Read Andrew C McCarthy’s article in today’s NY Post in which he explains how the game is played by sophisticated people. It is unlikely that anyone in the FBI was stupid enough to tell Twitter to suppress the story in so many words. They knew from their surveillance of Giuliani that the laptop story was going to break. All they needed to do was warn Twitter in general terms about a Russian “hack and leak” operation involving Hunter Biden to accomplish their objective. According to Yoel Roth, that is exactly what they did. Twitter executives then did their part. The FBI can say they never instructed that any particular story should be suppressed, and Twitter can say they were acting with warranted caution in the light of general FBI warnings.

      Musk may be trying to shield Dorsey. Though he perhaps may not have been involved in the initial decision, his failure to act to end the censorship once it became clear almost immediately that there was no basis for viewing this as a hacking operation implicates him as well.

    5. So, you’re suggesting that Twitter execs woke up on a Tuesday and decided to delete and block posts? No, you’re saying that the “ultimate decision rests with the private entity”. Fair enough, but why did government officials approach Twitter in the first place? What was their goal? Did they want Twitter to perform an independent investigation? We can all say, now, that the laptop was Hunter’s, and that the government officials had the laptop at the time they approached Twitter, and they knew it was true. Did Twitter take the government’s word for it that this was all misinformation? Did the government know that Twitter would take their word for it? Why did government officials approach a private institution to suggest they might want to censor, block, and delete posts about something that they knew was true?

      1. “but why did government officials approach Twitter in the first place? What was their goal? Did they want Twitter to perform an independent investigation?”

        At the time the government believed the Russians were actively trying to influence the election thru the use of hacked information. They had a duty to at least warm twitter and facebook that some of the information could be an attempt to spread a false rumor AT THE TIME. It was ultimately up to twitter and facebook to decide what to do. The government CAN provide such warnings to private entities just as they can provide warnings to companies that they may have been hacked.
        Twitter had to make a decision based on the information the government gave them. They chose to err on the side of caution and that seems to be why they were being criticized. Because Trump’s campaign seemed to be relying on the Hunter Biden laptop story to help them win the election as an October surprise. Twitter deciding not to air the story and suppress it’s dissemination denied the Trump campaign’s “secret weapon” and thus they concocted the story that twitter was colluding with the democrats to suppress their “scandal”.

      2. Why did government officials approach a private institution to suggest they might want to censor, block, and delete posts about something that they knew was true?

        That’s the question they cannot weasel their way out of. The FBI had the laptop in December 2019 and there is no question they knew what was on it was a legitimate game changer for the 2020 election. What’s curious is why the FBI concocted a strategy to protect a presidential candidate that had not even secured his party’s nomination? It would appear the FBI wasn’t just protecting Biden, they were also protecting themselves from exposing the entire intel community, the Democratic party, the MSM and Big Tech as the corrupted entities President Trump had accurately portrayed them to be. If that had happened, the Democratic party would have reasonably lost control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. And that was never to be allowed, even if it meant they would be protecting a candidate that was clearly cognitively-impaired and reasonably compromised by hostile foreign governments.

  12. Unless the internal communications that DeSantis/Republican operative Elon Musk is releasing from twitter shows that Hunter was running for office I do not care what was on his laptop. I knew about it then and pretty much everyone knew about it then and I did not care then. I do not care now. I do not think politicians or the media should be scrounging through the stolen private emails or computer files of the relatives of candidates, nor should twitter or the media be publishing them.

    1. I’ve been saying that for a while. Nobody cares about this “scandal’. Even Steve Witherspoon a staunch libertarian/conservative has made it clear and has even asked fellow conservatives/ libertarians what exactly is the crime or what was violated. The answers are never provided, there are a lot of claims of criminal activity or illegal acts without ever producing the evidence or the statutes that are being violated.

      1. Good point, government colluding with big business to suppress free speech is not in the Constitution. It’s the very definition of fascism, but words have meaning, which reminds me, my son is pregnant.

      2. Svelaz: Correction: YOU don’t care about this scandal. Millions of Americans do indeed care about it. You are part and parcel of the hear-see-speak no evil bunch. Man, if this happened to your posse, you would be freaking out and screaming. But because it happened to the other side, all is well according to you.

        1. This is more than a mere scandal.

          First this without any doubt exposes a HUGE conspiracy to suppress truth.

          All claims that those on the right are looney because they claim large conspiracies are falsified by this.

          Every person or group involved in this is both a co-conspirator, immoral, and not to be trusted ever again.

          This obliterates any pretense to morality for all those involved.

    2. If Hunter was using his position as son of a sitting VP/Candidate/President to peddle influence and broker access it is extremely important.

      1. It’s not illegal. Keep in mind that when Hunter Biden was making the Chinese deals Joe Biden was not president or VP.

      2. They don’t care, because they have TDS so bad, they would rather the Bidens sell us out to China, then to let Trump clean up Obama’s mess. They too, want to fundamentally change America to Cuba.

    3. If Joe Biden is never implicated as “the big guy” then your rationale stands. If the scandal suggests this was nothing more than a privileged son of nepotism, and the attempts at influence peddling produced zero results, then I’ll stand behind your “Who cares?” Except for this one little asterisk, why did they think it was so important to their campaign that they asked a corporation to censor me from sharing my friend’s Twitter post on it? If you selectively refuse to care about the little things, how long will it be before they start to become big things?

      1. “Except for this one little asterisk, why did they think it was so important to their campaign that they asked a corporation to censor me from sharing my friend’s Twitter post on it?”

        Nothing says they couldn’t ask. Based on the files Musk released it seems the content they were asking to censor was porn, D!ck pics. For obvious reasons twitter or Facebook have policies that forbid the publishing of those files. An asking them not to publish them or censor them was well within their right. The Biden campaign is NOT a government entity and neither is the DNC. It’s not about being “selective” it’s about understanding the “big picture” regarding the issue. When people omit pertinent facts to push a false narrative it’s important to fully research the whole story. Not just what you’re being told by critics. Skepticism is a real must when dealing with politics.

    4. I do not think…

      That would be the theme of your entire comment. First, the laptop was not stolen, it was abandoned. It (and it’s contents) became the property of the repair shop owner. The contents “allegedly” contain evidence of illegal activity. Once the new owner of the laptop turned it over to the FBI, they had a duty to investigate what illegal activities were evidenced in it’s contents. Given the high profile nature of its previous owner, it would be reasonable for the media and politicians to investigate what the contents proved. Why? Because the previous owner’s father was running for president. And the contents proved that the father was lying when he denied knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Why was the lie even an issue? Because the business dealings involved financial compensation from foreign governments to the presidential candidate in a massive, multi-national influence peddling operation.

      Now we wait for Svelaz to once again claim SCOTUS ruled those activities the Biden family was involved in were not illegal.

      1. What does lying about the contents prove? What is the crime? You say the contents are allegations that must be investigated, what if they were and nothing criminal or illegal was found? Some WANT the content in it to be illegal activity or crimes because that would justify they fishing expedition into the contents of the laptop. We may find out whether it was lo a nothing burger or an excuse to initiate endless investigations by republicans a la Benghazi next year.

        1. What does lying about the contents prove?

          That he is a liar. Then again, that had previously been an established fact.

          What is the crime?

          The correct next question is: Why did he feel the need to lie?

          Then we can get to: Was any of it a crime?

          You say the contents are allegations that must be investigated, what if they were and nothing criminal or illegal was found?

          You obviously neglected the other obvious question: What if they were criminal or illegal?

          Some WANT the content in it to be illegal activity or crimes because that would justify they fishing expedition into the contents of the laptop.

          And some WANT illegal activity or crimes to remain hidden so as to not justify fishing expeditions.

          If you boil that all down, you object to any transparency that would damage your team; even that the risk of our national security.

          1. Lying is not evidence of a crime. Lying itself is not a crime unless you are lying to law enforcement.

            “You obviously neglected the other obvious question: What if they were criminal or illegal?”

            So it’s a fishing expedition. You’re looking for a crime absent evidence of one and the only evidence you have is that he imply lied. That is not enough to assert that a crime or something illegal was committed.

            “And some WANT illegal activity or crimes to remain hidden so as to not justify fishing expeditions.‘

            But you can’t articulate exactly what the crime or illegal activity is. You have no proof other than allegations. You are already accusing Joe Biden of being a criminal without any proof. You are essentially claiming a crime without proof therefore you need to investigate to get the proof that you don’t have about a crime that you allege was committed. That’s the very definition of a witch-hunt.

            1. Lying is not evidence of a crime.

              Lying is evidence of hiding the truth. Is it a fishing expedition to search for the truth? In this case, the basic truth was evident from the start. Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden’s business deals. Of course that knowledge is not a crime. Which begs the obvious question, why was it necessary to lie? What were the details of the truth that needed to be hidden from the public? Why was it necessary to get a full court press to censor any details that would lead to uncovering why lying about the truth was necessary? Of course most of the pieces of this puzzle are now obvious to any objective observer. Any investigation now is not a fishing expedition to uncover the basic truth. It would be to figure out who made the puzzle and why did they make it.

              1. “Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden’s business deals. Of course that knowledge is not a crime. Which begs the obvious question, why was it necessary to lie?”

                Why would it matter? Of knowing about the business deals is not a crime why investigate? You or others allege. A crime was committed or sometime illegal occurred based on what? Lying? There is no evidence that anything they did was a crime. Seeking an investigation because Biden “lied” about knowing of his son’s business deals despite that no evidence of criminal behavior is a fishing expedition in search of a crime.

                “Of course most of the pieces of this puzzle are now obvious to any objective observer.”

                What is obvious? A crime was committed? There is still no evidence. You’re basing that ‘obvious’ observation on what exactly?

                Any investigation is still a fishing expedition. There is no evidence of a crime or anything illegal other than pure suspicion. Suspicion is not enough to claim a crime was committed. Therefore any investigation is going to be a fishing expedition to “uncover” any crimes you or anyone else suspects MAY have been committed. That is what a witch-hunt looks like.

                1. Why would it matter? Of knowing about the business deals is not a crime why investigate?

                  In other words, why lie, if knowing about the business deals is not a crime? For starters, you investigate why a presidential candidate would lie over something so easily provable as true. What would be the motivation to lie when Biden should have simply said “of course I have some knowledge of his business deals. Come on man, I have photos of me meeting with people he was doing business with?”

                  Seeking an investigation because Biden “lied” about knowing of his son’s business deals despite that no evidence of criminal behavior is a fishing expedition in search of a crime.

                  Nope. You’re projecting what Democrats did when going after Trump. Biden was asked a question and he lied. This investigation is a search for the truth behind the lie.

                  What is obvious? A crime was committed? There is still no evidence. You’re basing that ‘obvious’ observation on what exactly?

                  Again, for starters, a lie was committed. An investigation into proving the lie has revealed evidence that the sitting president may be directly involved selling his position of power to foreign governments. You were fully onboard when Democrats mobilized an army to investigate Trump over the same allegations that did prove to be a witch hunt. But all of a sudden you don’t fancy any investigation of Biden. Your hypocrisy is now legendary.

                2. “Why would it matter? Of knowing about the business deals is not a crime why investigate?”
                  because it is a violation of ethics and federal law.

                  It is a conflict of interests. Memo’s from the state department during the Obama admin urge VP Biden to get his Son out of Ukraine And China or get himself out.

                  “You or others allege. A crime was committed or sometime illegal occurred based on what?”
                  Based on the law.

                  “Lying?”
                  You are correct, all lying is not wrong, all lying is not criminal.

                  Lying to voters is not a crime.

                  “There is no evidence that anything they did was a crime.”
                  There a many layers here.
                  The government violating the 1st amendment is not always a crime. It is always illegal.
                  The vice president engaging in foreign affairs entangled with the business affairs of his son is not always a crime – though it is if he is also involved in his sons business. But it is always illegal.
                  There is no doubt that as VP Biden broke the law. Whether he committed a crime is not yet known.
                  The Biden campaign using power to supress the truth is not a crime. It is not a violation of the law. It is immoral.
                  It is also election fraud, it is also stealing an election – it is just not illegal.
                  Further supressing the voices of people speaking the truth is not a crime. It is immoral.
                  Banning people trying to speak the truth is not a crime. It is immoral.
                  Doing so to win an election – is not a crime. It is immoral, It is election fraud, it is stealing an election.

                  Depriving voters of the truth is not a crime. It is anti-democratic. It is the worst possible hypocracy from those claiming to champion democracy.

                  So far there is little evidence that President Biden is a criminal. It is possible that he is. Some may beleive it is likely that he is.
                  But that has not been proven.
                  But it is beyond any despite that the left, democrats, the DNC, the Biden campaign, the media, and social media are LIARS willing to do whatever it takes to win an election – event deceiving voters. That is stealling an election, that is election fraud.
                  It is just not – criminal election fraud.

                  ” Seeking an investigation because Biden “lied” about knowing of his son’s business deals despite that no evidence of criminal behavior is a fishing expedition in search of a crime.”
                  Actually that is far more than sufficient to justify a criminal investigation.

                  “What is obvious?”
                  Lots of things are way beyond obvious, way beyond proven.

                  I am not claiming that it has been proven that any crime has been committed.
                  Is that your standard for president – lying abuse of power corruption all are fine – so long as no actual crime is committed ?
                  Worse still are you entitled to hide from everyone else the corruption, abuse of power, lying in order to gain power ?

                  Absolutely at this point though there is very good reason to beleive crimes have been committed, and an investigation is justified,
                  it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any crime has been committed.

                  But many many things have been proven beyond any doubt.
                  And what has been proven is that Biden, the DNC, democrats, the media, and SM are liars, immoral, and will use what power they have to supress the truth and punish those who try to speak the truth.
                  And that they will lie, cheat, engage in all forms of immorality to gain power.
                  That they do not trust voters with the truth.

                  “A crime was committed?”
                  Probably
                  “There is still no evidence.”
                  There is lots of evidence. To this point a crime has not been proven – atleast not one involving Joe.

                  “Any investigation is still a fishing expedition. There is no evidence of a crime or anything illegal other than pure suspicion. Suspicion is not enough to claim a crime was committed.”
                  False, The legal standard to conduct an investigation is “reasonable suspicion”, that has been met.
                  And there is plenty of evidence – indisputable evidence. What is not established is whether there is proof.

                  ” Therefore any investigation is going to be a fishing expedition to “uncover” any crimes you or anyone else suspects MAY have been committed. That is what a witch-hunt looks like.”
                  No the collusion delusion was a witch hunt – the only actual evidence for that was several HOAXs.
                  Regardless, the standard for an investigation is reasonable suspicion.

                  I would note that by the idiotic way you argue the effort to kill the story was obstruction, It is not, but it is far more so than things you have claimed to be obstruction in the past.

                  1. “It is a conflict of interests. Memo’s from the state department during the Obama admin urge VP Biden to get his Son out of Ukraine And China or get himself out.”

                    What does that prove? What is the conflict of interest? The ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor was a separate issue. Hunter’s presence only created bad bad optics. That’s not evidence of a conflict of interest.

                    “ You or others allege. A crime was committed or sometime illegal occurred based on what?”
                    Based on the law.“

                    What law specifically? Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what law was broken.

                    “The vice president engaging in foreign affairs entangled with the business affairs of his son is not always a crime – though it is if he is also involved in his sons business. But it is always illegal.
                    There is no doubt that as VP Biden broke the law.

                    What law was broken? You say IF he was involved in his son’s business but there is no evidence that he was. Suspicion or allegations are not proof.

                    That’s a non-answer. You can’t articulate exactly what’s obvious.

                    “ I am not claiming that it has been proven that any crime has been committed.“

                    But you claim he broke the law without articulating exactly what law. If he broke a law he committed a crime. It has not been proven that he broke a law. You have no evidence to support your claim except mere suspicion. Suspicion is not enough to charge or claim a crime or law has been broken.

                    “Is that your standard for president – lying abuse of power corruption all are fine – so long as no actual crime is committed ?
                    Worse still are you entitled to hide from everyone else the corruption, abuse of power, lying in order to gain power ?”

                    Abuse of corruption? What is the corruption? In order to be charged with corruption there must be enough evidence of intent and corrupt behavior that is described in the corresponding statute.

                    Abuse of power? What abuse are you alleging he committed? Lying to gain power is not a crime nor illegal. Trump does it all the time.

                    “Absolutely at this point though there is very good reason to beleive crimes have been committed, and an investigation is justified,
                    it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any crime has been committed.”
                    All you really have is suspicion you say there’s reason to believe crimes have been committed but nobody has been able to articulate what these crimes are. Even you.

                    “There is still no evidence.”
                    There is lots of evidence. To this point a crime has not been proven – atleast not one involving Joe.”

                    Apparently this “evidence” involves vague allegations or hearsay. Making millions in foreign deals is not a crime or illegal. This still points to the only real reason why there’s a belief a crime may have been committed. Just suspicion.

                    “False, The legal standard to conduct an investigation is “reasonable suspicion”, that has been met.
                    And there is plenty of evidence – indisputable evidence. What is not established is whether there is proof.”

                    Nope. Reasonable suspicion has not been established. If there was indisputable evidence then there would be proof. Proof IS evidence. You say it’s not been established but at the same time you say there’s indisputable evidence. Both can’t be right.

                    “I would note that by the idiotic way you argue the effort to kill the story was obstruction, It is not, but it is far more so than things you have claimed to be obstruction in the past.”
                    Only if there’s an investigation. Killing the story outside an investigation is not obstruction.

                    1. As is typical your arguments are completely incoherent nonsense.

                      There is obviously a large gulf beteeen reasonable suspicion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt – or we could jump from accustation to conviction and no investigation would ever be necescary.

                      If proof is required for an investigation – then – the Trump MAL investigation is over.
                      Just as with the Biden Corruption allegation nothing has been proven that is inarguably a crime.

                      Regardless, we have investigations. We are NOT permitted to investigate anyone for any reason – something that until just now, YOU did not accept.
                      You have argued with me repeatedly there was a basis for the Crossfire huricane investigation, and for the Special counsel, You have argued that a public right to know, that your own beleif were all enough to investigate.
                      They are not.
                      They are not regarding The collusion delusion.
                      They are not regarding MAL
                      They are not regarding loans to Kushner from Qatar,
                      They are not regarding the Biden corruption scheme.

                      The requirement to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
                      The claim that Papadoulis told Andrew Downer about the DNC emails prior to their public release constitutes reasonable suspicion.
                      That reasonable suspicion died after Downer and Papadolis were interviewed, and their interviews confirmed that no emails of any kind were discussed in their brief exchange.

                      The Steele Dossier constituted reasonable suspicion – until the FBI/DOJ came to understand that it was a fraud.
                      That occured quite early as evidenced by Sussman and Danchenko’s aquital. If the FBI did not know the Steele Dossier was a fraud at the time they received it from Sussman – Danchenko and Sussman should be in jail now.

                      Very rapidly the steele dossier as a bassis for reasonable suspicion Died.
                      Yet it was the foundation of the Carter Page FISA warrants. The standard for a warrant is probable cause – that is substantially more than reasonable suspicion. If the FBI did not have reasonable suspicion they most certainly did not have probable cause.
                      The warrants were inarguably a fraud upon the courts. I do not know what Durham is doing, but he should be looking at those who signed off on the Carter Page warrants, because doing so when they knew the Steele Dossier was a Hoax was a crime. It was a fraud on the court, and a civil rights violation and false swearing.

                      All of the abolve is also why the Mueller investigation was fraudulent from the start. Reasonable suspicion had been lost, before Sussman presented the Steele Dossier to the FBI.

                      With respect to MAL – the evidence that Classified documents might exist at MAL constitutes reasonable suspicion justifying an investigation.
                      It does not constitute probable cause – the standard for a warrant. There must be something more in the affidavit of probable cause or the warrant is invalid. Mere possession of classified documents is NOT probable cause for any person who could come into possession of those documents legally. There are many many ways that could happen. But most of those are incredibly unlikely – except for presidents and ex-presidents. In fact it is much more likely than not that a classified document in the posession of an ex president did so legally.
                      The affadavit of probable cause needs more than mere possession or it is invalid. The standard is probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.

                      With respect to Biden – the FACT that his son was paid by Burisma and that the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired by his own admission as a result of the demand of his father – the vice president – that constitutes reasonable suspicion.
                      Couple that with the fact that father and sons finances were entangled, and that father lied about knowledge of his sons business dealings and that is probable case.

                      There is more than enough evidence to investigate the Biden’s and more than enough to get warrants.

                      Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard necescary for a conviction.

                      There are several other evidentiary standards on the spectrum from no basis at all through to beyond a reasonable doubt.

                      It is self evident from your own post that you can not tell the difference between sufficient evidence to convict and sufficient evidence to execute.

                      You are litterally arguing they are the same. They are not even close to the same.

                    2. ““I would note that by the idiotic way you argue the effort to kill the story was obstruction, It is not, but it is far more so than things you have claimed to be obstruction in the past.”
                      Only if there’s an investigation. Killing the story outside an investigation is not obstruction.”
                      Correct, atleast with respect to criminal obstruction – which BTW typically requires a judicial proceeding – not merely an investigation.
                      I am glad you finally realize that.

                      Now we can disregard all your idiotic claims that Trump has ever obstructed anything.

                      Please note that my comment did NOT say Biden was guilty of obstruction.
                      It said that BY YOUR ARGUMENTS Biden was guilty of obstruction

                    3. Why are you still here ?
                      Why would anyone want to hear what you have to say about anything ?

                      You have been lying, you have been and still are defending those who not just lied, not just suppressed the truth but silenced those trying to speak the truth.

                      I can not think of an anything that was not also a crime that would be more immoral.

                      You Biden, DNC, Democrats, the media, Social media have burned your credibility to the ground.

                      You are not merely liars you are destroyers of the truth, and destroyers of those who tell the truth.

                      Why should anyone trust you about anything ?

                      Why should anyone beleive you about anything ?

                      Why should you be beleived about election fraud ? About J6 ? About MAL ?

                      Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
                      Falsus in omnibus, falsus in omnibus

                3. Svelaz, while you are correct that there is no absolute proof that Joe Biden committed a crime – yet.

                  There is far more than enough evidence – and there has been for years.
                  We investigate evidence to reach truth.

                  But the fundimental issue here is not about whether a crime was committed.

                  It is the undeniable proof or lying, lying to the american people, more than lying – actively using all the power and influence you have to hide the truth – and from who ? From voters.

                  What is undeniable is election fraud. it is the abuse of power to gain power, it is deceiving voters, It is a vast conspiracy to decieve voters.
                  It is immorality, it is cheating, it is stealing an election. It is antidemocratic.

                  Very little that we have seen so far is criminal or illegal. The FBI involvement is illegal.
                  But all of what we have seen is fraudulent, cheating, unethical, immoral – and far more than sufficient to require a SC investigation.

                  It is also all impeachable.
                  Democrats did not cite a single crime or illegal act when impeaching Trump – twice.
                  This is much worse than anything alleged regarding Trump.

                  1. “There is far more than enough evidence – and there has been for years.
                    We investigate evidence to reach truth.

                    But the fundimental issue here is not about whether a crime was committed.

                    If there was “far more than enough evidence” then why haven’t there been charges or indictments?

                    You allege crimes have been committed. You allege the law was broken yet you still cannot articulate exactly what.

                    “It is the undeniable proof or lying, lying to the american people, more than lying – actively using all the power and influence you have to hide the truth – and from who ? From voters.”

                    That’s not illegal or a crime. You’re the one saying it. Every politician does this including Trump.

                    “What is undeniable is election fraud. it is the abuse of power to gain power, it is deceiving voters, It is a vast conspiracy to decieve voters.
                    It is immorality, it is cheating, it is stealing an election. It is antidemocratic.”

                    The evidence of the kind of fraud you claim does not support it. As usual relying on the flawed idea that an absence of evidence is evidence is not an argument.

                    “Very little that we have seen so far is criminal or illegal. The FBI involvement is illegal.
                    But all of what we have seen is fraudulent, cheating, unethical, immoral – and far more than sufficient to require a SC investigation.

                    It is also all impeachable.
                    Democrats did not cite a single crime or illegal act when impeaching Trump – twice.
                    This is much worse than anything alleged regarding Trump.”

                    Actually they did. Cite crimes and illegal acts. It was the senate that ignored it. Trump and republicans obstructed investigations on the claims. They deliberately limited the scope of the investigations precisely because they knew there was evidence of the allegations.

                    1. Why hasn’t their been an investigation ? Why havent charges been filed ?

                      How is that difficult to answer. The very people engaged in the misconduct, and they supressing the truth about that misconduct are running the government.

                      Why would anyone believe that a president who as a candidate thought it was fine to completely obliterate a true story about his own disgraceful conduct, would as president allow an investigation into that conduct ?

                      Why would anyone believe that an FBI that was busy lying to the SM and claiming that it was all hacked russian disinformation – none of which was true, would subsequently investigate what they had already rejected as false ?

                      Recent Rasmussen poll found 59% of people believe that the 2020 election was flipped by cheating. That number have been consistent according to Rasmussen from 2020 through the present.

                      Despite efforts to suppress it, 79% of people – including a record 69% of democrats believe the Arizona election disenfranchised as many as several hundred thousand republican voters.

                      I do not know whether what happened was incompetence or malfeasance, but it is self evident that the outcome of the AZ election is not trustworthy.

                      AZ voters require a new election – one that Hobbs does not administer, on that is properly conducted. One where either equipment works or it is not used.

                      I keep getting conflicting stories about Maricopa county. I have multiple reports that the equipment was tested the day before the election without any problems. While other reports say that tests prior to the election showed serious problems and were ignored.
                      Either is problematic, and either could constitute voter fraud.

                      Regardless, it does not matter, if you conduct an election that can not be trusted – you can not certify that election – yet, Hobbs has certified herself as the winner.

                4. Why should anyone listen to you ever again ?

                  You are an active participant in election fraud.

                  In deceiving voters.
                  In banning people who tried to tell the truth,
                  and of actively suppressing the truth.

                  Why should anyone ever trust you ?

                  1. “Why should anyone listen to you ever again ?

                    You are an active participant in election fraud.

                    In deceiving voters.
                    In banning people who tried to tell the truth,
                    and of actively suppressing the truth.

                    Why should anyone ever trust you ?”

                    I wasn’t banning people or deceived anyone. You’re very confused.

                    1. “I wasn’t banning people or deceived anyone. You’re very confused.”

                      The NY Post story is true. It was banned, you are still defending that.
                      You are participating in the suppression of truth.
                      You have lied about it.
                      you are still lying about it.

                      You have burned your credibility to the ground.

                    2. James Woods is suing the DNC.

                      The information released proves that those in Twitter who suppressed the story and who banned people for spreading it knew that the story was true and that it did not violate their terms of service.

                      The Biden campaign and the DNC were among those pushing Twitter to block the story and to ban those trying to spread it.

                      Woods was banned for trying to spread a story that does not violate Twitters TOS – according to the information that Twitter has just provided regarding Twitters own internal discussions at the time. They admit in that communications that the story was not based on hacked material and that the content of the Biden laptop were likely true. They admit that their motivation was to prevent Biden from losing.

                      So Woods contract rights according to Twitters TOS – which you keep reveling in were violated.
                      The DNC was instrumental in violating those rights.

                      In this instance we are dealing with both Contract rights and free speech rights. While it is arguable whether Twitter can violate someone who does not follow their TOS’s free speech rights. It is FACT that so long as a user complies with the TOS they have both contractual and free speech rights. Twitter violated those rights and the DNC, and Biden campaign drove that violation.

                      That is tortuous interference in contract.

  13. “Twitter replied [to the CDC’s demand for censorship] that ‘with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.’”

    In other words: “We’d like to satisfy your fascist desire to ban dissent. But we’re not sure we can get away with it.”

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (George Washington)

  14. “Handled.”

    Is that kind of like: “Disappeared?” And if so, what type of government makes inividuals “disappear?”

    More to the point: What type of government, and its bootlickers, believes that private citizens should be “handled?”

  15. It’s obvious that a large group in and out of our government are corrupt to the point of criminality, so what are we going to do to restore the law? Don’t tell me that’s what elections are for because there’s no longer a trust of fair and honest elections.

  16. When you allow censorship at all, you will eventually deal over-censorship that psychopaths cannot help but to impose.

    So this holiday season, volunteer at your hospital’s wing dedicated to the victims of hate speech and truth-telling, truly a humbling experience.

    Only then will you understand the necessity of bowing to the psychopaths.

    1. Neil Bobacon,

      I would fully expect our local hospital would have a whole wing full of TDS patients.

      I noted in another article of a Utah poll that put Trump behind Desantis and Cheney.
      Whatever will all those inflected with TDS do if Desantis were to win in 2024? Whom will they have to rage at with Trump no long in the picture?
      Or will they just turn from TDS to DDS?
      Why not? Some leftists MSM are already trying to call Desantis a Nazi.

  17. There’s only one solution to permanently address all those involved in censorship but stating it would trigger more censorship. But it will eventually happen and people will cheer it. That’s where we’re headed and it won’t be pleasant at all.

  18. Apparently Mr. Turley is unaware of the “phone companies” censoring text messages that contained certain links to articles they disfavored. TMobile was caught doing so, and I suspect the others to be guilty too. This was just last year. So, they might not cut your call connection, but, they certainly did block certain text messages. I’m talking about messages to people on your contacts list, you specifically sent a text to!

  19. progressive “news” will only report that both parties had means to take posts, it was perfectly legitimate. progressives, being stupid and incurious, will ignore all other information.

    Censorship is just another word for the “news” giving stupid incurious progressives what they want.

Leave a Reply