Columns, Justice, Lawyering, Media

The Deep Twitter State? Former FBI General Counsel Fired at Twitter

Below is my column on Fox.com on the firing of former FBI General Counsel James Baker at Twitter. The move by Elon Musk is raising serious questions of whether he has faced a type of “deep state” problem within his own company obstructing his efforts to restore transparency and free speech values to Twitter.

Here is the column:

On Tuesday, Elon Musk surprised many by firing former FBI General Counsel James Baker as legal counsel for Twitter. For many of us, the most surprising thing was that Baker was still at Twitter.  I had assumed that Baker had left the company with Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former chief legal officer who was the key figure behind the company’s notorious censorship system. I cannot imagine a less compatible figure to remain at the company to implement the new transparency and free speech policies of Musk.  What was equally surprising was to see one of my columns referenced in the story.

Yesterday, I was returning from a hearing in Richmond when my phone seemed to explode. It appears that Musk announced the firing as part of an exchange with journalist Matt Taibbi on my recent column, “Six Degrees from James Baker: A Familiar Figure Emerges With the Release of Twitter Files.”

Musk was responding to Matt Taibbi tweeting on the Sunday column. He posted “In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today.”

 

Taibbi later added details that seemed to confirm the fears of figures like the New York Post’s Miranda Devine, who has played a major role in exposing the Hunter Biden scandal.  Devine immediately noted on Fox News that the release strangely did not include emails on known meetings with the FBI on censoring information. She speculated that someone was holding back information. There was also a curious delay in the release of material that Musk said would be forthcoming.

Taibbi explained: “On Friday, the first installment of the Twitter files was published here. We expected to publish more over the weekend. Many wondered why there was a delay.”

Musk then removed any doubt about what “exited” meant for Baker:  “On Tuesday, Twitter Deputy General Counsel (and former FBI General Counsel) Jim Baker was fired.. Among the reasons? Vetting the first batch of “Twitter Files” – without knowledge of new management.”

Musk added that Baker’s explanation for delaying the release of materials was “unconvincing.”

The tweets were an ironic twist given Baker’s controversial career. Conservatives often cite Baker as part of a “deep state” committed to opposing former President Donald Trump and working closely with Democratic interests.  Now he is accused of essentially being part of a deep state at Twitter sabotaging or obstructing efforts of Musk to release information.

Taibbi added that journalist Bari Weiss (who like Taibbi is helping in the release and analysis of the material) was shocked by the conduct. Taibbi quoted Weiss as saying “My jaw hit the floor.” 

As I discussed earlier, Baker was a controversial figure at the FBI and was forced out after James Comey was fired as director. Twitter seemed eager to hire him. Later few of us were surprised to learn that he then became an advocate for censoring the Hunter Biden story or that the cry of “Russians” seemed to justify extreme measures.

Twitter’s ex-safety chief, Yoel Roth, 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.

Still, there were a few Twitter executives who 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.”

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.

Now, there is a strong suggestion that Baker played a role in limiting or delaying the release of material. The question is whether some of that information deals with the earlier disclosures of the FBI communications. There are also curious deletions on some of the emails of dates and times.

Baker is likely to find himself a popular figure in the weeks to come. Putting aside the requisite media contract for such figures like Peter Strzok, he is likely to be one of the first to be subpoenaed to appear before a House committee.

In the meantime, Musk will now have to review any material redacted or removed by Baker. The release of that material could shed light on not just the cause for Baker’s termination but his role at Twitter in allegedly undermining Musk’s policies. More importantly, any material related to the FBI and other agencies would be key in determining if there was a system of “censorship by surrogate” at Twitter.

What is also clear is that, despite the full mobilization of Washington against Musk, the billionaire is undeterred. Once again, the normally unstoppable forces of Washington may have  met their first immovable object.

186 thoughts on “The Deep Twitter State? Former FBI General Counsel Fired at Twitter”

    1. Another nothingburger. @bariweiss and @mtaibbi are great journalists and they know you lede with your best stuff. If this is their best stuff, then
      — yeah Twitter sucked but everyone knew that
      — there’s no crime or even immorality here

      Meanwhile, if the incoming Congress wastes its time on bizarre wacky stuff like this instead of
      — oversight of the infrastructure bill and the IRA (not saying there is anything wrong with either but spending on them needs to be watched the way Truman watched WWII spending) and
      — the Democratic Party freeze on U.S. fossil fuel mining/downstream operations and
      — the Covid lockdown/vaccine/source/etc. fiasco by both parties (in the context of overall future pandemic preparedness and public health policy) and
      — all the waste in Original Democratic Party Medicare (as documented yearly in the HHS AFS) and
      — all the taxpayer money being wasted on the Russian Civil War and
      — anything that has any relation to the Chicoms and
      — other things that affect real people outside the swamp
      you’ll be addressing Speaker Hakim in two years

  2. F.B.I., C.I.A. and getting fired? No problem. You’ll soon be employed at CNN as and “expert” analyst.

  3. Ah yes, a brand new day. Now we have our residence leftist blogger saying that part of the laptop may be true. I can recall when she said that there was no doubt that the laptop was fake. At the time I pointed out that Hunter Biden himself would not say that the laptop was not his. Now we get “Well maybe some of it can be true” from Anonymous. She goes from none of it was true to some of it might be true. Let’s also take the time to remember that Anonymous said that the Steele Dossier was completely factual. The common definition that resides here is talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

  5. If you would like a career censoring, framing, kicking down the doors of, arresting, and imprisoning conservatives, the FBI may be the place for you.

  6. It’s very simple what was happening here. The remaining Twitter internal legal department was trying to play a trick on Elon by only using the name “Jim” and not “James Baker” which would have immediately set off alarm bells, if not with Elon himself than with Taibbi and Weiss. They carried the ruse for as long as they could without outright lying, which would bring up ethical issues with the state bar.

  7. Subpoenas need to fly for this new congress. Baker, everyone of those 50 agents that signed the letter stating the laptop was disinformation. Need to ask each and everyone of them did they look at the evidence themselves? What or who convinced them in was disinformation? I’m guessing most or all did not review the evidence themselves and are just left wing lemmings. Leaving the remaining question of who told them to sign on to this fraud.

    1. They didn’t say it was disinformation. They said it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” Do you understand the difference between what they actually said and what you attributed to them?

      1. Do you not understand the foreseeable consequences of a communication of this kind? Even Biden used it in his debate to say the story was “garbage.”

        1. The foreseeable consequences are to be hesitant to treat it as true. We STILL do not know that the laptop itself belonged to HB and that all of the information on it was authentic. A fraction of the information has been authenticated, and problems have been discovered with another fraction that indicate that the latter was very likely not authentic (e.g., if the creation/modificatioin date on the material post-dates the date that it was supposedly handed over to the store owner, then that’s evidence of it not being authentic).

          If you were running a Russian disinfo operation, wouldn’t you use a mix of authentic and inauthentic info?

          1. I hate to break the obvious to you but here it is anyway: the Bidens have not denied that the laptop and contents are Hunter Biden’s.

            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

            4. In the final debate – Joe Biden made an argument to compare their character.
              He explicitly said he tells the truth and Trump lies, He connected it to the claims about foreign entanglements.
              He asked us who we trust.

              Well We KNOW who lied and who did not.
              Everyone who voted for Joe Biden owes the nation an appology.

              We elected a LIAR, a CROOK, Someone who will use whatever power he has to silence the truth. and to silence those who speak the truth.

              We have heard from those of you on the left that Trump is a liar over and over. Yet, all the claims of trump lying have failed.
              But Joe Biden has lied to the american people REPEATEDLY.
              He has Lied about himself. He has LIED about those telling the Truth about him – including Trump.

        2. And regardless of what you personally believe “the foreseeable consequences of a communication of this kind” are, the original comment was still false, and that’s what I was correcting. If you do not care about the difference between true and false, that’s a problem.

          1. Anonymous, you can make 15 comments using the same lame argument but the “legalese” used by these “professionals” was just a way to cover themselves in case their obvious lie was exposed.

            I guess that Biden’s firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma had all the “indicia of being a quid pro quo”, but of course the now famous 51 operatives failed to send out a letter on that issue.

            I guess that killing our energy industry while building up China’s solar business, fighting “climate change” while giving China a pass, not banning Tic Toc, dropping the investigations of Chinese “students” at our universities, firing all military personal for not getting vaccinated and even at this late date not rehiring them, is all “indicia” of Biden being in the CCP’s pocket…but no letter from our intrepid security agents????

            1. It was not an “obvious lie.” You simply do not want to distinguish between their actual warning and your false substitute.

              Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma at the time. That you can’t even get that basic fact right shows how little you want to have a correct understanding.

              1. It was intentional disinformation by these ex CIA agents. In other words it was a lie.

                Everything on the laptop should be considered unaltered unless Joe or Hunter say differently and state their reasons. Then it should be investigated, but it seems clear that the laptop is original. The most important things to date are verified by others.

                ATS is trying to be deceptive, as usual.

              2. Burisma was being investigated. Filings were already made. You don’t know what you are talking about.

                1. This is correct. In fact it seems like it was the arrest of property in early February that finally caused Biden to demand the prosecutor be fired. And he was shortly thereafter. According to Shokin, the President fired him at Biden’s insistence because he would not end his pursuit of Burisma and its owner.

                  1. ATS is intent on forgetting all the other information that proves his assertion wrong. We went through this in the past though ATS pretends the past never existed. That is the reason for labeling this particular anonymous, to make him more transparent for everyone.

                    A few more things

                    The memo:

                    “1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”

                    2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case? “

                    Why did “Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws.”

                    There were so many lies made to cover up the scandal when Hunter started working for Burisma for outlandish pay without any knowledge. The answer, his father was VP. Joe Biden was selling his influence for personal gain, a crime.

                    Shokin was making plans to ask Hunter
                    1) about the $3 Million in fees
                    2) confirmed payments to Hunter in seized documents

                    “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” _Shokin

                    There is lots more but the point is made. As I said ATS doesn’t know what he is talking about.

                  2. What do you mean by “arrest of property” (I assume it’s an autocorrect error, as it doesn’t make sense, but I don’t know what you intended to say). And no, Shokin was not investigating Burisma at the time. He now claims that he was, but he wasn’t. See, for example, https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-anticorruption-effort-in-ukraine-overlapped-with-sons-work-in-country-11569189782

                    Shokin was fired because he wasn’t taking on the corruption. No surprise that he gives a different story.

                    1. From the article.

                      ““I’ve never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe Biden told reporters on Saturday.” But we know that is not true.

                      Once again ATS is reliant on opinion when the facts prove something different.

                    2. What idiocy.

                      This has all been addressed long ago.

                      Shokin was literally meeting with Hunter Biden to address the case against Burisma scheduled for the day after he was fired.

                      There is lots of evidence of a SLOW but serious investigation of Burisma by Shokin.

                      Contra left wing idiots like yourself Shokin had an actual reputation for integrity in Ukraine. But also as a plodder.
                      He did not move fast, but he accomplished what he set out to.

                      I would note that all the groups participating in the Shokin was corrupt nonsense finanically benefited from choking the Burisma case.

                      Regardless BEFORE the hunter Biden laptop, John Solomon got lots of Hunter Bidens communications with the US State department, and communications By the State department about Burisma, and Biden via FOIA request.
                      He also got documents from the Ukrainian prosecutors office and Ukraine and other eastern european courts.

                      Whether you like it or not it is WELL DOCUMENTED that Shokin was building a case against Burisma.

                      Separately – both in the UK and Ukriane – at the Direction of Shokin Burisma funds were being impounded.

                      Please get better sources.

                      Everything I am telling you is available from primary sources – Like Hunter Bidens emails to Shokins office or the US state department.
                      I would bet there are copies on the laptop from hell.
                      But these were available BEFORE the laptop.

                      What so many like you FAIL to grasp is that there was an excellent case against Biden BEFORE the laptop.

                    3. John, we discussed Shokin repeatedly and provided actual testimony and data tracing the money all before Shokin was fired by Joe Biden, an illegal entry into a sovereign nations internal happenings.

                      ATS lied then like he lies now. The information provided before didn’t change and neither did ATS. Once a liar, always a liar doesn’t apply to everyone, but it applies to ATS.

                    4. The claim – that came from the US VP’s office and then to the US FBI that Shokin was corrupt or was not fighting corruption is debunked by the actual records.

                      Further I would point out that the sources of the Shikin was not prosecuting, or Shokin was corrupt nonsense.
                      Are all either groups that would benefit from Shokin being fired, and/or are the same people who have lied to us over and over about other things.

                      The collusion dellusion, the laptop from hell.

                      Why is it that you trust people who have been lying all along ?

      2. “. . . the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

        The only “classic” that exists is that letter. It is classic political propaganda — with not just the “earmarks” of propaganda, but the actual techniques: Innuendo; an appeal to fear of a nefarious “foreign” power; jingoism; half-truths and arbitrary assertions; an appeal to: We are the authorities, trust us, and obey (just to name a few).

        That entire letter is a bald-faced Lie.

        1. You can have that opinion, but your opinion is not fact.

          It’s a fact that they didn’t say what Tony claimed they said.

        2. Sam, you are right. There is no point debating this with Anonymous.

          By the way, “earmarks” is not the right word. They should have said “hallmarks.” Where is William Safire when you need him.

          1. Daniel, I change my mind when someone presents actual evidence. I change my mind if there are facts that show I was wrong. I regularly note when I was wrong. An example of my having done so with you earlier: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/04/no-conservative-justices-did-not-commit-perjury-in-confirmation-on-reversing-roe/comment-page-2/#comment-2180689

            I think the reason that most conservatives here don’t want to debate me is that I insist on a careful evidence-based discussion. A lot of people on both sides want to believe what they already believe, even when the evidence doesn’t support it. I hadn’t previously placed you in that category. If you’re unwilling to have an evidence-based discussion, that’s unfortunate.

            1. “A lot of people on both sides want to believe what they already believe, even when the evidence doesn’t support it.” Anon – it’s easy to claim you’d change your mind with evidence but far more difficult to convince others that you’re the real Anonymous who’s mind has been changed. Unfortunately, our comments are merely continuous confirmation you will not change your mind, with or without evidence, just like ‘a lot of people on both sides’.

              1. I gave an example of a comment where I changed my mind. If you don’t want to believe that that’s me, that’s your choice.

                There’s an easy way to test your conjecture about whether I’ll change my mind in response to factual evidence that I’m wrong about something: present some actual factual evidence that I’m wrong, and see how I respond. If you won’t do that, all you have is a conjecture.

                1. No, it’s the dreaminess in your comments and clear admiration and defense for a group of unelected, unaccountable, unknowable number of government employees who wish to keep secret the wrong doings of others ‘they’ either fear or admire in government that’s proving to be your only agenda here. Your musings are quite entertaining though. Thanks for the laughs and have a safe and prosperous holiday season.

                  1. You continue to infer things that were neither said nor implied. That you find that amusing is unfortunate.

                    1. Your continued humorlessness, while entertaining, is starting to wear thin. As to your request: “There’s an easy way to test your conjecture about whether I’ll change my mind in response to factual evidence that I’m wrong about something”, you’ve made that an impossible task since you insist on remaining “Anonymous”. If evidence exists or does so in the future that you are the Anonymous who’s changed his/her/zir’s mind, it can never be proven, not even by you. One wouldn’t want to infer or imply it was one of the plethera of other Anonymous’s who’s mind had been changed. Good luck on your continued whatever it is that floats your boat and if you feel compelled to have the last word please, by all means, do so. I shan’t continue the futility of watching your obliviousness to your own unwillingness to recognize that others can be right without ironclad, beyond a reasonable doubt, proving it to you first.

                2. When I first joined, I was listed as Anonymous but gave myself another name before I posted. There are way too many writers on here who identify as Anonymous. Surely you are willing to distinguish yourself by changing your name. I’m confident Sam would be willing to help you.

            2. “[T]he reason that most conservatives here don’t want to debate me” is that you are deceptive, manipulative, and a smear-monger. (That, and decent people don’t tolerate those who constantly insult their host.)

              First step: Admit that you have a problem.

              1. You and I have different opinions about me, just as we have different opinions about you. Opinions are different from evidence.

            3. You change your mind and lie again. Anyone is willing to debate you, but your debating skills are based on garbage. Most of what you have said has been proven false. Your proof is mostly opinion and sometimes news that later is proven wrong.

              Your accuracy is a zero, absence of a measurable quantity.

          2. “Sam, you are right.”

            Thanks. BTW, turns out you were right about those missing FBI files.

            I, too, miss Safire. I loved his command of the language and powers of articulation. And he was hilarious.

      3. They said it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian

        All 50 of them? All at the same time? 50? This was organized by the IC. Recruited. Just like the letter from the School board association was created by the White House.
        At no time, did a single person, ever make a claim the laptop was not 100% real. Put this on a time line. We know the FBI investigated this data for 9? months. Those 50 signatories, knew the FBI had no evidence of Russia involvement.

      4. Thanks for repeating what was said many times already. Can you now kindly reveal what specifics ‘they’ saw that lead to a determination of ‘maybe or maybe not’ be ‘classic earmarks’, while fully acknowledging ‘they’ don’t know the specifics not identified by not bothering to investigate for a full year before media reported the subject – other than it might make Team Blue look bad? In essence ‘they’ said to trust them without evidence ‘they’ can be trusted. It’s not any different than raiding your political enemy’s property without cause, seizing what ever you want, then never actually charging the accused with an actual crime, let alone going to court to prove you were right. Does that unearned trustworthiness sound familiar?

        1. I cannot “reveal” something I do not know. I am not and will not pretend to be a mind-reader.

          Whether someone considers them trustworthy is a matter of opinion, and opinions clearly vary about it. Regardless of one’s *opinion* about that, that doesn’t change the *fact* that they didn’t say what Tony attributed to them

          1. Still goes to credibility – ‘they’ as much as admitted ‘they’ didn’t ‘know’ about something they wouldn’t reveal, but made an affirmative claim that lead others to a likely conclusion ‘they’ never made nor ever denied. Many can see the admiration for ‘them’ in your comments, though.

            1. If you “see the admiration,” you are inferring something that wasn’t implied.

      5. Anonymous, you are correct when you say they did not say that the laptop was Russian disinformation but that it looked like Russian disinformation. To come to the conclusion that they were not trying to say that the laptop was not authentic is laughable. So now you go from saying that the laptop was total disinformation to saying part of it can be true information. Even after the report by CBS authentication the laptop you persist with your it depends what the word is is silliness. Are you so deeply in need of confirmation of your bias that you refuse to accept the report by CBS? If it were Fox News that came out with the story I could understand your lack of acceptance but now you even reject a report by a left wing news agency when it doesn’t fit your world view. It seems that your are maniacally invested.

      6. While I agree with your statement, you also fail to acknowledge that by a group making that statement, they enter the conversation and it is easily implied they do not think it is real. They of course cover themselves with a fig leaf, but they could have just as easily stayed out of the entire conversation and allowed this to progress on its own. To my knowledge, not one of this group have disavowed the previous statement.

        Whether or not this is real remains to be seen. It needs to be investigated regardless and run its course.

        While I am not fast to say Biden is dirty or even knew, I do point out it does look like there was plenty of pressure brought to bear to kill or at least delegitimize the claim.

        I am also noting that the difference between this claim and how this was handled and the how the Steele dossier was handled and the rush to judgement that Trump was dirty.

        There does seem to be bias in how things are handled. Maybe it is coincidence, maybe not.

      7. So, if this “has all the earmarks”, how about explaining to us what those are? Frankly, their letter achieved its intended role: bamboozle the general public AND take the heat off the senior Biden, and leading those who cannot think to believe that the Russians *might* be involved. This is pure BS, and so was the letter. The letter itself wasn’t widely published, but its key points came out as headlines or sound bites — these 51 *LIARS* knew that their statement would be interpreted without all the details. I read the letter. It casts blame onto the Russians, and that “we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not … just that our experience (remember, these are administrators, not investigators) makes us deeply suspicious”. Yeah, right. And how about the N-51 (those intel analysts who have a brain and would NEVER issue such a damnable statement)? What did THEY think? It doesn’t matter now, does it, since we all know the “51 Liars” group were DEAD WRONG. Suggestions of Russian interference, eh? I know they think people are stupid. I worked in the intel community a long time ago, and know that the truth was probably scoffed at by the N-51 folks.

      8. This is an excellent example of how the propaganda game is played. The officials played their part making unsubstantiated allegations, but as the originators they had to be careful in what they alleged to protect themselves from liability. The media then characterized the memo as demonstrating the laptop story was disinformation. The when the hoax is uncovered the left’s activist defenders focus on each piece individually so never have to address the complete process. The story was planted to work exactly this way. This is what political activism is.

        1. “The media then characterized the memo as demonstrating the laptop story was disinformation.”

          Precisely!

          And that was part of their con. They knew that the media, pundits, and Leftist politicians would ignore the weasel words in their letter. And then that much of the public would swallow the fiction: There’s nothing to see here.

          It’s a classic tactic of con artists: Bait-and-switch.

    2. Addressing your comment and a few of the replies to it… there is no law against lying to the press. PR agencies get paid millions of dollars to do it

      1. Who said a law was violated. Try again. This attempt and trying to move the goal posts is a fail. The attempt actually comfirms the collusion to deceive.

        1. Answering your first sentence: The people above who demanded this fraud be investigated and subpoenas issued
          Your third through fourth sentences make absolutely no sense

      2. “[T]here is no law against lying to the press.”

        Is there a *moral* law against lying to the entire country, to influence an election?

        Or is it that there is no such moral obligation? There is only: We have a desire, to get Trump and elect Biden. And to satisfy that end, we are justified in doing whatever we damn please.

        I prefer my leaders to be principled and honest. Apparently, the Left prefers them to have a criminal’s mindset.

  8. It is beyond incredible that Baker was even still there… Musk is not the brilliant person I originally thought

  9. James Baker is an officer of the law and as such is held to ethical standards that include avoiding even the perception of a conflict of interest. By vetting Twitter files that could implicate his former employer, the DOJ, in illegal activities, should cost him his law licenses.

    1. Well said, but there is a bigger conflict.
      Baker was vetting communicatiosn that He was personally involved in – that is a HUGE conflict of interest.

      1. Baker was also acting contrary to what his then-current client/employer perceived as his best interests, and without said client/employer’s consent, which violates the attorney’s client obligations. I’d think that warrants a Bar complaint on Musks’ part..

        1. In my experience there is absolutely no chance a bar complaint would get anywhere.
          If Baker stole money from Musk he probably would get a slap on the wrist from the bar.

          To actually endure the wrath of the bar you have to do something really egregious like look into election fraud in 2020 – not joking.

          Baker functioning as part of the filter team for something he personally participated in is a formal conflict of interests.
          i.e. it does not matter what Bakers perception of Musk’s goals were, that would be a conflict that Baker would have to inform musk of and get Musks explicit permission to ignore.

          This is more fundimental than just working at odds to Musks goals.

          The later you can weasel out of by claiming a misunderstanding of Musks goals.

          But you can not Weasol out of – I am preforming a review function on my own work, and my client does not know that.

          1. But that is something to be determined at the END of a costly and burdensome process that drains Baker’s bank account and tarnishes his reputation.

            1. I wish. I have filed ethics complaints against lawyers. Ones where I carefully documented numerous ethical violations.
              They got no where.

              I have never heard of an ethics complaint that was not egregious – such as stealling from clients, that the Bar did anything about.

    2. Falsifying a FISA warrant should have cost Klinesmith his law license but there’s one set of rules for them and one for the rest of us. In the end, Khrushchev was right; they buried us

  10. The real tragedy is they all wanted to destroy America, but why???? Now look what we have a President who is controlled by his “Puppet Master” Barack Obama, the “Welfare President” couldn’t run a thing, but that was by design. President Biden can’t even figure out how to get off of a stage for Pete’s sake. How sad that the Democrats & the Deep State have done this to America!!! Why are they so determined to destroy America??? We know that George Soros controls the Democrats with his money. “Destroying America will be the culmination of my life’s work” George Soros quote told to Gyorgy Schwartz THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL NEWSPAPER!!! We are well on our way to being a Third World country. Can’t even have honest elections anymore. This country needs to adopt Ron DeSantis Clean elections. No mail in ballots to stuff the Mailboxes!!! No DOJ allowed to pull their Shenanigans!!! Smart Governor. His model needs to be adopted all across America. Now what’s the point of voting, you can’t even get a ballot to vote in polls run by Democrats!!! So, so sad to see what happened in America, so very sad!!!

  11. The 2024 presidential candidate from the GOP most feared and hated by Democrats is Donald Trump. He is opposed by Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big News, Big Sports, Hollywood, and the entire education establishment. They will do anything to bring down Trump and, just as important, his increasingly multi-racial, working-class coalition.

    1. I completely agree

      BUT, If republicans want to win in 2024. They need to get their act together NOW.

      I would prefer to see McConnell and MacCarthy go.
      But that is a fight that should be avoided.
      MacCarthy did the wrong things in the election, but he is saying the right things now.
      McConnell is a master of the Senate, but he needs to back away from knifing Republicans in the back.

      DeSantis and Trump need to “make up NOW”. They need to work out 2024 NOW. There can not be a bitter primary – mot for president, not for other offices. The entire party needs to kiss and make up.

      I have serious problems with the back stabbing of some of the “rinos” – at the same time – there are states that only Rinos can win.
      The GOP needs to come to terms with the fact that it has a necescary small wing that is not completely in tune with the MAGA agenda.
      The need to NOT be villified. At the same time these people need to get past the never trumper anit-maga nonsense. Most of Red state america is MAGA country.

      1. There are some bitter-clingers at the top of the GOP that will resist everything you just mentioned, John. I wish it weren’t true, but I’m not blind to their indifference to their own Party’s candidates and the voters that tried to elect them last month.

        For your (everyone’s) consideration… https://substack.com/inbox/post/89186715

        1. I am aware of the perfidity that is going on in the lame duck.

          And absolutely I have problems with it.
          Even ignoring the specifics of bills – which I might actually support (or not) depending on the details.
          The lame duck should not do anything that is not necessary.

          I MIGHT support the repeal of DOMA.

          I do not support federal law that violates the first amendment, RIFRA (which never should have been necescary) or individual liberty generally.

          There is an interesting fight going on in SCOTUS right now over being able to force creators to develop web sites for views they do not support.

          Some of the arguments are absurd. I hear lawyers arguing before the supreme court that the constitution is modified by the Civil Rights act.
          That while their is a first amednment right that right must fall to an assertion that something is a public accomodation.

          But the correct answer is what prevented Sen. Goldwater from voting for the Civil Rights act – which he had worked to bring to fruition in the first place. Government does not have the power to impose on the constitutional rights of individuals. All parts of the CRA that are not constraints on government are unconstitutional.

          The case is framed as a religious freedom case – but the answer is trivial – strike down the entire concept of a public accommodation law.
          I do not like private discrimination – by race, by creed, by sex. But it is not the role of govenrment to interfere. Doing so will ALWAYS conflict with individuals rights. Trying to change peoples values through law is no more justified if you are Jerry Falwell, than it you are Malcom X.

          Nor do I understand these fights. What gay person in their right mind actually wants a web developer that rejects their sexuality to design them a website ? Forcing people to kowtow to you and do as you wish, seems all to much like the oppression that gays and minorities endured in the past, that they were so angry about.

          Regardless, kick as much as possible to the next congress. House republicans can then get something in return and take the stupid out of these laws.

          1. “Nor do I understand these fights.” Completely agree. What’s more is I can’t find a reason to support anyone going to court before they can show they’ve been harmed by another person’s actions or inaction.

            Litigating against a web designer that never took the job? Didn’t take the job because of content disagreement? There’s no case here because the plaintiff can’t show, let alone prove, damages or harm was caused by the defendant not agreeing to take the job. It’s not like that designer is the only one who CAN do the work. Religious freedom is only a secondary consideration at best. If there had been agreement on the content of the webpage and the designer had accepted the job, the plaintiff might prevail if the agreed upon content wasn’t created or created in a way that broke the agreement. At that point, the designer shouldn’t even try to claim religious freedom to get out of the contract. But to sue someone for not taking the job shows a complete disconnect from reason and reality. That it reached the SC level of litigation is even more troubling since at no time along the way has the plaintiff proven, nor even alleged, actual damages incurred due to the defendant’s inaction. I mean, WTF? This is perhaps the most current, best case reason for tort reform if there was ever a case for it.

            The other part, GOP’s (and frankly it’s not just one Party) internal issues goes to the heart of the overall problem – people elected to office are not listening to their constituents, nor working to resolve the alleged problems of the country. Granted, this isn’t new by any stretch. But it’s a much bigger problem than DOMA or any other ‘well, we gotta do something’, social issue. The Party’s only exist for the same reason: TO RAISE MONEY AND GROW PARTY MEMBERSHIP, neither of which is why voters elect their candidates. Instead, both major Party’s have decided to ‘come out of the closet’, if you will, showing their true patriotism is nothing more than a tie between their own grift and loyalty to the Party FIRST and far above the smallest amount of needed work to keep the lights on in DC. Growing government larger, just like within the Party itself, is the only mission, the only priority, of today’s Congress. Sinema and Gabbard leaving the Party of asses at least shows some personal integrity on their part. Paul’s and Johnson’s unwillingness to follow in lockstep with the pachyderms is a plus, too. Nevertheless, approval for Congress being at or near all-times low’s nearly all the time now – perhaps some for different ideological reasons – tells me the People have lost faith their government even cares the slightest whit about the well being of the governed. Continuation of that reality can not endure in the long run.

            1. Mostly we are in agreement – if anything I would go farther.

              I would strike public accommodation laws. PERIOD.

              When you actually are to do something – you are obligated to do so.
              Prior to agreement I do nto care if you refuse to do business with someone because of the color of their sneakers.

              I have a problem with “Mass torts” – class actions suits. But the fundamental problem is that these are a self licking ice cream cone for lawyers.
              Not that they cases themselves may not have merit.

              But generally I oppose tort reform. That does not mean that specific cases are not periodically decided wrong.

              It is near certain that both the Alex Jones verdicts will be tossed on appeal. They never should have been taken by the court.
              There is a short time window for a defamation claim.
              I am not a fan of Alex Jones, I am just using it as an example of a bad and plitically driven verdict.

              But more generally I want ZERO government regulation, and market regulation accomplished by consumers – atleast partly by torts – holding those who cause harm responsible for the harm.

              Absolutely this can be abused – and is abused – in both directions.

        2. I agree with your article that these republicans are damaging the republican party with their actions.

          I do not think it is the end of anything.

  12. Very curious, CBS could verify the authenticity of the lap top but the FBI couldn’t. With all the spy craft technology at the FBI they couldn’t determine if the laptop was the real deal. They just left us hanging in the wind for two years as they knelt and kissed Joe’s —— ring. They knew all along but they didn’t give a damn if you knew and they were hoping that you would never find out. Pretty damn close to treason if your paying attention.

    1. They left us hanging for three years. The FBI took possession of the laptop in December, 2019.

    2. Verifying the authenticity is trivial Glenn Greenwald addressed that in Oct 2020.

      Everyone not a moron knew the laptop was authentic withn a day of the NY Post release.

      Just as the authenticity of the DNC emails, the Afghan Videos from Bradley Manning and the information released by Snowden were verified quickly.

      1. All true. There’s another important nail to drive home though. Since everyone knew how to verify the emails why did no one from the left media do so?

        The answer is they knew it had already been done because both (1) the Post wouldn’t have published this without doing so and (2) the Post told them so. Given this any (in)validation effort on their part would both reach the same conclusion and be dangerous to not report. Imagine if it came out later they did validate the emails but buried the report anyway. Instead they refused to look into it (until long afterward) allowing their acolytes to falsely claim the emails were “unverified”.

  13. Johnathan I’m glad your on the side of honesty and decency. However, this is not a HB story this is a Joe Biden story. You missed the guts of this story. Baker was at FBI, at top of the legal food chain. Fell on the sword. Obvious with latest revelations the Comey crew at FBI is still in charge. We know that from hiding the laptop thru election and till now. After all they had laptop close to year before election. Everything that was going on at FBI would have been known by Baker. He knew long before laptop divulged by NY Post, by the rest of diry gang at FBI. So when he said we better aire on the side of caution because it might be hacked info. He know 1000% it was legit as FBI would have told him what to say when it got dropped.. FBI was spying on computor guy and then Rudy. FBI would have informed their crew to be ready. All the fired FBI spys at CNN MSNBC and the rest of the KKKlan. Again not a Hunter Biden story. Unless interested in HB porn show. Then a more important story is who is orchestrating this story each day. Is it still Comey. I can’t imagine it is that loon Wrey. However after declaring FBI wasn’t involed with ginning up Jan 6th mess. I thought what a fool. He always seems to be the last to know anything. If Congressman was asking questions in House or Senate. He has been caught so many times not knowing anything. I wouldn’t ask him any questions anymore. Just make a deserved fool of him.

    Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana you have the floor for 5 minutes. Mr Wrey Im going to make a speech instead of asking you questions. It is obvious from previous testimony that you should be called Sergeant Schultz. You have been before this body many times in the past. Each time it is a new revelation about FBI conduct being illegal. You folks are continulously interfering in elections and citizens lives with 5.00 am CNN raids. Jim Comey was the worst Director in modern history and your in a horse race to outdo him. From Russian Collusion stories made up by FBI and Hillary Clinton with many in between to this new latest mess of ruining another election in 2020 and still folks not knowing the truth of what your Klan was up to in 22, to put your hands on the scales of justice. You have ex FBI folks all over networks in the USA spouting nonsense to folks who aren’t aware of what is going on. They are allowed to be stupid but maybe you should have a clause in their contract they cant do that anymore in the future. Maybe not directly from illegal acts at FBI to airwaves. maybe a 5 year hiatus. Now I know you love to brag about the FBI. Trying to deflect. Anyone with a brain realizes how important the rank and file of FBI are to our country. This is not about the porn star Hunter Biden and the rank and file at the FBI. This is about dirty cops covering for a now illegally elected President of the USA doing huge damage to the country. Record inflation, record debt, record Fentanyl seizures, record illegal crossings in the millions that we know of last 2 years. Over 100 on the terrorist watch list. Record crime in major Dem cities with a revolving Justice system.

  14. Thank you, Prof. Turley , for another Brilliant Courageous, Incisive analysis. Spot on..! God Bless and Protect you…

  15. Anyone who seriously uses the phrase “deep state” doesn’t deserve the time of day.

    1. Dear ‘Anonymous’ from the darkside… so… the term ‘deep state’ leaves you unsettled? ..and it appears you are promoting that we turn our backs on anyone who takes ‘deep state’ activities ‘seriously…?’ We find your position to be rooted in fear, ignorance and bad manners, unfortunately to your detriment… because exposing the Truth to the light of day is always the way to go. Seriously..

    2. Don’t be troubled ATS, you are too ignorant to understand what people are talking about.

    3. What would you call the very real and factually proven conspiracy among many mid-top ranking actors in the IC, State, DOJ, FBI ?

      I have no problem with a different label. But the conspiracy is self evident. Nor are those involved hiding it.

      “Deep” is probably inaccurate anymore.

      Regardless ignore different power centers in our country at your peril.
      For much of my lifetime the “deep State” has leaned towards Republicans. But mostly they just protect their own interests.
      Obama campaigned against “the deep state” but he governed as they wanted – inside their domain.
      Trump was at war with them througout his presidency and still is.

    4. Anyone who seriously uses the phrase “deep state” doesn’t deserve the time of day.

      You mean like Chuch Schumer?
      “Don’t mess with the IC, they have seven ways from Sunday to get even with you”

      The very essence of the deep state. In reality, the IC is the Fourth Branch of Govt. Unlimited Power that cant be checked or reviewed.

    1. Can we not link to such stupid nonsense.

      Government is NOT even permitted to suggest that others should censor anything.

      The left PROPERLY ranted when Trump said “somebody should do something about” various things he did not like.

      Government can request even demand censoring of actually illegal speach. That is it.
      Otherwise Government has no role in speech.

      That should be blatantly obvious.

      The Hunter Biden sceario is the perfect reflection of why.

      While it is actively bad for the country to have much of the MSM and Social media in lockstep on most anything less certain that the earth orbits the sun, in an actually free society even though that is a very bad thing, it can happen and it SHOULD eventually self correct.

      But our government is the consequences of our elections. The last thing we can allow is to have government have even the tiniest influence in the elections that determine our future governance.

      The twitter files are ho-hum – in that everyone with a brain KNEW all of this before. But they are also DAMNING proof, that the left in this country doesnt trust voters. The twitter files expose that those screaming democracy is in danger the loudest do not beleive in democracy and are the greatest threat to it.

      But again – absent government – that is OK, it will eventually work itself out. Musk buying twitter is an example of how that takes place.

      One of the reasons that Twitter is plausibly a good buy for Musk is specifically because Social media is a closed silo controlled by the left.
      That means that there is an opportunity for Musk to profit by opening up that silo.

      Musk is engaged in a variant of what Murdock did with Fox decades ago – noting that the supply is not aligned with demand, and capitalizing on correcting that.

      Free markets fix themselves.

      But the lightest touch by government tips the scales and precludes repair.

      Twitters “hacked material” policy was idiotic nonsense. While Supreme court decisions are not binding on Twitter, the Pentagon papers case should be required reading and understanding for budding social media nazi’s.
      What is important is not how the pentagon papers came into Washington posts possession, but the truth that they contained.

      The Hunter Biden laptop was not hacked – but even if it was, the relevant question is whether the information is authentic, not how it was made public or what the motives of those providing it are. The people deserve the truth.

      Hence Government is violating the 1st amendment when it says “Be On the lookout for hacked materials” or Russian disinformation.

      Govenrment is not free to encourage censorship specifically – “please censor that” or generally – “please censor some vague bad thing about hunter biden that might apear”

      1. “Government is NOT even permitted to suggest that others should censor anything.”

        a) That’s false. The government is free to *ask* social media companies to censor something but cannot legally *require* it or carry out censorship themselves (e.g., it was illegal for Trump to block users). If you do not understand the difference, you should learn the difference.
        b) A reminder that Taibbi wrote “9. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party … 10.Both parties had access to these tools [to ask that tweets be removed]. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.” Only one of those two — the Trump WH — was the government. Apparently you believe the Trump WH broke the law. I refer you back to (a).

        1. “The government is free to *ask* . . .”

          A gun on your hip is not an “ask.”

          (And it was not just the “government.” It was the *FBI*. Though I understand why the Left desires to evade that fact. “Police state” is such a dirty word.)

          1. Do tell us: what did the FBI ask them to do, and what is your evidence of that request from the FBI, and what is the “gun” you refer to — what was the FBI threatening them with?

            It’s funny that your comment has some of the features you assert elsewhere: “not just the “earmarks” of propaganda, but the actual techniques: Innuendo; an appeal to fear of a nefarious … power …”

            1. “Do tell us: . . .”

              You use your neuroses as a club over other people’s heads. That is why better people duck for cover.

              1. Your choice to respond with personal insult only underscores that you have no facts about what the FBI asked them to do or what the FBI used as your purported “gun.”

                1. “Your choice to respond with personal insult . . .”

                  Naming an intellectual bully as a bully is an insult. And well deserved.

          1. “You need to know the difference between asking and asking with a gun.”

            You, and countless others, need to acknowledge that the government by its nature is an institution of physical force — its police powers, i.e., guns.

            1. “You, and countless others, need to acknowledge that the government by its nature is an institution of physical force — its police powers, i.e., guns.”

              Correct Sam. What does the government do when you don’t do what they want? They come over to your house. If then, you still don’t follow their orders, they arrest you. If you put up a struggle and are stronger than them, they pull out a gun. If you can still overcome them, they shoot you.

              That is what makes government so dangerous. If they do what they are supposed to do they are helpful. If they overstep their boundaries they shoot you.

              The left likes fascist governments with guns that they use based on their will. That is why in the 20th century over 100 million people died without including war deaths. The left killed >er than 100 million decent people

              1. “What does the government do when you don’t do what they want? . . .”

                Precisely.

                Behind every bureaucrat’s “pretty please,” is the threat of jail, the confiscation of your wealth and property, the destruction of your business (or worse) — all enforced at the point of a gun.

                The Left treats bureaucrats and the FBI (the FBI!) as if they’re just neighbors asking to borrow a cup of sugar.

                1. That is just one of many reasons the left is fascist. They really don’t believe they are because they live in a dream world, and when they awake, they lie.

        3. ““Government is NOT even permitted to suggest that others should censor anything.”
          a) That’s false. The government is free to *ask* social media companies to censor something but cannot legally *require* it or carry out censorship themselves (e.g., it was illegal for Trump to block users). If you do not understand the difference, you should learn the difference.”
          I know the difference and you are STILL wrong.

          You do not get to make up the rules as you wish. Government has no free speech right. I may engage in speech as it is necescary and proper to its enumerated constitutional duties – not willy nilly as it please.
          There is no enumerated power or duty to ask, suggest, or anything various social media companies.

          But getting to more formal free speech law, Government can not through private agents do what it can not do directly.
          It can not ASK private agents to do what it can not do directly.

          “b) A reminder that Taibbi wrote “9. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party …”
          Yes Taibbi exposed misconduct going beyond the supression of the Hunter Biden story.
          While this conduct is still WRONG and probably a contract violation, it is atleast not a government violation of the 1st amendment.

          ” 10.Both parties had access to these tools [to ask that tweets be removed]. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.” ”
          Both wrong.
          You seem to think that because some republicans were doing some things that changes the fact that the conduct was WRONG.
          And in many instances illegal ?

          “Only one of those two — the Trump WH — was the government. Apparently you believe the Trump WH broke the law.”
          Yes, or more accurately they violated peoples first amendment writes which is an unconstitutional act of government.

          “I refer you back to (a).” where you would still be WRONG.

          Let me try to make this clear for you.

          The FBI, law enforcement of anykind can only contact the press or media to seek the supression of material that is actually illegal – such as child porn. The WH cheif of staff calling up WaPo and asking them to pull a story is a violation of the first amendment.
          It is wrong whether done by republicans or democrats.
          It is illegal and unconstitutional.

          It is also WRONG for political parties to do the same, But it is not unconstitutional.

          Except for the FBI communications which are unconstitutional. Most everything else Musk is exposing is WRONG – immoral and unethical.
          It is not however unconstitutional. But it MAY be illegal – as in a civil or contracts rights violation rather than a crime.

          The Biden campaign as an example worked with Twitter to violate Twitters TOS – its contract with its users, with the result being the supression of their right to free speech. The interferance of free speech rights by govenrment is unconstitutional. Private interferance in free speech rights may or may not be illegal. Further the Biden campaign may be engaging in defamation by making a false claim about the NY Post story or about a user and their post.

          Put simply there are multiple tort, and contracts claims that users whose contract and/or free speech rights were infringed on.

          Twitter may infringe on the free speech rights of its users – consistent with the contract it has with its users.
          But there is no third party right or power to do so, and when the effort to do so, is outside of Twitters TOS – which this was, and/or the request itself constitutes defamation – the request may be illegal.

          Everything that has been exposed is immoral. On most instances it also appears to be illegal – possibly in a number of ways.
          That does not automatically mean that those whose rights were violated will prevail in court.
          All violations of the law are not remediable.

          1. Except for enumerated restrictions on government speech, the government is free to say what it wants. Your misunderstanding of speech rights is flabbergasting. And I’m not going to wade through the rest of your word vomit to see if there’s anything else worth responding to. You’re not paid to edit your long comments, and I’m not paid to wade through them.

            1. The only question is whether your word can be trusted. Repeatedly you have proven your word is worth nothing.

              The government is free to say what it wishes, but weekly meetings not open to the public points to interference that is not permissible. We have seen such interference by the CDC as well. You are filling the blog up with BS.

              1. No the government is NOT free to say what it wishes.

                skipping the constitution – Federal Law prohibits anyone in the executive from acting politically while on government time.
                advocating for the censorship of political enemies is a violation of the hatch act.

            2. “Except for enumerated restrictions on government speech, the government is free to say what it wants. Your misunderstanding of speech rights is flabbergasting. And I’m not going to wade through the rest of your word vomit to see if there’s anything else worth responding to. You’re not paid to edit your long comments, and I’m not paid to wade through them.”

              The only misunderstanding is YOURS – nowhere in the constitution is there a government right to speech.
              Nowhere in the constitution is there a government power of speech.
              The only place in the constitution speech is addressed at all is in the 1st amendment as a right of the people.

              Government speech is like all other acts of government that are not enumerated in the constitution – allowed only as necessary to perform the enumerated powers and duties of government within the constitution.

              This issue goes well beyond speech.
              You are trying to read the constitution as saying that government is permitted to do everything except what it is explicitly denied.

              That not only is not the way the constitution is written – it cannot be the way the constitution is written. Government that can do all but what is explicitly denied to it is tyranny and will not survive long, but its death may be bloody.
              Nothing in the constitution prohibits government genocide – yet we all understand government may not commit genocide.

              It should be obvious that government can not say whatever it wants.

              Is the government free to lie to you about the law or constitution ? No where in the constitution is government barred from lying to you.

            3. It has taken mankinf 150,000 years of existance.
              7,000 years of recorded history.
              1000 years of western history.
              400 years of anglo history

              to evolve the principles of government that we as a nation live under.
              Many of these principles are ancient.
              We have understood murder to be wrong for longer than recorded history.
              Some are more recent – they are only 500 years old, or 250 years old.

              Like it or not you will not just discarded all of that and make something else up out of thin air that has even the tiniest possibility of working.

              This is one of the fundimental philosophical and logic errors of the modern left – this idiotic claim that everything is broken, it is all white supremecy, partiarchy , … and we must toss it all and start from scratch.
              That will not work. That can not work.

              Whether you like it or not What has been for 10,000 years or 1000, or 100 is presumptively better than any change – because however imperfect, it has worker, humanity has existed and mostly thrived and that can not be assumed of whatever change you wish to make.

              What we have is less than perfect, but it is entitled to the presumption that it is good, that it is better than all know alternatives,
              and for those seeking change – every single small change must be proven better before government can be changed.

              Government is allowed that speech which is necescary to accomplish its constitutionally enumerated powers. No more.

            4. “And I’m not going to wade through the rest of your word vomit to see if there’s anything else worth responding to. You’re not paid to edit your long comments, and I’m not paid to wade through them.”

              Then don’t
              no one is forcing you too.

              But ignorance is not an excuse.
              You are free to do as you sih within your own life.
              You are not free to impose your will on others by force.
              Closing your ears and eyes to their crying out against your tyranny does not alter the immorality of your actions.

              Governments permissible speech with respect to elections is limited to properly administering them.
              Only a moron would not understand that our government can not attempt to influence elections.

              Try reading the constitution – not the little red book.

        4. I have absolutely no problems with Musk exposing every single request of any kind made by anyone made to block content or the accounts of others. Republican, democrat, …

          While there are legitimate instances in which private or public parties may do so – there are also plenty of illegitimate reasons.

          Regardless, if you seek to silence or supress the speech of someone else. I think it is perfectly reasonable that you should have to do so publicly.

          There is certainly never a right to privacy in seeking to constrain the rights of another person.

        5. I have noted that in many instance this conduct may be unconstitutional, in more it may be illegal – either constituting defamation or tortuous interference in contracts.
          The instances we are dealing with here specifically are likely both. They are also all immoral regardless.

          You do not seem to grasp that while you are WRONG in trying to make a general claim that this is always constitutional and legal.
          More importantly – everything that is legal and constitutional is not moral.

          Like it or not this WAS election fraud. Maybe not criminal, but still Fraud.

          I will be happy to look at whatever the Trump campaign sought to get supressed, or the Trump WH which is worse still.

          But there are Multiple layers to this – Only one of which is the ofal request to supress the speech of other.

          One of those layers is that the Biden campaign sought to supress THE TRUTH.
          While that may or may not be legal.
          That is ALWAYS immoral.

          The standard is not – it is legal therefore it is OK.

          Everything that is not a crime is not automatically good or moral.

          Another layer is that The Biden campaign subsequently USED its successful effort to supress the truth to then LIE to the electorate.

          Joe Biden LIED about this in the debates. He also LIED about Trump when he brought it up in the debates.

          Further the Biden campaign supression of this story amplified the later false claim that it was russian disinformation.

          We can debate whether elements of this pattern of conduct are illegal.

          There is absolutely no debate that they are immoral.

      2. Stupid people refer to stupid articles and this anonymous is very stupid. The article likes to talk while saying nothing, typical of anonymous. It makes all sorts of statements but never gets to the meat. I read and then skimmed. I didn’t see it mentioning the FBI had the video for a year. That means they had plenty of time to verify it. I didn’t see mention of verifiable things like Bobulinsky, audios and other verifiable emails. In fact it said nothing about the important things yet anonymous thinks the article important.

        I have learned to skip a lot of anonymous links unless he adds context because generally they are a waste of time, are off topic, or even contradict with what anonymous is saying.

        Most of what you say is true. Almost all from this anonymous are false and deceptive. You were correct when you said: “Can we not link to such stupid nonsense.”

  17. From a transparency point of view, what is happening now at Twitter under Musk is more important than what happened several years ago under prior management.

    For example, Musk made a decision to activate Trump’s and Kanye’s account and the accounts of a whole bunch of long banned Nazis and the like but not Alex Jones’. Then made a decision banning Kanye again.

    So he is making content moderation decisions just like the former management did – just making different ones. And while former twitter management apparently had multiple people involved in these decisions and policies they tried to follow Musk does not really seem to. In my opinion the former management made better content moderation decisions than Musk does.

    1. I do not agree with some of musk’s decisions to ban people or to not unban people.
      I want the fewest people banned possible.
      and the lightest content moderation possible. – outside of actually illegal content everything else seems fine to me.

      The fact that we are even talking about content moderation as something that is anything more than a necescary evil to thwart spam and child porn is disturbing.

      But Musk inherited an inefficient bloated mess.
      He has LOT to fix and content moderation is just a small part of that.

      It is evident that his war on bots is more important than content moderation
      and his success on that has driven way down statistics on hate speech.

      I would further note that if you have followed Musk, his process is trial and error.
      That is what we are seeing.

      I returned to twitter recently after a year.
      It has improved.

      That is a good measure of Musk’s success.

        1. Use of the words Deep State is entirely appropriate for the edification the millions of citizens who still find it unbelievable that elements of our government would intentionally undermine the efforts of our elected government.

        3. “Your personal opinion is not a measure of anything outside of your opinions.”

          As is your personal opiinion about personal opinions.

          And as the skeptic you are, you have been reduced to babbling.

  18. The Communist Party’s ‘Fifth Column’ is alive and well in ‘The Deep State’.. Senator Joe must be side-splitting in laughter and saying ‘I told them so!!” So much for, ‘Sir, have you no shame!’

    1. That is one of the most disturbing things about all of this.

      Sen. Joe is a complete aberation. A violation of american ideals.

      But as you note “he was right”.
      It has taken 60 years. but rebranded communism has taken control of all of our institutions
      and destroying the country.

Comments are closed.