Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent release of Twitter files detailing the FBI’s direct involvement in the targeting and censoring of citizens. The most notable aspect is the effort by the FBI to censor references to the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2020 election. Here is the column:
“They are probing & pushing everywhere.” That line sums up an increasingly alarming element in the seventh installment of the so-called “Twitter files.” “They” were the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and they were pushing for the censorship of citizens in an array of stories.
Writer Michael Shellenberger added critical details on how the FBI was directly engaged in censorship at the company. However, this batch of documents contains a particularly menacing element to the FBI/Twitter censorship alliance. The documents shows what writer Shellenberger described as a concentrated effort “to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.”
Twitter has admitted that it made a mistake in blocking the Hunter laptop story. after roughly two years, even media that pushed the false “Russian disinformation” claims have acknowledged that the laptop is authentic.
Yet, those same networks and newspapers are now imposing a new de facto blackout on covering the details of the Twitter files on the systemic blacklisting, shadow banning, and censorship carried out in conjunction with the government.
The references to the new Hunter Biden evidence were also notable in the dates of these backchannel communications. On October 13, weeks before the election, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sent 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of “Trust & Safety” Yoel Roth as part of its ongoing efforts. Twitter officials have said the FBI pressure played a role in spiking the laptop story.
It was the next day the New York Post ran its story on the laptop and its incriminating content. The United States government played a key role trying to bury a story damaging to the Democrats before the election.
The Twitter files now substantiate the earlier allegations of “censorship for surrogate” or proxy. While the First Amendment applies to the government, it can also apply to agents of the government. Twitter itself now admits that it acted as an agent in these efforts.
The current media blackout on the Twitter files story only deepens these concerns. For years, media figures have denied Twitter was engaging in censorship, blacklisting, shadow banning and other techniques targeting conservatives. The release of the files has shattered those denials. There is simply no further room for censorship apologists.
In a city that relies on “plausible deniability,” there is no longer a plausible space left in the wake of the releases. All that remains is silence — the simple refusal to acknowledge the government-corporate alliance in this massive censorship system.
To cover the story is to admit that the media also followed the same course as Twitter in hampering any discussion of this influence peddling scandal. Indeed, while the media is now forced to admit that the laptop is authentic, it cannot get itself to address the authentic emails contained in that laptop. Those emails detail millions of dollars in influence peddling by the Biden family. They also detail the knowledge and involvement of Joe Biden despite his repeated denial of any knowledge of the deals.
Those files also raise potential criminal acts that some of us have been writing about for two years. The emails are potentially incriminating on crimes ranging from tax violations to gun violations. In the very least, it is a target rich environment for investigators or prosecutors.
Yet, earlier disclosures showed that key FBI figures tamped down any investigation into the laptop. The latest documents now show the FBI also actively pressured the media to kill the story. That raises deeply troubling questions of the FBI politicalization. After Watergate, the Congress moved aggressively to pursue the use of the bureau by a president for political purposes. There is little call from the media for such an investigation today when the bureau is accused of working for Democratic rather than Republican interests.
The record of such bias extends beyond the Twitter files. In the prior years, FBI agents were found to have shown overt political bias in the handling of FBI investigations. The agency continued to rely on sources like the Steele dossier despite warnings that the Clinton-funded report was likely Russian disinformation. Yet, when it came to Hunter Biden, the FBI reportedly was not interested in aggressively pursuing an investigation while calling on social media companies to censor any discussion of the scandal before the election. It continued to do so despite Twitter executives “repeatedly” indicating there was “very little” Russian activity on the platform.
In January 2020, Twitter’s then director of policy and philanthropy, Carlos Monje Jr., expressed unease on the pressure coming from the FBI and said “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).”
The question is why the FBI would be “probing & pushing everywhere” despite the fact that the Russian investigation had exposed prior bias related to the 2016 election. That was no deterrent to killing a story viewed as damaging to the Biden campaign.
In the end, the government-corporate alliance failed. Despite the refusal of many in the media to cover the Twitter files, nearly two-thirds of voters believe Twitter shadow-banned users and engaged in political censorship during the 2020 election. Seventy percent of voters want new national laws protecting users from corporate censorship.
It is clear that any such reforms should include a full investigation of the FBI and its involvement in censorship efforts. As many as 80 agents reportedly were committed to this effort. It is clear now that, if we are to end censorship by surrogate, the House will have to “probe and push everywhere” in the FBI for answers.
*The original version of this column linked the ten documents sent by the FBI with the Hunter Biden story. The FBI denies that relationship so that line was altered.
Sure would have been more relevant to see candidate Trump’s tax returns rather than non-candidate Hunter’s laptop pictures and emails before voters made their decisions in 2020. But of course the Trump IRS and some Trump judges conspired to delay the release until yesterday. The IRS under Trump did not do their mandatory audit of Trump for two years but they managed to do rare, intensive audits of perceived Trump enemies Comey and Strozk. That is the scandal here.
No one cares about Trump’s taxes.
What we do care about is how much and to what degree did the FBI play a role influencing an election.
That is the true threat to democracy.
Plenty of people care about Trump’s taxes along with the taxes of lots of other people in the top 1%, many of whom pay less than they owe, using tax dodges and relying on the IRS’s lack of enough agents to audit them.
Apparently you’re not one who cares, but don’t pretend to speak for everyone.
You have no right to anyones tax records. So you can care all you want, but it doesn’t change that.
Also, do you own a house or have kids?
James Quinn,
Ah! The LAW. Good to point that out.
But Leftists do not care about the law.
As they say, “By any means!”
Congress has a right to access people’s tax returns when it’s linked to a legislative purpose, which Trump’s are. SCOTUS has upheld Congress’s right to access Trump’s tax returns. Gripe about it all you want. Gripe about me all you want. None of your gripes change the facts that SCOTUS upheld Congress’s right to Trump’s tax returns.
Please explain the legislative purpose of accessing President Trumps tax records. Even if true, you do not have a right to see them.
Still waiting on if you own a house or have kids.
The IRS is supposed to audit the tax returns of all sitting presidents, per Congressional law. Congress has a right to check whether the IRS was auditing his returns as required. Initially, they were not. Congress has a right to make public anything that is in their possession and not classified. It’s about their rights, not mine.
Wait to your heart’s content.
You still have no right to a private citizens tax reocords.
So I will assume you have a house and kids. I will also assume that you refuse to take any tax deductions from them because you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite and be like the rich and not pay your fair share.
I never claimed that *I* have that right. I spoke of the rights of *Congress*. Strange that you confuse them.
I found it interesting that the committee didn’t ask for Obama’s or Biden’s tax return. The never ask if the IRS audited those returns.
If they really wanted to know if the IRS was following its own policy they would have inquired about its practices across administrations.
They did not, so it’s clear they just wanted Trump’s returns because they are little snoops.
If transparency is important, then release the returns of every congressman and senator every year.
Obama and Biden made their tax returns public of their own volition, just like former presidents going back decades, so Congress had no need to ask for them.
If you want to see them, here’s a handy resource:
https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns
As for “The never ask if the IRS audited those returns,” you provide no evidence of that.
Congress can link a ham sandwich to a legislative purpose. To date we don’t have a clear picture of what the legislative purpose is that cannot be met by other means.
Taxes are not supposed to be political. Democrats have made them so and destroyed the IRS as an impartial agency.This makes the public suspicious of them That is what distinguishes Democrats from others. They can destroy, but they cannot build.
Those green with envy.
It has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with being held accountable to the rules and regulations. Flaunting them brings scrutiny and if laws are broken they bring charges of fraud or tax evasion, etc.
We already know Trump lied about his taxes. If he was being deceptive why dismiss it? If it was biden surely republicans would want to know. Obviously they will seek his tax returns in their Hunter biden probes.
Trump has burnished a reputation as a financial genius and one of the world’s wealthiest individuals. At least some people voted for him on the mistaken belief that if he could do so well in business, perhaps he could work miracles in government and help get the deficit under control. Under Trump, the deficit ballooned to a record high- which Biden has paid down by several trillion. Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations is the main reason the deficit got out of control. Another gift he gave to the wealthiest among us is to de-fund the IRS, so that they would have fewer auditors available, especially those with the expertise to review complex tax returns like his–something the Biden administration is working to correct, but there’s a massive backlog of work, thanks to Trump. The “financial genius” reputation he tried so hard to create is all a lie–his businesses flopped by losing money, year after year, and he only made profits on passive investments–something that requires only signing a check. Forbes no longer lists him among the wealthiest individuals in the world. It’s about time people, especially Trump fans, see the truth about him and the fact that he’s no financial wizard. Never was, which explains the multiple business bankruptcies he has taken and numerous financial failures on his resume`. Yet, he lives high on the hog, so to speak, in a gilded palace with gold toilets and sinks, a private jet, multiple residences, all the while paying little to nothing in taxes. Something to think about next time you’re writing your check to the IRS.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartDp11f.png
This is one of Gigi’s/Natacha’s worst misrepresentations:
“Under Trump, the deficit ballooned to a record high- which Biden has paid down by several trillion.”
(1)The deficit increase was primarily caused by Covid pandemic spending by the government under Trump.
(2) Biden increased the deficit by almost $4 Trillion, but some of that was reduced AS A RESULT OF DECREASED COVID/PANDEMIC SPENDING, –NOT BIDEN POLICIES.
(3) Even left-leaning CNN and 60 Minutes would give Gigi five pinocchios.
https://checkyourfact.com/2022/09/23/fact-check-joe-biden-debt-60-minutes/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/fact-check-biden-deficit-reduction/index.html
Nope, it has to do with envy.
You are not entitled to the wealth of others.
Regardless, as I noted in another post, beyond wealth sufficient to live in luxury for the rest of your life – which is a tiny portion of Trump’s wealth,
all taxes mean is what portion of your wealth is reinvested in productive measures that create jobs and oportunities for others. and which portion goes to the government where it is mostly wasted.
Who do you think can spend $10B more beneficially to others ? Elon Musk or the Government ? If you answer government – put on a dunce cap.
Adam Smith noted 250 years ago that above a relatively low level of wealth it is no longer possible to further benefit yourself. Everything you do from then on benefits only others. That has not changed.
The only difference between Trump paying taxes and Trump not paying taxes (or Musk or any other 1%) is whether the money that would be taxes is more beneficially spent by government or people with a world class record of delivering value to others.
In case you are stupid, the way you become wealthy is by creating value for others.
But then we already knw that you are clueless about morality.
If Trump “lied” on his taxes, he would be in jail right now.
You do not think before you post.
Regardless, YOU are not entitled to know about anyone else’s taxes.
That is actually Federal law.
The house broke that law.
I suspect that this will never happen again.
Next Time SCOTUS will say no.
Though it is a close call – the Federal law does not allow Congress to have tax returns, it allows specific committee chairs.
The problem is that members of congress are exempt from prosecution for official acts.
So the democratic house violated federal law with impunity because they can not be prosecuted.
House republicans are already going after Dept. Treasury records of the Biden’s. Those legitimately fall into oversite.
Biden’s tax returns are available, but they are also mostly useless. Just as Trump’s are.
I don’t know whether Trump lied on his taxes, but some believe that the charitable deductions he took are highly questionable because he omitted certain details that the rest of us must provide. Last time I did my taxes (last year), I had to list every charity to which I made a donation. Plus, he took a massive deduction for a property he tried to sell for years but couldn’t get any buyers, which causes people to question the value he put on it when he donated it to charity. What I do know that Trump lied about was his financial wizardry–the businesses he started and runs all lost fabulous amounts of money–and it wasn’t a fluke–it was year after year. The only money he made was from investments, which requires no special skill or financial expertise. He wanted to hide his taxes because they prove that he’s not the real estate genius he holds himself out to be. Anyone can make money on investments by simply opening an account with an investment counselor and sending them a check.
There are no details the rest of us must provide.
Have you ever taken a charitable deduction on your taxes ?
You list the charities you donated to an the amounts.
An allowed choice is “other” or “Misc”
You are obligated to be able to provide proof of contributions
IF YOU AR AUDITED.
Do you actually file a tax return ?
Everything related to taxes and property is dictated by the law. There is no way to committ tax fraud based on changes in the values of real property absent forging documents.
Tax returns tell you nothing about “financial wizardry”
A tax return is dictated by tax law, not by the reality of business.
Several of my businesses lose money on my tax return every year.
Yet those business are doing fine and increasing in value every year.
Trump is in the real estate business. Anyone that is in real estate that is not losing money on their tax return is NOT a financial wizard.
Let me try to explain depreciation to you.
If you are a business – you determine if you profited by taking revenue and subtracting expenses.
But some expenses are for things of value that last a long time. You are not allowed by the IRS to deduct that cost all at once.
If you buy a computer, you get to deduct 1/3 of its value each year for 3 years.
Not in the year you buy it.
If you later sell the computer for more than its depreciated value – you will owe taxes.
If you sell it for less than its depreciated value you will get an additional deduction to make up the difference.
Real estate works the same – except that you must depreciate it over many years.
Regardless, at some point in time – you sell it and any errors get worked out.
If you donate property – it must be valued following IRS rules. Generally those rules favor low values.
At the same time the charitable value is completely meaningless for tax purposes.
If you paid $1M for something and you give it away – you get $1m in tax deductions. Part of that is depreciation part of that is charity.
But no matter what the total will be $1M – what you paid for the property.
In the event you sell the property – which is the norm, and you sell it for more than you paid for it – also the norm.
You must pay taxes on the difference between the current depreciated value and the sale price.
There is no way to game the system.
Elon Musk made $144B from investments.
That takes alot of skill.
Regardless, Trump’s tax return will not tell you whether he actually made any money or not.
If you want to know REAL changes in Trump’s net worth over time – Follow Forbes valuation of him.
It is imprecise, but it is based on real present value – not tax values.
As an example if Trump owns a building he paid $600M for, on his taxes he will NOT get to deduct that $600M from his taxes when he bought it.
But he will get to deduct approx 20M/year for every year he own it off his taxes.
If after 10 years he sells it for $1.2B he would owe capital gains taxes on $1.2B-$400M The difference between what he was paid for it and its depreciated value.
Anyone in real estate should be losing money on their tax return all the time – Except in years they sell properties.
He hid his tax returns because he is smart enough to know that most people – including all journalists have no idea how to read a tax return.
Trump is in real estate – he should show losses on average 6 of every 7 years.
At the same time the value of real estate increases every year – commercial real estate often by 10%/year.
That is an increase in your net worth. It is not on your tax return – until you sell.
Elon Musk – the richest man on earth’s entire wealth is consumed by the federal government every 10 days.
Trumps is consumed in less than 12 hrs.
All of the wealthiest on the planet are not even speed bumps to the ravenous avarice of the federal government.
You should be far more concerned about the federal budget than Trump’s taxes.
Musk is no longer the richest person. That person is now Bernard Arnault.
So change the name to Arnault.
If you honestly believe that more IRS agents are going to be used to Audit Trump, you are a fool.
Government already has far more than enough agents to deal with the top 1%,
Further doing so is counterproductive.
Adam Smith observed 250 years ago that once a person reaches sufficient wealth to sate their own personal wants and needs – which is not that much, everything else they do – whether they intend that or not benefits others.
Do you know why Warren Buffet does not care if Government raises his taxes ?
Because it will change his life not one whit.
If the government took 50% of Elon Musks wealth tomorow – do you think Elon would be unable to fly arround in his personal Jet or live at the pinacle of luxury if he wanted ?
Who will lose if Musk’s wealth is taken in Taxes ?
Everyone who depends on Musks investments for their livelihood. The people working at, or benefiting from Telsa, SpaceX, Twitter, ….
will all have less, because Musk will have less invested.
I am sure Trump and Buffet and Musk have an army of the best accountants assuring they get every single tax break possible.
And that will never change.
But if you think they are going to cheat on their taxes – you are an idiot.
Musk is not going to go to jail to save 10B on his taxes.
Musk would have to lose more than 99% of his wealth to notice a change in his personal lifestyle.
Zuckerberg lost 70B in wealth in the last year – more than Musk paid for Twitter.
Have you seen him cut back on his lifestyle ?
The threshold of wealth that one must reach before increases have little effect on your lifestyle is relatively low.
“ Government already has far more than enough agents to deal with the top 1%,
Further doing so is counterproductive.
Adam Smith observed 250 years ago that once a person reaches sufficient wealth to sate their own personal wants and needs – which is not that much, everything else they do – whether they intend that or not benefits others.”
Nope. Republicans have for years been reducing the IRS budget until Biden. They have been understaffed for years. Now they will have a bigger budget and more staff to do proper audits. Something the wealthy fear more because of years of flouting the rules.
Adams smith didn’t envision the wealthy becoming as greedy as they are now. Simply making enough is not enough. It becomes a competition on who can accumulate the most regardless of need. It becomes harmful to society in the long run.
“Republicans have for years been reducing the IRS budget”
Correct. There are 1M tax payers in the top 1% they pay 40% of all income taxes.
That means each of those tax payers is audited once every 7 years, That IRS agents can dedicate 1/3 of a year to each of the top 1% of tax payers
There is zero need for more IRS agents and you are an idiot if you think they are going to be used to audit the rich.
The united states has the best tax compliance rates in the world(reason)
United States: 83.1%
United Kingdom: 77.97%
Switzerland: 77.70%
France: 75.38%
Austria: 74.80%
Netherlands: 72.84%
Belgium: 70.15%
Portugal: 68.09%
Germany: 67.72%
Italy: 62.49%
Major factors in high tax compliance for developed countries: Low tax rates, simple taxes, and high Standard of living. Nunber of Tax collectors is NOT a factor.
There is absolutely no evivence the IRS needs more agents.
They do need better computers, but last time we tried I believe $100B was spent and it ended up wasted.
Svelaz, your own arguments make it clear you are driven green by envy and clueless about facts.
As noted the US has the best tax compliance in the world – the factors driving that – low rates, high standard of living and simple taxes.
No the wealthy have not gotten greedier, and no nothing consequential has changed since Smith.
To the extent anything has – the number of people with so much wealth that everything they do benefits others has increased dramatically.
Actual familiarity with the IRS would inform you that the IRS does not audit the top 1% heavily – though they could. They do not do so, because they are the most compliant. Elon Musk could pay 99% of his wealth in taxes and it would not change his life.
It would be absolutely devastating for those who work for him. Two Decades ago Musk could have stopped working and lived like a king for the rest of his life. Instead he works 120 hours a week – for What ? Not for himself.
If Trump is “cheating” on his taxes – he does not benefit, the people who work for him do.
The top 1% do not cheap because there is no benefit to them. Taxes on them do not effect them. They effect those who work for them or whose businesses they invest in.
The IRS conducts audits where they expect to collect money – and that is not in the top 1%.
Are you so stupid that you beelive the promise that more IRS agents are going after the “rich” – not You ?
The huge target of the IRS is and always has been Small Business. People who are employed by others are unlikely to ever get audited.
That is most people. Taxes are taken off their payroll and they typically and stupidly get refunds every year.
The wealthy have armines of lawyers and accountants – and they need those just to manage their businesses. Taxes are superfluous.
it is typically quite easy to legally manage even a medium sized business so that it will have little or no taxable income.
And you will not see congress changing that because doing so would be economically destructive.
The Big target of the IRS is and has always been small business owners. These are people who aspire to be wealthy, but are not and most never will be. They have substantial revenue, but not much actual income. A business with $1M in revenue and a 5% profit margin makes its owner $50K/year.
For the most part the IRS does not conduct audits to collect money. They do so to create fear so that people pay more taxes than they should.
I spend an enormous amount of time on my taxes every year. I have multiple businesses, some active and some passive. My AGI is low – because I have enormous deductions – more than I can use. I am terrified of being audited – not because I have done anything wrong.
The IRS could disallow 20% of my tax deductions and it would not change my taxes. But because an audit will be incredibly time consuming.
My taxes are very complex.
And I have ZERO doubt that Biden’s 87000 new agents are coming for me – not Trump.
“It becomes a competition on who can accumulate the most regardless of need. It becomes harmful to society in the long run.”
If that were actually the case it would be incredibly beneficial to society – not harmful.
It is a false trope of the left that high income inequality is a bad thing.
High income inequality occurs in two types of nations – extremely poor nations, and those with the highest standard of living.
If Muskes wealth increased by a factor of 10 and yours by a factor of 2 – why should you care – you will be much better off.
Further Musk and all the top 5% can have their wealth swing radically with no personal effect.
But If Musk loses 1/2 his wealth – thousands of people will be out of jobs.
Median standard of living is what actually matters. Not how much wealth the wealthiest have.
This shoudl be obvious to you by asking What does Musk or Trump own ? What is his wealth ?
Is it in Yatchs ? Luxury homes ? or is it invested businesses ? The answer is 99% is invested, and those investments benefit others not the wealthy. Again this was true in Adam Smith’s time and far more so not less, today
You have absolutely no understanding of money and wealth.
Tax returns are private, per the law. It is not a requirement that candidates release their tax returns. The voters will decide
Per the law, Congress can get copies of private tax returns, as long as their reasons are legal.
The voters did decide. Trump lost.
Releasing the private tax returns does zero, to aide congress in carrying out their constitutional power.
Typical fascist.
In other news, yesterday the House Ways and Means Committee voted to release 6 years worth of Trump’s tax returns. They noted that the IRS had not followed the law: it had failed to audit Trump’s tax filings during his first two years in office, despite there being a program that makes audits of sitting presidents mandatory (Trump wasn’t audited until the Committee requested his returns, yet another Trump lie that he was audited every year), and it never completed any of the audits it started. The returns show that the Trumps paid some form of federal taxes every year, but reported income-tax liability of $750 or less in three of the six years. This week, the House will consider new legislation from the Ways and Means Committee to reform the IRS presidential audit program.
You are correct, OTHER NEWS. Please post the link to your blog so I can follow you opinion on the subject you are commenting on. Thanks.
OTHER NEWS is right.
No one cares about Trump’s taxes.
The issue at hand and subject of the good professor’s post today is how much and to what degree did the FBI have influencing an election.
True threats to democracy.
Read the report. They can’t audit current returns because there are still disputes on prior returns.
Need a cite on the accusation. Who the IRS is auditing is not public information. Thus the accusation cannot be proven or disproven
Rep. Richard Neal, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, is the cite. He can and did look up whether the IRS obeyed the law.
“In the end, the government-corporate alliance failed. Despite the refusal of many in the media to cover the Twitter files, nearly two-thirds of voters believe Twitter shadow-banned users and engaged in political censorship during the 2020 election.” You couldn’t convince me of that by the results of our last national election. It seems that a great many people believe what the MSM and others tell them to believe – not necessarily the truth, mind you. If we were a nation doubting this mess we wouldn’t be saddled with the likes of biden, harris, schumer and pelosi, yet we are.
Yes, when I read that line, it was a thought that came to me immediately as I looked at the results of the elections across the nation. Is it possible that some of that 70% of the voters just did not vote for the options put in front of them because they did not like either person? I pull a ballot in each election, but I may not check anyone off–most of the time it is because they are running unopposed.
We need to be careful not to fix the wrong problem.
Twitters own conduct is reprehensible – and the elephant in the room is we all know this was going on throughout Social Media.
But we need to be careful about more regulation of private actors.
While S230 immunity needs to go, there is little else that should be done regarding Social Media laws.
The Bigger problem is that Governments involvement in this. The biggest bad actor in this is government – most clearly the FBI, but with DHS and CIA involvement too.
Turley writes it is no longer in doubt that Twitter was acting as an agent of the government.
Sorry, there was no doubt from the start. Government is FORCE, it is not asking, even when it says please.
It is ALWAYS wrong for government to even ASK to do though private actors what it can not do directly itself.
ALWAYS. This is a bright line and it must be in the law.
Exactly. Yet we have the same putrid results of this last national election and we are stuck with the same grifters running our government. It is a cognative dissonance in our nation that we have faith that our government can cure us of this problem within our government and society.
Correct, This coud be a classic case of govt. causing the problem so that they can now fix it by removing more of our rights.
“ Government is FORCE, it is not asking, even when it says please.
It is ALWAYS wrong for government to even ASK to do though private actors what it can not do directly itself.”
it is a bright line that was never crossed. It certainly was right up to it. But they were very deliberate in how they made their request as to not run afoul of the constitution. According to the federalist,
“ Here it is necessary to understand the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence, which holds that when the government seeks the private censorship of speech, “what matters is the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce,” and “a public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.” Conversely, a mere request does not trigger the Constitution.
Notice, then, the care the FBI used in its communications with Twitter: The FBI focused not on the government’s interest in censoring the speech, but on the Twitter accounts the FBI said it believed were “violating your terms of service.” The agents used the same or similar boilerplate language in the emails Taibbi published on Friday. Those same emails also ended with the caveat that the information provided by the FBI is “for any action or inaction deem[ed] appropriate within Twitter policy.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/19/6-huge-takeaways-from-the-sixth-dump-of-twitter-files/
None of that is illegal or unconstitutional. The very fact that they made an effort to use such phrasing shows that they were aware of the appearances of what they may be accused of. That is not proof of intent to deliberately seek censorship. Turley often cites very specific requirements to prove certain actions that would require something to be chargeable as a crime or a violation of constitutional rights. The law is very specific on that. Trying to conflate “ask” with “coercion” or “warning” as “asking” is deliberately dishonest for biased reasons rather than logical ones.
Nothing prohibits the FBI, DHS, or ODNI from sharing their concerns with social media or sharing information that they glean from their own monitoring. Nobody has been able to cite specific laws prohibiting such sharing of information.
Svelaz, BEFORE the twitter files it was likely that SCOTUS was about to decided that Social Media is a Digital Public Square and has limited power to censor – particularly political speech. Cases from TX and FL are on their way to SCOTUS, looking to affirm or reject state laws barring social media censorship. These stood a good chance of winning before the Twitter files.
After they may be nearly unbeatable
As to your or allegedly the federalists claim that there is a bright line – the only bright line is government may not ask.
I would note that the application of government requests to private parties in the law enforcement context is that police requests are defector coercive. When you are stopped by a police officer who say “may I see your drivers license” – the court does not view that as a mere request.
Even when the court has found you are free to say no, the presumption still is that the request is coercive.
That is the courts presumption – because it is the truth.
As to the twitter files – if you think this is even a close call your nuts. At this point we have pretty much everything.
We have asking. we have pushback and pushback against the pushback, we have government payment. we have those in twitter admitting they feel coerced. We have government offering security clearances – which clearly makes you a government agent. We have FBI using twitter to spy for them, and today we have DOD asking twitter to spy.
I am likely missing several other elements.
This is not even close to constitutional.
Worse still all of this is in the context of politics and elections.
That is the absolute most protected form of speech there is.
About the only fact you do not have to get a 9-0 ruling is Twitter Shadow banning a supreme court justice at the direction of the FBI.
And who knows, we may see that tomorow.
In addition to the TX an FL cases, we have a LA case in the works that is directly on point the court has already allowed subpeona’s depositions and testimony of over 100 government officials – I do not think any of whom are law enforcement where coercion would be presumptive.
You have a perfect storm as this likely heads to SCOTUS.
In the meantime it is certain the GOP will hold hearings, and Facebook, etc will all be providing their own “twitter files” to the house
So we will get to see all of this again and again many times over.
“ Cases from TX and FL are on their way to SCOTUS, looking to affirm or reject state laws barring social media censorship. These stood a good chance of winning before the Twitter files.”
Nope. Those state laws are direct violations of the 1st amendment rights of social media. Government can’t compel private companies to carry someone else’s speech.
“ When you are stopped by a police officer who say “may I see your drivers license” – the court does not view that as a mere request.”
You are misapplying the law. Again you leave out context. Getting stopped and being asked for your drivers license is not coercive. You are required to present your license to the officer by law. You don’t really have a choice.
“ Even when the court has found you are free to say no, the presumption still is that the request is coercive.
That is the courts presumption – because it is the truth.”
You leave out a LOT of context to justify your flawed argument. The presumption is based on the totality of the evidence, not just mere presumption as truth.
Once again you demonstrate your total lack of understanding law.
“Those state laws are direct violations of the 1st amendment rights of social media. Government can’t compel private companies to carry someone else’s speech.”
False. Government can not compel an individual to speak. Not the same. Laws compelling commercial speech already exist – government requires labels on food and drugs. Laws compelling businesses to carry the speech of others already exist.
“You are misapplying the law. Again you leave out context.”
Nope, the context is requests by government, it applies to police, building inspectors, regulatiors, and the FBI.
“Getting stopped and being asked for your drivers license is not coercive.”
According to the courts it is.
“You are required to present your license to the officer by law. You don’t really have a choice.”
False. You do not have to have ID of any kind unless you are driving or flying.
If you are driving you need not possess your ID you merely must be licensed.
It is a bad idea to get pulled over without your drivers license on you – it pisses off the cop.
But it is legal.
“” Even when the court has found you are free to say no, the presumption still is that the request is coercive.
That is the courts presumption – because it is the truth.”
You leave out a LOT of context to justify your flawed argument.”
Nope
“The presumption is based on the totality of the evidence, not just mere presumption as truth.
Once again you demonstrate your total lack of understanding law.”
Complete tangent.
All of what you keep calling context has nothing to do with whether being asked is considered coercive by the court.
The “context” you are fixated on has nothing to do with that and everything to do with what further steps an officer can take.
Please tell me you are not a lawyer ?
You do not know what you are talking about. And your logical skills are non-existant.
Svelaz,
My Wife is a criminal defense attorney.
My children are asian and have had all the law about being stopped by the police drilled into them from the time they were teens.
You are talking out your ass.
You do not know what you are talking about.
“Nobody has been able to cite specific laws prohibiting such sharing of information.”
This is not “sharing of information. This is censorship.
You have an odd view of rights and the law.
Individuals are free to do anything that is not prohibited.
Government is prohibited from doing anything that is not enumerated or necescary to what is enumerated.
There needs to be no law barring government from doing this – the First amendment fits the bill.
Individuals are free to do anything that is not prohibited.
Government is prohibited from doing anything that is not enumerated or necescary to what is enumerated.
Cant be repeated too often.
The govt ONLY has enumerated powers. The People can do everything except that prohibited by statute.
The statute has to be consistent with the government powers in the constitution.
Individuals are free to do anything that is not prohibited. John Say
The People can do everything except that prohibited by statute. iowan2
I agree with both of you. I would add however an observation I’ve seen on this blog. The most hotly contested discussions, debates, whatever you want to call them, revolve around two worldviews of government. On one side are those defending the power of government and on the other are those defending the power of the people. Those in the former group rely on statute for their defense. The latter group relies on rights to defend theirs. We know that the law is force. Defense of rights however, also requires force. To borrower from Patrick Henry, the government are the professionals in this game and they guard their force with jealous attention. The People on the other hand, well they are amateurs and too distracted guarding everything else except rights. If that doesn’t change, then you are inevitably ruined.
Mostly I would agree with you.
Those arguing the power of government do NOT rely on Statute,
I have lots of problems with the plethora of laws we have. But I could manage if the law was read narrowly – which is a requirement if you do not want to criminalize everything.
Those on the left are about government power and for the most part do not give a schiff what the law is.
When they do they read the law far broader than possible
“ This is not “sharing of information. This is censorship.”wrong again.
You’re always wrong.
The FBI is sharing information and referring it to twitter to do what it thinks it’s best according to their policies. Sharing is not censorship.
You can not get arround the constitution with word games.
Still not sharing.
“ Government is prohibited from doing anything that is not enumerated or necescary to what is enumerated.”
Nope. Sharing information is not prohibited if the government chooses to do so. Government has free speech rights as well.
“ You have an odd view of rights and the law.”
It only looks odd to you because it’s your view that is wrong. That’s just a factual truth.
“Nope. Sharing information is not prohibited if the government chooses to do so. Government has free speech rights as well.”
Nope, government has rights not powers, and it definitely has no free speech rights.
You continue to talk out your ass.
Start here
“Hatch Act Overview
The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation. ”
The hatch act prohibits political activities including speech by those in government while working.
There is no such thing as a government right of any kind. Government has powers. Government has the power to speak as necescary to accomplish an enumerated constitutional power.
Election rigging is not a power given to the federal government in the constitution.
Many news agencies will not report the truth and have lost much of their viewership. Old school investigative reporters in that setting have gone by the wayside. Journalists who wish to keep their jobs must tow the line and endure by following their marching orders.
This is a sad and dangerous state of affairs and the government’s meddling in news and social media organizations is nothing less than criminal.
Caveat emptor!
I don’t think we need standard investigation. At best it would be a show committee meeting. So little is actually done at these committee meetings because every congress person and has to have their 15 minutes of fame. A Church Committee would be the better way. Better to have the republicans bring in prosecuting attorneys who have previously dealt with government corruption at all levels and let them do the questioning and digging.
We do have a federal system, you know. The states can refuse cooperation with the FBI and the Dept of Justice. Close their offices. Do nothing whatsoever to help. The republican governors should go straight to the White House and Merrick Garland and present their demands of what is needed and demand to see it done now. Get creative on non cooperation. Attorneys General of the states should launch a tsunami of suits at the DOJ and FBI for records and communications and cease all cooperation and work with them until it is all laid out. Then follow through with a variety of suits at all the major Media outlets such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Gannett and every other digital and print media for all interactions with the FBI and DOJ. Now is the time when you have 6-3 margin in the Supreme Court. Suborning the Republic by suppression of news and freedom of speech. What has been done by the DOJ and FBI is a direct attack on the spirit I and intent of the constitution.
We have moved past 1/6/2021 but the Republic needs this dealt with now. And much of this happened right under the nose of a Republican Administration. I’ll bet there were no e-mails to the Mr. Trump filling him on the details of all this. Unlike Obama who was kept in the loop about Hilary’s e-mails and the Trump “Russia collusion” Thats about as “deep state” as you can get.
Maybe the various executive depts need a blunt reminder that the President sets policy for the executive branch and maybe we do need that law that allows the president to fire civil servants that do not follow policy.
Are you Listening Lt.Col. (Ret.) Vindman? Or was it mutineer Vindman. So confusing. Mutineer is so much more accurate than whistleblower.
Wow, Turkey and the right -wing media is sure going all out on overhyping the latest twitter files by writing columns with the most inflammatory wording and salacious takes, just enough to enrage those already hooked into the narrative they are manufacturing. The only thing keeping this in the rage mode is the idea of the government being close to twitter and coordinating legally in relation to election information. As usual the right-wing media and Turley leave out a lot of information and context so they can cast this false narrative that seems more sinister and outrageous for the gullible readers they cater to. Here’s one email that is a good example.
“ Fred” wrote, “Hello Twitter contacts,” “FBI San Francisco is notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.” Four Twitter account names followed, which were all suspended, including “one account whose tweets are almost all jokes,” but the latest of which Twitter considered “civic misinformation.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/19/6-huge-takeaways-from-the-sixth-dump-of-twitter-files/
What is not being noted is the fact that all they were doing is still completely legal and constitutional. Pointing out accounts or posts that potentially violate Twitter’s TOS for any ACTION OR INACTION deemed appropriate within Twitter policy is not coercion or telling them to take action. That’s the key distinction that Turley and others on the right keep glossing over in their quest to paint this as some sinister government action that is a violation of constitutional prohibitions. Pointing out accounts or posts that may be violations of Twitter’s policies is NOT a constitutional violation. It gives an appearance that it is, which is what Turley and right-wing media are exploiting gleefully in order to manufacture rage.
This coordination was borne out of a real issue that presented itself when Russia and other foreign entities DID disseminate false information and hacked information prior to the 2016 election which did affect it. It was serious enough that it warranted the FBI, DHS, and ODNI to get involved because it was their job to monitor such attempts to influence our elections they social media. It was a legitimate concern because foreign actors using bots or troll farms WERE actively spreading misinformation thru social media.
Some of the accounts clearly were satire or jokes. Yet they were still referred to Twitter to review. That doesn’t mean all of them were acted on which is something Turley conveniently leaves out. That is no different than what Elon Musk did when he was subjected to mockery and postings involving his name and banning those accounts. Since he owned twitter he exercised the very same behavior that Turley and others in right-wing media are harping about now. THEY remained silent while the left mocked and ridiculed Musk for his clear and obvious hypocrisy.
This is nothing more than a concerted effort to manufacture rage for his base and Turley, who is always complaining about such tactics is engaging in it as the massive hypocrite he is.
So like Svelaz to miss the forest covering the entire continent because a few trees got in the way.
Svelaz is not moral. What do you expect.
John Say,
That is one thing I have taken away from all of Svelaz comments, which I no longer read: He is not moral.
In that regard he and others like him with their comments, have educated me to the varying degrees of immoral, misinformation, disinformation and out right lying the Left will go to push a narrative.
You obviously read it. Otherwise you wouldn’t know why it would be “immoral”.
The fact that you and others are falling back on the morality aspect fo the issue points out that what I pointed out is still factually true. Even legally the argument that the government was engaging in “censorship by surrogate” does not hold up under legal scrutiny. Even Turely would be forced to admit as much. So the only viable argument left is under moral grounds which is a much easier thing to argue, and still not relevant to the facts.
As is typical you do not read, Of course it is also possible that you are suffering from typical left wing nut pronoun confusion
UpstateFarmer said “he” is not moral. UpstateFarmer did not say “it” is not moral.
The reference is to YOU, not your post.
John, you must be flustered with emotion. I wasn’t addressing upstatefarmer. I was addressing you. Pay attention.
You have already lost Turley please read his article.
We have debated facts – you lost.
We debated law – you lost.
You seem to be ducking morality.
While it is not true that everything immoral is also illegal.
I acted immorally, but not illegally is not a strong defense.
It is particularly bad when you are government.
There is no presumption of innocence or benefit of the doubt for government actions.
If they are immoral, they are near certain illegal and unconstitutional.
“ We have debated facts – you lost.
We debated law – you lost.
You seem to be ducking morality.”
Nope. Because you’re relying too much on the morality argument which has no relevance to the facts.
You only focus on morality because it’s the vaguest and easiest way to argue your losing argument.
You didn’t effectively argue using the law or facts.
You keep going back to morality because you have no argument against the facts and the law.
You resorted to insults. Meaning you already lost the argument. Nice try though.
Morality is relevant to everything.
You are wrong morally
You are wrong legally.
You are wrong factually
And you are shucking and jiving to hide from the facts.
You not only do not trust your own voters with the truth.
you are pepared to silence those who speak the truth to hide it from your own voters.
You make slaves of them.
Sometimes I get sucked into Svelaz’s comments. But mostly I try to use his remarks to make my own points.
His apologia for what is being exposed by the twitter files is becoming absurd.
I have no idea how old he or many other posters here are, but it is clear they have no knowledge at all – directly or indirectly of 7,000 years of human moral development.
That is how much time and effort went into arriving at working human self government.
That effort is both philosophical and pragmatic.
Our moral, political, and philosophical development is a hard process of thought and trial and error.
We have not reached perfection, but we are far past the point were the odds of any proposed change being an improvement are small.
I am libertarian – because like progressives I do not believe that we have yet reached the best we can do.
I am libertarian – because like conservatives I know that most change will make things worse not better.
I should think nearly everyone should agree to both of those.
Sometimes I argue basic logic or facts. Those on the left are particularly bad at both.
Sometimes I argue law or more like principles of law – because in application today our law is far from its principles.
Sometimes I argue the constitution. While I am a form of originalist, no one should presume that I think the constitution is some sacred text.
The constitution is our best effort at a blueprint for self government that we hope will improve towards perfection (though never get there).
Sometimes I argue broader law, morality, philosophy. The constitution is not the foundation for itself. It comes from somewhere.
It comes from our arduous history of trying to improve ourselves and out lives.
What I find most disturbing about Svelaz and those on the left – is they are busy trying to force on us all something we already know fails.
From the French revolution to Venezuela, socialism, communism what ever it is you want to call “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” – it not merely does not work, it ends in rivers of blood. In all of human history no ideology has shed more blood than socialism.
I’ve never understood why Libertarian philosophy doesn’t gain more partisan traction. You would think the R’s would like the constitutional aspects and the D’s would like the foreign policy aspects. I struggled with my own libertarian thoughts when it came to abortion. I don’t like having the govt. telling people what they can and can’t do. But I resolved it once I thought about how the conception represents a new unique human life. This new life deserves the same rights as any other individual.
No individual, including an embryo, has a right to use a woman’s or girl’s uterus against her will.
correct,
But no woman has the right to deliberately kill an embryo.
These appear to conflict.
Can they be resolved without conflict.
Yes, the woman can remove the embryo – even if that results in death.
But the right to remove does not include the right to kill.
No individual, including an embryo, has a right to use a woman’s or girl’s uterus against her will.
Except for cases of rape. The women give their consent when they engage in intercourse.
>
No, consent to intercourse is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
ATS, people make decisions all the time and they base those decisions on what might happen, good or bad.
When one intentionally shoots himself in the head, he is consenting to the possibility of dying.
When a woman has intercourse, she is consenting to the possibility of a pregnancy.
Of course it is. Simple cause and effect. Intercourse causes babies.
There is no ideological libertarian answer to abortion.
HOWEVER Quite interestingly Walter Block – an anarcho Capitalist – and Lawrence Tribe independently came to the same resolution of Abortion.
Each of us has absolute control of our own body. The Fetus is NOT our body. It is something else.. What is not critical,
A women has therefor an absolute and inarguable right to remove the fetus from her body.
I would note that if you agree to give your kidney to another person, and they will die without it. Right uo to the point were you pass out before surgery you can change your mind. The law can not force you to do anything – even something you agree to with your own body.
If removal of the fetus results in death – so be it.
But the woman seeking the removal of the fetus only has the right to have it removed – not to kill it.
The state can intervene and require the removal to be done such that the fetus has the greatest chance of survival – as long as that does not significantly change the health risk to the woman.
This is the closest I know to a libertarian justifiable position on abortion.
But I can absolutely tell you that libertarians come in rabidly pro-life and rabidly pro-choice.
I don’t like having the govt. telling people what they can and can’t do
Now that the 50 year nightmare of Roe is in the trash bin of history. The govt is no longer telling people what they can, can’t do.
The PEOPLE are soveriegn, making the rules the PEOPLE agree to live under.
John, Jim said, “ I’ve never understood why Libertarian philosophy doesn’t gain more partisan traction. ”
He basically pointed out the flaw in your philosophy. It doesn’t gain traction because the ideas posed by libertarians are unworkable and fail once put into practice. They are bad ideas held together with fervent zealotry. It’s only workable in theory and that’s why it’s frustrating when it faces reality.
Why in the world would I have the slightest interest in your views on libertarianism ?
You have demonstrated over and over that you do not even know your own ideology very well.
John, this has nothing to do with morality. It’s about factual reality. Anything can be considered immoral to those who disagree with something. That doesn’t mean what they are disagreeing with isn’t true.
You have no real argument. The only thing left is using morality’s ambiguousness to justify a flawed view.
The federalist made had the courage to point out the obvious without seeming to support it when they pointed out that the government took great care not to go past that bright line you claim was crossed. No court would be able to rule the FBI or any of the other agencies coerced or demanded certain accounts be censored. You are well aware that there are specific legal requirements to meet in order to prove coercion or force to do something. Mere insinuation is not enough and that is the problem with your arguments. They all rely on insinuations and implied intents without proof. The Federalist made that point quite clear despite their continued attempt to still paint that picture of a coercive government everyone on the right wants to believe is the truth.
“this has nothing to do with morality.”
Lying is immoral. Suppressing the truth is immoral.
Doing so to influence an election is immoral.
Are you actually going to claim that is debatable ?
Svelaz, you have screwed the pooch with regard to any pretense that you are a moral actor.
What exactly is it that you think that a political campaign, a political party, a branch of government is not permitted to do to win an election ?
Is the next argument from you going to be that voter fraud is not immoral ? That it is just about factual reality ?
Your in trouble. Your whole ideology is morally bankrupt and this exposes it.
“You are well aware that there are specific legal requirements to meet in order to prove coercion or force to do something. ”
Yes, a government actor is ALWAYS force.
Government is force. in any area that force is not needed, government is not needed.
When you are part of the discussion, the lack of morality is always evident.
Svelaz, I didn’t read your BS comment, nobody will read your BS comment and we are all tired of your ridiculous take on anything Biden related. Save yourself and us the trouble and try to not write 100 comments today, we are all ignoring them because they are as dumb as a KJP “press briefing” and a Martha Raddatz “interview”.
hullbobby, John Say writes more words daily than anyone else. I don’t see you complaining about him. You object to Svelaz and other liberals because you want this to be a conservative safe space. Too bad.
Perhaps you are misconstruing the difference between facts and propaganda.
No, nor are those the only two categories that people’s comments fall into.
Do you see ATS? Others see you in a way you object to, but they are right. Try using your smarts to discuss rather than punch.
Hullbobby, cry me a river. Guess what, this is what free speech looks like. The irony couldn’t be more stark. It’s EXACTLY what Turley always advocates about countering “bad speech” with MORE “good speech.
You read my comment just like everyone else. Otherwise you wouldn’t call it BS. Everybody reads all comments. Including good ol’ George’s rants.
I can post 500 comments if I want to, just like John B. Say who posts as much as I do. So quit being snowflake or go to your safe space if you are experiencing anxiety or irritation with my posts. Nobody is forcing you to remain here.
Svelaz, unlike a liberal I am NOT calling for you to be banned, just ignored by normal people reading these comments. It is only liberals that ban those with whom they disagree.
Yet you are not following your own exhortation.
“ Svelaz, unlike a liberal I am NOT calling for you to be banned, just ignored by normal people reading these comments.”
But you want to. You can tell by reading between the lines. It’s that obvious by your numerous complaints about how many times I post.
No, no, we don’t want you banned. We LOVE it when others can expose the silliness and errors in your commetns.
Try reading what you wrote.
Censorship != Free speech.
Private censorship is often permissible, it is usually moral – because private actors rarely censor viewpoints. They primarily censor place and time- i.e. not at work.
But Censorship is always Anti Free speech whether it is allowed or not.
Actual free speech involves more speech not less.
The FBI was censoring people – that is unconstitutional.
Before you tried to pretend it was just “asking” politely – and that is OK. No it is not.
If Russia has Asked Twitter to do this to Democrats you would be screaming bloody murder.
But in fact Russia is not barred by the US constitution from asking for censorship in the US.
The US Govenrment is.
But this has going beyond “asking” – which is still illegal. it has jumped to pressuring. coercing, even paying, and providing Twitter staff with security clearances.
Turley says this now at the level where twitter is an agent of govenrment – no that threshold was reached at the start.
This has actually reached the level of not merely a government violation of the constitution, but a government criminal violation of the civil rights of those being censored.
That you are defeding this is just more evidence of your own moral corruption.
I recall those on the left ranting when Trump publicly mused that “somebody ought to do something about fake news”.
Claiming that was government attempts at censorship by Trump.
Guess what AT THE TIME I agreed. But Trump’s misconduct was diminimus – because wisely no one in government was listening and Trump did not follow through
I would further note that this goes beyond censorship.
The FBI was using Twitter to spy on its users. The articles of impeachment against NIxon include his failed effort to get the FBI to spy on people.
Or the IRS to target political enemies.
This is no different – except it actually happened and the scale was much larger.
Super majorities of americans know this is both immoral and criminal.
“ The FBI was censoring people – that is unconstitutional.”
False. The facts don’t support your claim. Even the Federalist doesn’t support your claim. The Twitter files clearly point out that the FBI was taking great pains to not cross that line by referring to violations of their TOS and that some accounts may need to be reviewed. All perfectly legal according to our Federalist friends. The Twitter files show that the FBI made it a point to say that it was still entirely up to Twitter whether to act or not on the referrals. No coercion or force was applied. The hard part for Twitter was to decide what to do with the information and determine if the TOS was violated. What IS telling is how Turley or even Taibbi do not point out how many times Twitter decided NOT to censor content or ban accounts.
“ I recall those on the left ranting when Trump publicly mused that “somebody ought to do something about fake news”.
Claiming that was government attempts at censorship by Trump.
Guess what AT THE TIME I agreed. But Trump’s misconduct was diminimus – because wisely no one in government was listening and Trump did not follow through”
False. According to Taibbi the Trump administration also “asked” Twitter to censor certain accounts and content. They DID follow thru by asking, but as usual republicans or even Turley chose ignore that. Twitter did follow the thru on some of those request as those accounts and content DID violate their TOS.
“ The FBI was using Twitter to spy on its users. The articles of impeachment against NIxon include his failed effort to get the FBI to spy on people.
Or the IRS to target political enemies.”
Wrong.
There is a big problem with this argument. Twitter is available to anyone. If an account is public and viewable to anyone the FBI is not “spying” on them. If they are private and they have a warrant to monitor certain accounts associated with extremist organizations with histories of violence like white supremacists and anti-government outfits they can legally “spy” on them. Provided they have a proper warrant.
John B. Say shows us just how badly he misunderstands the law and how the law works.
I should know better than to trust you.
From YOUR federalist article.
“Whether the FBI and Twitter succeeded in these efforts, however, remains to be seen because, as one of the country’s most preeminent First Amendment scholars Eugene Volokh explained in his essay “When Government Urges Private Entities to Restrict Others’ Speech,” there may be “room for courts to shift to a model where the government’s mere encouragement of private speech restrictions is enough to constitute a First Amendment violation on the government’s part.””
Your federalist article does NOT say the FBI did not violate the first amendment.
What it says is that FBI tried very hard to game the first amendment.
It is generally extremely unwise to try to get caught taking the broadest interpretation of what you can get away with and then pushing right up to or sometimes over it.
No one likes it when you are clearly trying to game the system.
That is what obviously immoral people do.
Your federalist article does NOT say the FBI did not violate the first amendment.
What it says is that FBI tried very hard to game the first amendment.
I didn’t bother to go the Federalist. Svelaz’s track record of accuracy, honesty, and logic, have already informed me he was stretching the article to fit his desires. (lie)
Your Twitter was not spying argument is nonsense.
Twitter was literally asked to spy. When you are asked to spy and you do it, that is spying.
Further No FBI is not allowed to spy on anyone on twitter just because the posts are public.
You constantly confuse Government which has not rights only powers with people who mostly have rights, but not powers.
The standard for government to search social media is low. It is not ZERO.
Even the standard frequently employed in the criminal context “in plain sight” – still requires government to be otherwise engaged in a legitimate government activity.
Regardless, government made a request of Twitter, that was for information that was outside of what government could get easily on its own
aka Spying.
You keep making obviously stupid arguments that you did not think through.
“According to Taibbi the Trump administration also “asked” Twitter to censor certain accounts and content.”
In correct. Actually according to Taibbi he was TOLD the Trump Whitehouse asked to censor a small number of posts.
But Taibbi was never provided any evidence of this.
Of course the Trump administration censored posts – the CIA, DHS, FBI in 2022 were under Trump.
That actually makes this far worse. It not only is a first amendment violation, probably a 4th amendment violation, election interference,
it is also insubordination. and arguably another soft coup.
I am pretty sure President Trump did not order the FBI to censor the Hunter Biden Laptop story.
The FBI works for the president. While they are not free to do anything the president asks, they are also not free to do whatever they want.
They are absolutely not free to engage in political censorship, and even more so harmful to the current president.
If there was a war going on it would be close to treason.
“ Super majorities of americans know this is both immoral and criminal.”
A baseless claim without evidence of fact. Even Turley and the Federalist can’t articulate what you claim.
There is no legitimate purpose for government to ever ask a private party to censor political speech.
John B. Say, they are not asking. They never have. Even the emails from the latest batch of twitter files show that. No amount of false claims you make can change the facts being presented.
talk about willful blindness.
You are now contradicting yourself.
The FBI has always had access to blackmail information. That is how they keep their power.
I do believe we are being held captive by a government (at all levels, both elected and appointed) that is in a state of Mutually Assured Destruction of each other because of the corruption within this entire fetid swamp. No one will make a move because the the ensuing revelations that would eventually touch most of them in some way.
Kim Iversen, a Democrat or former Democrat at this point, has a good podcast on these revelations yesterday: “Kim Iversen: BOMBSHELL Twitter Files EXPOSE FBI And Twitter Collusion To Suppress and Censor” http//:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv42Pn5YcKk&t=2s Your blood will boil.
Dear Prof Turley,
This is way bigger than Watergate and deeper than Deep Throat.
How is it that almost *all* major media organizations blacklisted The Laptop story at the same time? I could believe the New York Times, e.g., got the story wrong, initially, but to have almost all major media censor a true story this consequential, at the same timely time, seems so far-fetched as bordering on a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Obviously, when ‘The Russians are engaged’ (h/t Biden) there must needs be a special Bat phone in every newspaper connected directly to over 50 Top national security officials + team Biden to set the record straight.
No offense, how are we know this article is not classic Russian disinformation?
Tip. Tonight, Speaker Pelosi is holding a special black-tie session of congress to honor President Zelenskiy .. . so we can fight Putin’s Russians over there. Slavi Ukraine.
*.. . and behind the conquering hero astride his golden chariot stood a captured slave whispering in Ceasor’s ear; all glory is fleeting.
My first hint that this is true is the degree of vitriolic resistance from most entities controlled by the left. Just as Twitter did not want its dark secrets exposed, I am sure the remains of the left-controlled media/education industries do not want the light of day on them either. Like they are fond of saying, if you have nothing to hide you are not opposed to sunlight exposing your inner secrets.
“The United States government played a key role trying to bury a story damaging to the Democrats before the election.” (JT)
Maybe the FBI was just confused about the definition of “fix.” Instead of “to repair,” they interpret it as: “to rig.”
The portion of the American public that views events with open eyes instead of being part of the bandwagon has no choice but to accept a new reality. Information released by the government and almost all media is the work product of these two partisan entities working in tandem. The non coverage of the Twitter files and the phony jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are current examples. Facebook is almost certainly directed to produce certain results, as was Twitter. It is now reasonable to assume that most governmental / political releases have a good chance of being deliberately inaccurate.
At this point, the political weaponization of these federal agencies is like a one-sided nuclear arms race. We can either agree to disarm them, or we’ll be forced to compete with them.
Amen
Olly: Yours is a very good comment.
No it’s not. This hysteria over what has been going on with the FBI and Twitter is all based on a lot of unfounded allegations and pure lack of comprehension about what is actually allowed according to the law. This whole thing is a an emotional response given the animosity towards government and those that are exploiting it for their own political or monetary gain.
Turley, a defense lawyer and “constitutional scholar”. Should know that the allegations being bandied about require very specific things to be evident and SAID that would allow for said allegations to be legally and factually true. Nobody has been able to make that case. Even Turley.
He’s relied on insinuations, assumptions, and a lot of literary sleight of hand to create a narrative that would dovetail nicely with all those assumptions and allegations that the right and their enablers are exploiting in order to convince the gullible and the ignorant about the “truth”. It’s as simple as that.
This hysteria over what has been going on with the FBI and Twitter is all based on a lot of unfounded allegations and pure lack of comprehension about what is actually allowed according to the law.
Your entire defense of what many view as abuses of government power rests not in what is factually evident, but rather in what is “legally” allowed. History is replete with collapsed governments that enacted laws that were used to violate the rights of their citizens. It’s neither hysterical nor ignorant to oppose such abuse, regardless of it’s legality. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Men wiser than you understood this principle:
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
The entire thesis of the DoI wasn’t about what was legally allowed. It was about the fundamental purpose of government to secure the rights of their people and what justifies the people’s right to alter or abolish it. 259 years ago, you would have been defending the British. 83 years ago you would have been defending the Nazis. Ignorant people defend the force of law without any consideration of whether the law is just. They even have a name; Useful Idiots.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.
But our host will write a piece giving credence to the scam surrounding Mar a lago. There is NOTHING that falls under FBI jurisdiction. But like all of these FBI scandles, ALL of it is couched in counter intel/National defense shroud of secrecy.
Massive governmental covert op, the use of federal resources through bribery and coercion, to unlawfully silence the political opposition. Sure, first they rig an election, then they silence all who would object, then secretly pass spending bills that would otherwise not meet approval, that’s what’s occurring.
Democrats are saying “anything goes” however unlawful or uncivil; truthfully if we throw civility out the window we have no need of “democracy,” or anything like Twitter that grants the ability to freely express opinion.
Before they permanently suspended Trump (without cause) they had shadow-banned him. We know this because followers were not receiving his tweets. Can you imagine? Shadow-banning the president of the United States? It’s just incredible, the level and depth of corruption at the federal level, is just incredible. Beyond imaginable.
How long before my words here are silenced? Before I stand accused of malicious sedition, of microaggression, against the government of the United States? Because that’s where we’re headed; there can be no question, that’s what Obama’s “lists” were all about.
meantime the Democrats devoted 18 months to a Stalinistic show trial about Jan 6th
Well done piece Professor. Thanks.
As WaPo says, Democracy Dies in Darknes, but what they neglected to say was that the darkness is censorship
Turley’s piece is sloppily written. The statement, “The United States government played a key role trying to bury a story damaging to the Democrats before the election.\” is incorrect. It was NOT the U.S. Government but one or two branches of the US Government and then only the leaders of those branches, namely, the FBI and CIA. This is made clear later on but let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs. Kevin McCarthy is correct. We need a “Church-like” committee to investigate the FBI and CIA and get to the bottom of their crimes. Those inculpated should be prosecuted to the fullest to ensure that these crimes of election interfrtence are never repeated. We have almost two years to clean this mess up before the 2024 election. Members of Congress have the choice: become part of the solution and get re-elected. Stay part of the problem and be tossed out.
pedantry at its finest
Beat me to it PeterK
Pedantry, then the grammar police, added to whataboutism, all wrapped in repeating lies of a long disproven ‘narrative’
It’s not just “branches of the government.” Rep. Ted Lieu has stated on Twitter that this has been governmental policy since 2017 and that his House Judiciary exercised oversight. So Congress was fully aware this was occurring,.
I agree that the FBI manipulated Twitter into suppressing the story. There are, however, details we do not yet know.
For example, we know that the night before the NYP broke the story Chan sent Roth ten documents, but we do not know if those documents related to the story (Turley says they did but there is so far no evidence of that). Does Twitter still have those documents, and if so why aren’t they saying what was in them?
We know that Baker called the FBI’s office of the general counsel on the day the story was published and Twitter suppressed it, but we don’t know if that call was related to the story. Nor do we know what other communications Baker had with the FBI or then current or former members of the intelligence community, before or after the story was published. Baker was a strong and consistent voice supporting suppression of the story, so his communications are important.
We know that after a day or two Twitter lifted the ban on the story itself but kept the NYP account suspended. We have seen nothing about the internal discussions of the basis for that continued suspension.
The FBI was very clever in its seduction of Roth and others at Twitter. They conferred security clearances on them and then fed Roth information about something called APT128, ostensibly related to Russian interference. In a recent interview, Roth said that when the NYP story was published all his finely tuned APT128 sensors were on high alert.
The dog that didn’t bark is also relevant here. The FBI had been in possession of the laptop for nearly a year. They knew or could easily discover what was in it. Did anyone from the FBI tell Twitter that the story was true and not hacked? Of course not. The decision not to do this needs to be investigated.
Mostly I agree with you. Except your efforts to pretend this was narrow.
There were atleast 80 FBI agents involved in this. DHS was involved in this. CIA was involved in this. Further groups outside the government were involved in this – the democratic party, the Biden campaign. Even Hobbs in AZ was involved in this.
It is probable that we still only know part of the scale of this.
We do not at this point know the extent to which this was coordinated. Numerous timing issues suggest HIGHLY that is was tightly coordinated.
The FBI comes to Twitter they day before the NY Post story is released having Primes Twitter to expect Russian hacked material for months.
Shortly after that 51 members of the IC community come out with a “russian disinformation letter”.
It is possible that we just have a large number of completely independent bad actors magically working lockstep towards a common purpose.
…. No it is not. Just not buying that.
Schumer said it out loud “The intelligence community has six ways to Sunday to get you” (sic)
The FBI leadership likely has the goods in-hand on many people in power. That’s how the FBI Leadership stays in power. J. Edger Hoover started the files.
Post 420,
You hit the nail on the head.