Former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, appeared on Sunday with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the Twitter file release that pertained to his former office and the contact between DNI election official Shelby Pierson and Twitter executive Noel Roth. {Direct Rumble Link}

DNI Ratcliffe does not use Shelby Pierson’s name within his comments, but refutes her action as described within the release by Matt Taibbi.  WATCH:

.

Within the Twitter file release, you will find Twitter’s lead censor, Yoel Roth, meeting with an official from the U.S. Dept of National Intelligence (DNI).  From the testimony of FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, we know that official was Shelby Pierson.  Chan was speaking under oath in an ongoing first amendment lawsuit against the Biden administration for manipulating and censoring speech on social media.

(more…)

The fifth installment of the Twitter Files release drops today courtesy of Ms. Bari Weiss [READ HERE]. The focus of Ms Weiss was on the decision to ban President Donald Trump from the platform, and her outline walks through the events leading up to the decision to remove him.

After a review of internal discussions, slacks and conversations within the social media platform, ultimately the officers within the company decided to protect their view of democracy by removing their biggest ideological opponent.

The Twitter executives justified their actions by echo-chambering a belief that President Trump was tweeting “coded messages,” the secret transmission of thoughts that can only be received by those wearing red hats, tuned to a specific psychological frequency.  As Weiss notes: “Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde—Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust—asked whether it could, in fact, be “coded incitement to further violence.”

President Trump tweeted the term “American Patriots,” which would be viewed by the Twitter ideologues as something akin to “the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.”

It did not take long for the narrative to embed as the most senior Twitter regulatory officers assembled. “One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

(more…)

When various doctors and professionals in the healthcare industry were kicked off Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and social media platforms for holding a contrary view of the COVID-19 mitigation efforts, their voices found a way to alternate platforms including TikTok.  At the heart of the government argument about TikTock as a national security threat, you will find this dynamic.

The claims of data insecurity as a reason for government action against TikTok is a false justification.  The reason the U.S. govt is defining TikTok as a national security threat is not because a Chinese firm controls it, the threat is because the U.S. government does not control it.  Thus, DHS involvement in Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Apple, Microsoft and more takes on a more accurate perspective.  TikTok is not under DHS control, therefore TikTok’s ability to transmit information without DHS filter controls is a threat.

Bread and circuses.  In this interview with California Congressman Ro Khanna, Maria Bartiromo notes he was one of the only Democrats in congress who wrote a warning to Twitter about the censorship issue.  However, even then, a key sentence in the letter from Khanna to Yoel Roth is ignored.  He’s no hero. WATCH:

The DHS Portal – […] discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February. (link)

It’s not just the First amendment being compromised by this collaboration, it’s also the Fourth Amendment against unwarranted searches of private papers (communication).

(more…)

Twitter File Release #3 come from Matt Taibbi – SEE HERE – and includes a review of some internal documents and internal communication in the lead up to the 2020 election.

As noted by Taibbi, “as the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed – increasingly struggled with rules and began to speak of “vios” as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.”

“Vios” is a short-hand term for violations.

Internal Slacks, communication chats within the organization, show Twitter executives discussing various relationships with federal agencies, specifically the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), various elements of the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI.  Twitter’s main censor Yoel Roth plays a key role in the discussion.  Mr. Roth organized many of the communication chats that surrounded the election.

The slacks (communication chats) contain channels to create sub-sets of topics with smaller groups of internal officers assembled to prioritize the discussion.

The reports being cited by Taibbi are, “based on searches for docs linked to prominent executives, whose names are already public. They include Roth, former trust and policy chief Vijaya Gadde, and recently plank-walked Deputy General Counsel (and former top FBI lawyer) Jim Baker.” … “On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters”).”

There was internal discussion about how they should describe their contact with federal agencies who were involved in the process of filtering the public discussion.  Essentially, what were these Twitter executives going to say about how they are coordinating with DHS, FBI and ODNI?  Policy Director Nick Pickles, eventually led a discussion to label the government contacts in the generalized term “partnerships.”

(more…)

Thesis: Begin with The End in Mind – The U.S. Government control over social media though DHS was going to surface eventually.  The people who constructed the systems knew exposure would eventually come.  Two CENSORSHIP lawsuits, one filed by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai in 2020 [LINK], and another filed by Missouri Attorney General in May 2022 [STATE OF MISSOURI ET AL VERSUS JOSEPH R BIDEN JR ET AL], were going to push the relationship between DHS and social media into the public consciousness; mitigation efforts would be needed.

The timing of the Twitter purchase by Elon Musk, initially triggered via major stock purchase in April 2022, must be considered with the overlay of these two sunlight lawsuits.  Regardless of who owned Twitter, the nature of DHS controlling a backdoor portal into the content of social media was going to surface – as it has been unfolding from the two referenced censorship lawsuits.

The Twitter Files represent a gateway of discovery into how government assisted creating “Oligarchical Systems.” Surveillance systems delivering mutual benefits called public-private partnerships were formed.  Readers here are months ahead of where the arc of this story is destined.  However, oligarchical beneficiaries will always defend the system against rogue oligarchs who become a threat.

There are major inconsistencies in the public narrative as it swirls around Elon Musk and Twitter.

How could a businessman, an entrepreneur like Elon Musk, spend $44 billion, that’s BILLION, on an enterprise without knowing the basic outline of how that enterprise was operating.  In a world of financial due diligence, on a scale of this size, the contradictions do not make sense.

Yet if we are to take Elon Musk at his word, he had no idea that DHS operated a portal into the network. He also had no idea about James Baker working as Twitter legal counsel and carrying such a massive conflict of interest.  Additionally, via his announcement last night, Musk had no idea that Perkins Coie was legally representing Twitter.

How does an owner/operator take ownership of an organization and not know these senior executive issues?  Reconcile these questions, and we begin to reconcile a background of activity that Mr. Musk may not know about.  The alternative explanation is much more nefarious and involves Musk as a willing participant.

Regardless, before going further I cannot emphasize this point enough.   We cannot fight our way through these puzzling issues until we all approach the big questions from the same baseline, the root of what created the system.

(more…)

The latest release of information behind the controversial “Twitter Files”, comes from Bari Weiss complete with the strategic promotion of a new website [The Free Press] launching via the booster provided by their access to the internal Twitter documents.

Curiously intelligent people will note the Weiss website is structured to support the 2024 presidential bid of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is, not coincidentally, riding atop a multi-staged booster guided by Elon Musk and fueled by Wall Street billionaires.

For the moment, just note and I digress – but please do not miss the connections.

As noted by the former New York Times journalist, Ms. Weiss states, “the [website] authors have broad and expanding access to Twitter’s files. The only condition we agreed to was that the material would first be published on Twitter.”  You can read the entire Twitter Thread Here, and with that, we look at what the current narrative consists of.

Overall, the story as released walks through the process that Twitter used to control users and as a consequence control the flow of information on the platform.  Accounts were subject to restrictions, manipulations and other inorganic engagement controls depending on the ideology of the content being provided.

Twitter had teams set up to attach limiting flags within the Twitter platform that would essentially hide content the platform control officers did not want to see reaching a wider audience. As noted by Twitter employees Weiss writes, “we control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” one Twitter engineer told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.”

What I find interesting is in segment/tweet #12 where Ms. Weiss reveals the existence of the top tier of Twitter control officers.  “The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was the Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET. It often handled up to 200 “cases” a day.”

I find it curious that Ms Bari Weiss mentioned several names in her expose’ yet failed to mention the name or curriculum vitae of the head for the Strategic Response Team, a fellow named Jeff Carlton.

(more…)

Jack, who never had control, says just release everything without filter.

Elon says stuff might have been hidden from you too, and some stuff deleted:

(Source)

Knowing the background of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop…

Obvious question… Hey fellas, who was doing the hiding and deleting?

(more…)

Yesterday, we speculated publicly the first set of “Twitter Files” released was heavily pre-filtered by internal stakeholders connected to DHS who hold a vested interest in controlling any evidence of Twitter’s former political activity.

Knowing there are multiple executives remaining within the company who previously aligned with the intents of government, specifically DHS officials, to control the platform, the prediction was not a stretch. Indeed, it just made common sense.

Former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker, a man of notoriously corrupt disposition, was one of those former government officials who started working for Twitter as general counsel.  James Baker (pictured below left) working as a government mechanism for filtration of damaging information was not a leap. Again, just common sense.

Today, as an outcome of internal discoveries that indeed Jim Baker did prefilter internal documents in order to mitigate sunlight and exposure [outline here], Twitter CEO Elon Musk fired legal counsel James Baker.

Mr Musk said through his Twitter account, “In light of concerns about Baker’s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue, he was exited from Twitter today.”  Mr. Musk followed up a question about James Baker being asked to explain himself by saying, “His explanation was …unconvincing.”

Matt Taibbi provides the context:

Taibbi – 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.

We can now tell you part of the reason why. 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.

(more…)

President Donald Trump came under massive amounts of fire recently for saying, “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

What President Trump is noting, is the exact same reason why Kari Lake’s lawsuit, like every other election lawsuit before it, will fail.   Our U.S. Constitution permits election fraud and manipulation, as long as that state level election fraud and manipulation does not break federal law.  {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

Obviously, it would be frustrating for President Trump to ask legal advisors what can be done about certified results from fraudulently constructed elections.  The reply from the legal advisors around the state certification would frustrate anybody, because the constitution permits fraudulent elections.   The decision on how to conduct elections is entirely up to the states.

The states, via state legislature, determine their election rules, laws and outcomes that eventually lead to state certification.  If a state wants to block voters, impede voters, or manipulate the voting outcome, there is generally nothing in federal law to stop them – as long as the state or county does not break federal laws protecting classes or protected categories of persons.

(more…)

Sooner or later someone, if not Donald Trump, is going to have to start a second party.

Appearing on CBS with Margaret Brennan, incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner walks through the priorities of the new HPSCI committee, to include that President Trump is horrible, Ukraine President Zelenskyy is awesome, Joe Biden is doing an awesome job and Ukraine needs more U.S. money and weapons.

If you listen closely, you might even catch the part where Mike Turner says he is working swimmingly with current HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner.  Yes, folks, you just cannot make this stuff up.  Ms. Brennan is absolutely smitten with Mr. Turner, he’s an acceptable republican.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we turn now to Ohio Congressman Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Turner, good to have you here in person.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE TURNER: Thank you. Yes. It’s great to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So just yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said that Russia was perhaps struggling to keep up with the amount of munitions that it’s using in this war in Ukraine, the cold weather is slowing combat. The Secretary of State, though, didn’t really give hope for diplomacy at this moment. Given what you know, when will this war end?

REP. TURNER: Well, the one thing that we know is that the- the gains that Ukraine is making are real, they’re real in the battlefield. They’re real in the support that they have around the world, they have with democracies on the floor of the United Nations, in condemning this aggression by Russia. But Ukraine really has to be the one that decides that if, when, and how negotiations are entered into, and at this point, you know, they’re battling for their country. They’re losing lives for democracy. President Zelenskyy says, I was just in Ukraine, just before the elections, he says openly, he understands that he’s the frontlines for democracy, and he’s fighting an authoritarian regime. And I think, you know, obviously, Russia has to reevaluate how they look at this conflict and how Putin looks at what he has started–

(more…)