Former House Intelligence Committee lead investigator Kash Patel appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast to discuss the Twitter Files. {Direct Rumble Link} Within the interview Mr. Patel asks the obvious question: Why are we not seeing the document trail where the FBI is making contact with Twitter?

The contacts are noted within the Twitter File release, but the specific methods, people and documents or email requests from the U.S. government into Twitter are not being released. Kash Patel asks Elon Musk to release these documents and asks why are we not seeing them? WATCH:

.

Patel’s point is well taken because insofar as the U.S. government contacts around the 2020 election would be important, the volume of contact and documents surrounding the COVID-19 control issues will be exponentially more intense and larger.

Release the government 2020 election contact information now, and then do the same thing when Twitter releases the substantive files about censorship related to COVID-19 and the vaccines.   Let the American people see who, what and how this DHS-Twitter ‘trusted partnership‘ portal was exploited.

(more…)

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…)

The fourth installment of the Twitter Files release dropped yesterday evening as presented by Michael Shellenberger [SEE HERE].  Overall, the Shellenberger angle covers the conversation within Twitter to block the communication and information from President Donald Trump.

Essentially, the executive filtration team in control of Twitter content was looking for ways to stop Donald Trump from using the platform and they modified all existing rules and moderation guidelines to target and censor President Trump.

[Read Twitter File Release #4 HERE]

One of the ways they justified their action was to infer motive for any content that President Trump provided through his Twitter account. “Ultimately on January 8, 2021, Twitter says its ban is based on “specifically how [Trump’s tweets] are being received & interpreted.””  The Twitter executives decided to reach their end goal of shutting down Trump’s voice, the way his message could be interpreted was their best justification.

Twitter File #4 walks through the internal conversation at Twitter in early January 2021, but again heavily redacts the specifics of who was participating in many of the conversations.  Also missing is any contact by government officials or representatives of the Biden team as the transition period was ongoing.  Given the nature of the previous contacts from the Biden campaign, the absence of communication from the transition period in Twitter File #4 release is stark.

Three other interesting Twitter developments below.

(more…)

… Both were targets of the U.S. government’s use of Twitter and social media to manipulate election outcomes.

While current conservative headlines are filled with discussion surrounding revelations of Twitter being used by U.S. government officials to control and manipulate public opinion, it is worthwhile reminding everyone how this process was first triggered – and then look at how the intelligence community applied the lessons to the USA in 2020.

The Obama administration first created the public-private partnership with Twitter and Facebook to support the “Arab Spring” uprising.   As a consequence, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was the first elected official to be taken out by former President Obama’s deployment of Twitter as a community activist tool for revolution in 2011. In direct and consequential ways, Egypt was the BETA test for a process that surface a decade later in the United States during the 2020 election.

Using and influencing social media was a tool created by the Obama state department, as noted years ago in Mic.Com:

[…] In countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, rising action plans such as protests made up of thousands, have been organized through social media such Facebook and Twitter. “We use Facebook to schedule the protests” an Arab Spring activist from Egypt announced “and [we use] Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” The role that technology has taken in allowing the distribution of public information such as the kinds stated by the aforementioned activist, had been essential in establishing the democratic movement that has helped guide abused civilians to overthrow their oppressor. (link)

(NationalPulse) The most popular Twitter hashtags in the Arab region in the first three months of this year were “Egypt”, “Jan25”, “Libya”, “Bahrain” and “protest”.

Nearly 9 in 10 Egyptians and Tunisians surveyed in March said they were using Facebook to organise protests or spread awareness about them. All but one of the protests called for on Facebook ended up coming to life on the streets.

These and other findings from the newly released second edition of the Arab Social Media Report by the Dubai School of Government give empirical heft to the conventional wisdom that Facebook and Twitter abetted if not enabled the historic region-wide uprisings of early 2011. (link)

Fast forward to 2020, and those same elements deployed against the Egyptian government were deployed in the United States in a coordinated public-private partnership with Twitter, Facebook and social media.

The U.S. government control over these social media platforms is ultimately what lies at the heart of the latest Twitter Files release.

(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…)

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…)

John Fredericks appears with Steve Bannon to discuss the current state of the Georgia Senate runoff.  Fredericks is on the ground in Georgia trying to help early ballot collection on behalf of Hershel Walker and gives a brutally honest assessment. {Direct Rumble Link}

According to Fredericks, the DNC wanted to start early voting last week and the RNC wanted to fight them in court.  The DNC started collecting ballots last week on Wednesday and Saturday in key Democrat areas while the RNC led by Ronna McDaniel and her legal team including Harmeet Dhillon had no plan other than the lawsuit.

The court ruled in favor of the DNC, Ronna McDaniel and Harmeet Dhillon lost.  However, worse still the DNC wasn’t waiting on the court decision and were already assisting with early ballot collection and entry, while the RNC was doing nothing – except waiting on the court.  That gave the DNC a 200,000-ballot immediate lead.   The RNC is now traveling throughout republican areas in Georgia promoting early voting and trying to catch up.  WATCH:

John Fredericks is strongly opposed to RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel remaining in her position.

If you live in Georgia, I would love to hear your ground report on what is going on?

(more…)

In semi-related election news, this is interesting.  Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, a man of notoriously sketchy political disposition, has dropped the charges against Konnech CEO Eugene Yu, although leaving the door open to refile charges at a later date.

Eugene Yu, the CEO of Konnech Inc, was charged last month with two felonies for allegedly violating the company’s contract with Los Angeles County and transferring election workers’ personal information along with data files to computer servers in China.

(New York Times) – […] Los Angeles County dropped criminal charges against the top executive of an elections technology company on Wednesday, bringing to an abrupt end an unusual case that became the focus of Americans who distrust the country’s electoral system.

The district attorney’s office said in a statement that it had dropped the case against the executive, Eugene Yu, because of concerns about the “pace of the investigation” and the “potential bias in the presentation” of evidence in the case. The office said the county had assembled a new team to “determine whether any criminal activity occurred.”

The prosecutors did not respond to questions about the decision. (read more)

(more…)

After several days of research interviews in a locked down and closed Washington DC, in the spring of 2020 I sat alone in a hotel room and pondered how to boil down the essence of the most critical information into one question.

Multiple days of questions and contacts accompanied three years of background research and 600+ pages of retrieved open-source citations sat on the table in front of me.  The exact same material was organized into two assemblies.

•The first set was organized in the timeline for when the documents were released or became public.  •The second set was the result of taking the documents and putting them into the chronological order of when the events took place.   As I stared at it, the answer became obvious…

Ask people a simple question, “what was the purpose of former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s two-year probe?”

Returning to those same discussions and going back into the individual silos, that new question was asked, “what was the purpose of Mueller?”

The responses showed the reality.

Every single person in Washington DC, across the broad spectrum of institutions from all branches – including media, would speak plainly that Mueller’s team objective (from May 2017 to April 2019) was to use the authority of his appointment to block any review of the preceding events he was presumably investigating.

Yes, in private conversation everyone stated a similar core truth, Mueller was the tool for DC to protect itself against accountability.

That reality was a bitter pill to swallow, because accepting that common response in private stood in contrast to those same voices talking publicly about the honor and respect of Robert Mueller.  The charade was clear.

(more…)