Twitter Files: Adam Schiff's office asked Twitter to suspend journalists they didn't like

The latest release of "Twitter Files" shared on Tuesday uncovered posts that revealed California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff's office asked the tech giant to suspend certain accounts that were critical of the left.

Substack journalist, Matt Taibbi reported that Twitter "received an astonishing variety of requests from officials asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned." In other words, those journalists who refused to slant their reporting to favor the Democrats should be silenced because that's how banana republics operate.

You may recall that Schiff publicly lied about former President Donald Trump regarding so called Russian collusion. He never admitted the lie nor apologized for spreading it, because, as Saul Alinsky said, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results." 

And that obviously includes lying.

An example Taibbi shared was a request sent to Twitter in November 2020 by Schiff's office. Schiff hoped the company would do something about  "alleged harassment from QAnon conspiracists" against Schiff's staff. One of the targets for removal was aide Sean Misko.

"Remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service- to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content," the request to Twitter read. "Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which have repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies."

The office also asked Twitter to "stop the spread of future misinformation on Twitter" regarding committee staff and  "label and reduce the visibility of any content."

Taibbi wrote that the company initially declined to go along with Schiff's request saying "we don't do this," but noted that Sperry was later suspended.

It was also revealed that when Musk initially took over Twitter, the so called "Twitter Files" were vetted by the company's deputy general counsel Jim Baker. It was done without Musk's knowledge and involved the Hunter Biden story, which Baker covered up under the guise that " . . . we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked," adding, "it's reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted."

So the story got buried and Baker got fired.

Additionally, Taibbi reported, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a ‘general’ warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." 

The second installment of the "Twitter Files" was published by The Free Press editor Bari Weiss. The posts revealed Twitter's "blacklisting" of prominent conservatives, including Fox News' Dan Bongino, Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk, as well as Stanford University's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who opposed the COVID lockdowns and the groupthink during the pandemic.

One of the most egregious banning on the platform was the popular account Libs of TikTok, which never violated its "hateful conduct" policy but were suspended several times for allegedly doing so. The only thing that Libs of TikTok was guilty of was reposting the posts of idiots on the Left, thus showing the public how crazy the Left is.

Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter testified under oath to Congress in 2018 that the company did not censor or shadow-ban conservatives. He has never been indicted for lying.

Third, fourth and fifth installments of the "Twitter Files" focused on Trump's permanent suspension from the platform over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in 2021. Taibbi wrote about how Twitter circulated tweets related to the election that were "flagged" by the FBI as being problematic. 

Independent reporter Michael Shellenberger wrote that Dorsey was "phoning it in" while on vacation at the time when his deputies were pushing to de-platform Trump. His former head of trust and safety [an oxymoron] Yoel Roth was leading the charge to get Trump thrown off Twitter and censor others over tweets about the 2020 election.

It was discovered that Roth met on a weekly basis with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and the office of the Director of National Intelligence in the weeks leading up to the election.

Why the hell were the FBI and NIA getting involved in politics? And worse, why the hell are they violating the First Amendment rights of citizens? 

It seems like the only 'problematic' information they want to censor is the information that's a problem for them. Trump's tweets from Jan. 6 didn't violate any Twitter rules and staffers seemed to recognize that. But it was Vijaya Gadde, then-Twitter's head legal chief, who suggested that Trump's posts could be "coded incitement to further violence." 

Soon thereafter, Twitter's "scaled enforcement team" suggested that based on how Twitter interprets Trump's tweets, it could violate the violence incitement policies.

It's time for Adam Schiff and his band of Schiff-heads, to resign. Congress has no legal authority to make demands of the free speech of private companies.

That's bananas.

Tweet

Amazing report claims Comey's FBI read less than 1% of Weiner's emails

In an amazing new report, RealClear Investigations reporter Paul Sperry uncovered an incredible find. Apparently, less than one percent of the hundreds of thousands of emails contained on former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop were actually read by then-FBI Director James Comey.

Sure, it's understandable why they would be loathe to handle Weiner's device, but it's their job.

Sperry found, among other things, that there were about 700,000 emails on the laptop, not the 300,000 the FBI claimed there to be, which belonged to then-husband of Huma Abedin, a close, long-time Hillary Clinton aide and confidante.

Many of the emails were between Clinton and Abedin, but only about 3,000 were looked at by the FBI because Comey may have thought that ignorance is bliss.

"James Comey told Congress that they had received all of the Clinton emails, hundreds of thousands, that were found on the Weiner laptop. But that was not true. They barely looked at any of them. Just 3,000 of 700,000," Sperry said on Fox News' "Ingraham Angle" hosted by Jason Chaffetz filling in for Ms. Ingraham.

Chaffetz was stunned, "Wait, wait, wait. They looked at how many?" he asked.

"Three thousand out of potentially relevant 700,000 emails were actually individually examined for classified information and incriminating evidence," he answered. "Peter Strzok, the disgraced agent who was in charge of this midyear investigation into the Clinton emails, he actually personally handpicked the 3,000 sample. And with two other investigators, they went through them all supposedly, pulled an all-nighter, ordered pizza, and said nothing new here. Case closed once again."

Sperry's report noted a total of 3,077 emails were "directly reviewed." He showed through detail after detail how Comey "skirted the truth" by claiming that "the FBI left no stone unturned" in the probe [except for the stone Comey hides behind].

"I've got to tell you, as the former member of the committee, as a former member of Congress, I mean, how can that be anything other than the director of the FBI lying to Congress and misleading us?" Chaffetz asked Sperry on air.

"Well he also swore under oath, that, he had this story that there was this miraculous breakthrough in technology that allowed the FBI to process the Weiner laptop for evidence rapidly," Sperry said. "Turns out that doesn't pass the smell test. That didn't check out either. Turns out there was a technical glitch that thwarted that effort."

The report ended with the question as tot he whereabouts of the Weiner laptop. It noted that it could still be with the FBI or perhaps returned to Abedin and Weiner for his tweeting pleasure.

"Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes--including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice--that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities," Sperry concluded.

I believe that this is the truest definition of the deep state. And sadly, I don't believe anything will happen to those guilty of any offenses involved here.


Please follow Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.


Tweet