Twitter and the FBI

 Red States:

Twitter suspended journalist Paul Sperry this week. According to Sperry, there was no warning or explanation given for his suspension but he tweeted the following:

Funny, don’t remember the FBI raiding Chappaqua or Whitehaven to find the 33,000 potential classified documents Hillary Clinton deleted. And she was just a former secretary of state, not a former president.

And:

DEVELOPING: Investigators reportedly met back in June w Trump & his lawyers in Mar-a-Lago storage rm to survey docs & things seemed copasetic but then FBI raids weeks later. Speculation on Hill FBI had PERSONAL stake & searching for classified docs related to its #Spygate scandal.

Sperry also said that “the current deputy general counsel at Twitter is also the former general counsel at FBI HQ under Comey. His name as you may know is James Baker, and he was the top attorney who reviewed the fraudulent anti-Trump FISA wiretap warrants for probable cause.”

Now I don’t know if what Sperry is saying about the speculation of the FBI having a personal stake or being related to Spygate is true. Certainly, the Hillary part is true. But when Twitter suspends someone like this without explanation and him breaking any Twitter rules, it raises a lot of questions.

We’ve seen in the past how Twitter wasn’t shy about shutting down people trying to post about the Hunter Biden laptop prior to the election in 2020.

Here we are again, going into the midterms with a move going on by the FBI against President Donald Trump and Twitter announcing that they are going to be instituting a “civic integrity program” regarding posts about the election that they regard as misleading.

This is why such an action against Sperry without explanation raises concerning questions.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley decried the move against Sperry as silencing diverse points of view and things that varied from the narrative.

Social media should be a place for the exchange of viewpoints as part of our national dialogue on controversies like the Mar-a-Lago raid. Twitter, however, has long dispensed with any pretense of neutrality in limiting such discussion to fit its own corporate agenda.

We saw this question also regarding journalist Alex Berenson, who has messages from his suit against Twitter, showing the White House was pressuring Twitter to ban him. He was banned for a year and just recently reinstated. Berenson’s case not only raises the question of silencing people who post what they don’t like, but how involved the Democrats are in that process. Berenson indicated that he would be pursuing a lawsuit against Joe Biden on the matter.

...

Now, if this is true — that there are agents who are being investigated by John Durham over their probe of the Russia hoax involved in the raid — that could potentially be read as retaliatory. Combined with the prior comment that may have led to him getting suspended — the speculation that it’s concerning Spygate documents — if true, that could be explosive. We’ll have to see as things develop.

...

What is Twitter doing trying to suppress news mainly when it puts Democrats in a bad light?  Is it just hostility toward Trump or is something else in play?  Turley nails it.  Twitter is not a neutral site. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more