TWITTER-PALOOZA: A Deep Dive Into Elon's Bombshell Release

I think it's freaking a lot of people out. And it's someone you would never expect to be wanting to look like you. His name is Mitt Romney, who has grown a beard for people watching there. It is I don't know if he lost his razor. I don't know if he's trying to resurrect his career to make people like him. And he saw how much people loved your beard. You got advice on this one. Well, listen, I think Mitt's beard looks great. He came back from Thanksgiving and

he had white stubble covering his face. U it's interesting that his beard is all white. His hair is not all white, but the beard beard is and uh, and I thought it looked good at so met and I were laughing on the on the Senate floor. I welcomed him the cooks in the Bearded club and and said was glad to have him. As you know. I asked him, what's the deal, what's going on? And he said, oh, he just you know, didn't shave over Thanksgiving. And said

he was, you know, figured what the heck keep it? Uh, he said, he said, Anne thought it looked kind of cute. He liked that. That made him happy. Yeah, he said he's never grown a beard in his life. It's entire life, like college, grad school, never in his life had a beard. And I did share with him a story. I said, well, you're gonna find they're different views depending on the generation, and in particular, young people twenty something thirty something will

love the beard. But there's another generation, which is typically women in their seventies and eighties who can't stand it. My grandmother said she didn't like my dad. When my mom they were daying, she said, I don't like his mustache. He was a police officer. He's hiding something. That's literally what She wasn't joking she goes, I don't like him,

I don't trust him. So my father had a beard in the seventies and he's shaved it because a woman at church said she didn't trust men with beards, that they were dishonest. And look, I think that really comes out of the sixties and seventies and hippies, and there's a generation where they see someone bearded and they think

you're a hippie. And a story I told Mitt. I said, look, I was standing actually right where Mitt and I were standing, which is down at the well of the Senate, and I was talking with Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein came up and Diane looked at Mitch and said said, Mitch, when are we going to get ted to shave that hideous thing on his face? And I turned to her. I said, Diane, next thing, you know, I'm growing a ponytail, I'm getting birkenstocks, and I'm coming after your bass. Would

she say? Mitch McConnell cracked up, laughing, and Diane looked at me, completely confused and befuddled. It just she did not understand what I was saying. So I told Mit that, and apparently that might have scared him too, because the next he shaved it. The very next day he shaved it. Well, he didn't want to take that kind of heat from Democrats. Let's be honest. He wants to be friends with him. He loves the Democratic bass. He I loves the liberals

liking him. Of course he's going to shave them well ed, he said to him, He said, this thing itches? Does it really itch? I said, yeah, for a day or two, and then it passes. And so I actually went to MIT that next day and said, Mit, I want to officially lodge a protest on behalf of all of your grandchildren growing back that you're denying them a Santa Claus beard right before Christmas, and I think it's wrong. The

grandkids are dismayed. I gotta ask your two daughters. When my dad apparently he shaved his mustache the only time, we apparently freaked out and cried, I don't remember we were little kids. Did your daughters like the beard instantly or do they say no, dad? Yeah, my girls are actually not crazy about the beard even now, even now it's I've had it now a couple of years. I like it, but my girls, my girls could do without. Well if you get if you if you get confused

with Mitt Romney, it's really gonna screw with people. He shaved it now, so I think you're safe. You're not gonna have to worry about people walking on Hey, Senator, can I get a picture with Mitt? Can I get a picture with you? From Utah? I don't think that's going to happen now. It's fair to say mits bass and my bass are very different. Yes, very different. I want to get into this serious topic obviously, and we're gonna do a deep dive. So everybody today make sure

you hit that share button. Share the podcasts, and we're doing this one is a video as well, so you can share that wherever you're watching this video on Facebook, YouTube, et cetera. Because we're doing an entire show dedicated to what just came out of how much government And there's two parts of the story. There's government influence in the private sector, and there's a private sector also silencing people

that they're told to silence by government officials. And I think it's shocking to see how much their collusion there was. And Democrats love the word collusion. They've been obsessed to that word for a long time. You want to talk about real collusion, Elon Musk is showing us there was real direct collusion between the Democratic Party and big tech

silencing conservatives. You look at this story and this is going to be multiple parts, they're now saying, so they release some of this information, and I want your overall reaction to it, just how dirty it was behind the scenes at Twitter to make sure people that we're having an influence were silence with big stories. Now, Senator, before I get your response, I want to tell everybody about Patriot Mobile. They are an incredible Christian conservative cell phone company.

They can save you money on your bill and also your businesses or your small businesses, while they fight at the same time for your first Second Amendment rights. They are also involved in protecting life and even helping people with adoptions. So if you have a cell phone, you get to keep your same cell phone number, you get to save money on your bill. It's the same towers you're using right now, nationwide coverage, but they take a portion of your bill every single month and they give

it back to conservative causes. So every time you use your phone, you're making a difference. Check them out. Patriotmobile dot com, slash Verdict. Use a promo code Verdict. You're gonna save money, free activation and other incredible savings. Also, you can call them nine to seven to Patriot. That's nine seven to Patriot. Use a promo code Verdict, find out more about the great work they do, and you save money on your cell phone bill. Now, center, let's

get to this. It is shocking what we saw your overall reactions. All this information was coming out. Well, it's stunning, and a lot more is coming. So you and I are sitting here at a Sunday afternoon. The first trunch of emails and tweets has come out. Elon Musk has has promised a second trunch coming out later today, so we will see what the second trunch holds. But the first one is stunning, and it's a whole Twitter thread.

I'd encourage people to read the entire thing. But what we're going to do on this pot is we're going to go through the highlights of what's most important. So

let's start. Let's start with the first one. And this one, this is actually I think the eighth tweet, but it goes right to the heart of it, and it is an internal email within Twitter that reads more to review from the Biden team colon and there are a series of five links to different tweets other people have said, and then it says thanks all, and the response two words handled these. And to be clear, this was basically they went through Twitter the day before or in the

last couple of days. They said, Hey, these are the tweets are most damning to us the Democratic Party. We send them to Twitter, and we want you to get rid of all these silence all these people, shut all these people down. And it was just direct links to tweets and then that said handled. There was no pushback, there was no questioning, there was no we'll take a review. It was how high you want us to jump at Twitter,

We'll take care of your problems. Yeah, this is Twitter acting as an arm for the Biden campaign, acting as Look, that's almost how you task an employee. Hey, here five more to take care of. Handled these done. Just that's who we work for. We're carrying it out and it

goes worth. Let's look at the next one. Okay, So this is Elon Muss kind of commenting, giving a meta comment on the entire thread, and he points out he says, Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a First Amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech with no judicial review is. Now, let me explain something that's important. Why is Twitter acting on its own not a violation of the First Amendment.

The reason is the First Amendment only applies to government. Actually, as it was written, it only applied to the federal government. First Amendment begins with Congress shall make no law. It applied to Congress. Now, since then, the courts have expanded the First Amendment, so it applies to the entirety the federal government, it applies to state governments, it applies to local governments. But a private company, Twitter or anybody else

implementing some policy, the First Amendment doesn't govern it. But as Elon points out, there's a major exception to that, which is, if a private company acts at the behest of the government, if it is censoring because the government is turning it into an instrumentality of censorship, then the First Amendment does apply. And what these tweets show is that's what was happening. And I got to say this podcast, we have been explaining this theory of First Amendment liability

for three years Yeah. We got into it on a deep dive when the emails became public between doctor Fauci and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, and I explained on the Verdict podcast how those emails make Facebook and they're similar communications with Twitter face very real liability because they're not just acting as private corporate actors, they're acting as an instrumentality of the government, an agent basically of the government.

If you are one of these individuals, and we've seen a lot of this come out, and I want to do a deep dive into this is their legal recourse now for the people that clearly were put on these lists, and there's a lot of conservatives that are now on this list that we don't that we know of. There's obviously going to be more that we're going to find out about where their tweets were silence or counts or

silence and even shut down. If you are one of those individuals, is there a real chance that you could actually sue because of this and possibly win. Absolutely. Yes. Let's go to the next tweet because it actually goes directly to the question you just asked. So celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the best of a political party. And if you go to the attachment here, I grabbed the first one under SI defer

to safety on the high profile second one. So the first one, someone who I don't think is well known, but apparently that poor fellow tweeted something that Biden and the DNC didn't like, and Twitter promptly squashed him. The second one there is his famous guy is a tweet from James Wood, the actor, And so the tweet says, or the email says, an additional report from the DNC, and they forward a tweet James Woods sent and Twitter responded by immediately banning James Woods. And he has said,

I am going to sue on this. I'm not backing down. Does he have crowns because we hear a lot of people say a lot times, are going to sue these emails? Give him what he actually needs for a case. Is what I've been told from several others who said, hey, this is bad news for the DNC. Yeah, and it's bad news for Twitter in general. So going Twitter will get sued, Biden will get sued, the DNC will get sued. James Woods has said on Fox that his career was

destroyed by what the DNC was doing. That Twitter acting to ban him ended up hurting his acting career. And so one of the things you have to prove in a defamation suit is you have to prove damages. I think there's a very real chance someone like James Woods will be able to All right, let's go to the next tweet. So this is shifting into Hunter Biden. So the Hunter Biden laptop story comes out. It's October of

twenty twenty. It's right before the election. The New York Post publishes it, and then this is reading from this tweet. Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, the Hunter Biden laptop story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be unsafe. Reading this story may be unsafe. They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto

reserved for extreme cases, eg. Child pornography. So they decided, we're going to use every tool we can to nuke the Hunter Biden laptop story, and essence and essence taking the Hunter Biden story and making sure that you couldn't

share it as if it was child pornography. They used the same exact technology yep and importance within Twitter to say this story is so damning to Joe Biden, to the Democratic Party, to this presential election, and obviously Twitter was acting as an agent of the Democratic National Committee in the Joe Biden campaign, that we will treat it like it as child pornography to make sure this story

can never get out to the masses. What I think is funny is the use of the word unsafe, because you know, you think of unsafe, liked reading this may damage you. You know, you think in the online world, this has a virus in it, like there's something unsafe about this website's unsafe. You don't want to go there. No, No, What they meant about unsafe is it's not safe for the political fortunes of Joe Biden and the Democrats, that if you read this article, it's gonna hurt the candidate

we support. All right, let's go to the next one. So how far did they go? White House spokeswoman Kaylee Mcaninny was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staff or Mike Cohn, who seethed quote at least pretend to care for the next twenty days. The next twenty days was until the election. And if you look at this email that the campaign staff are sent to Twitter, Kayley mccaneey has been knocked out of her account for simply

talking about the New York Post story. All she did is cite the story and first hand reporting that has been reported by other outlets when the story came out. Joe Biden didn't say this is not my son's laptop. Joe Biden didn't say this is false. He didn't say it was fraudulent. He just said, oh crap, this is bad. Please no one read it because I don't like the outcome. It makes me look really bad. The email continues, I need an answer immediately on when how she will be unlocked.

I also don't appreciate how nobody on this team called me regarding the news that you'll be censoring news articles like I said, at least to pretend to care for the next twenty days. Look, this is the White House Press secretary that Twitter bands less than three weeks before a presidential election. Why because Joe Biden the Democrats wanted this story suppressed and the arrogance of we will silence anyone. So now, according to Big Tech, the White House Press

secretary cannot talk about articles in major newspapers. The New York Post has the fourth largest circulation of any newspaper in the country that, as we now know, are true and accurate news stories, but are politically damaging to the side Twitter wants to prevail. If you're Kaylee MCKININNY and you see now what was happening behind the scenes, what are her options legally? Can she do anything because she was at the White House? Because that's what I think

many Democrats are betting on as well. This was the fog of war that so they kept going back to, right, we didn't. We were so concerned about Russianson's information. That's our get out of jail free card, and we were just trying to protect the integrity of an election. They're going to go back to that. That's their game plan here, And Bennet, It's why what Elon Musk is doing is so important, because they could maintain that a couple of days ago, they could say, oh, it was fog of war.

We were doing it because we thought it might be hacked. We were doing it. What Elon is doing is releasing the goods and so let's get through a few more of these, because it will show that the lefty Twitter defense is just complete bs. So let's get to the next one. You can see the confusion in the following lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gaddy and former Trust

and Safety chief Yoel Roth. Comm's official trent and Kennedy writes, quote, I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this is unsafe. And let's read the exchange in close. So this is October fourteenth, twenty twenty, so just a couple of weeks before the election. New York Post Hunter Biden laptop article privileged and confidential. Oh, I don't want to

get sued. Let me you put privilege and confidential on something when you're afraid of getting sued, and you're saying this email will really hurt us and cause us to lose if we get sued. Our teams continue to investigate the origins of the material included in the reporting. Trenton Kennedy is the COMMS official. I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this is unsafe, No kidding, and I think the best explainability argument. Okay, we got to

figure out a way to explain it. Yeah, we banned it because it hurts Biden. That's not a good answer. So I think the best explainability argument for this externally, not internally. Externally, internally, we know exactly what we're doing, but externally we got to figure out something to say. Would be that we're waiting to understand if this story is the result of hacked materials. We'll face hard questions if we don't have some kind of solid reasoning for

marking the link unsafe. And Katie Roseboro comes and says, will we mark similar stories as unsafe? And she points out that the Senate Homeland Security Committee was investigating the hard drive in the laptop. No answer to that, Let's go to the next one. By this point, everyone knew this was FT YEA, and they didn't abbreviate FT, said one four employee. But the response was essentially to air on the side of continuing to air. Now, let's look at the exchange back and forth, and it'd be quick.

This means let's just run out the clock. Yeah, close to election day. If we can just run out the clock here until the election, by default, if we win, we're good. We succeeded in our goal, which was to make sure that Joe Biden won the election and Donald Trump lost the election and other Republicans losing the process that are down ticket. We just gotta be smart. For twenty days, nineteen days, eighteen days, we're on account down clock, guys.

We can pull this off for our team. That's exactly right. And they know what they're doing is political. It's utterly transparent. Look, they're going back and forth. Yoel Roth, who was one of the senior officials at Twitter. The policy basis is hacked materials, though as discussed, this is an emerging situation where the facts remain unclear. In other words, we don't know that this is hacked. We're just making this up. By the way, it wasn't, but they didn't know it was.

Now here's the most revealing sentence of all of this. Given the severe severe as in all caps risks here and lessons of twenty sixteen, we're airing on the side of including a warning and preventing this content from being amplified. Now, what were the lessons of twenty sixteen. I'm trying to remember and go back to twenty sixteen. Well, there was this guy named Donald J. Trump, who won. Yeah, and the severe risks here is Donald Trump winning again. Holy crap.

If people read what Hunter Biden and Joe Biden we're doing, if they read the corruption, they're not going to vote for that guy, which means the guy we hate will get reelected. They're admitting, here's what's the risk. The risk is Trump wins. So we're just story nothing connected Hillary Quenton back in the day. They're literally saying, the risk is Donald Trump wins another four your term. That's exactly right.

All right, let's go to the next tweek. All right, so the former vice president of Global Communications guy named Brandon Borman asks, can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy and let's pull up the full context. Brandon Borman new to Ian's point, Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy, ie, as part of our approach and addressing potentially hacked materials, we are limiting visibility of related stories on Twitter while our investigation

is ongoing. Now, this is a brief moment of Okay, we're lying. Everyone knows we're lying. But do we have any fig leaf to pretend that we're following a policy and we're not simply doing the behest of Joe Biden's this almost like a conspiracy to commit fraud. You where if you the way that they're with every word you said, except for the word almost, it is conspiracy to commit fraud because there's a conspiracy to defraud the American people,

to defraud the American voters, to defraud democracy. This is, to use the term that Donald Trump likes, this is rigging an election. This is this is conspirac Say that again, because it's a very important point that you just said.

This is evidence of rigging an election. Now it's not rigging an election in the sense of Venezuela hacking into voting machines, but it is rigging an election in the sense of big tech billionaires at the behest of one of the two parties, silencing and censoring and blocking truthful reporting about facts that would change how people vote. So then there's an by the way, you know, you know who does this, Putin does this. You know who else does this? Shina does this. This is how dictators behave

if we have facts you don't want to see. Right now, Communist China is stopping the protesters from communicating exactly the same way Twitter was doing at the behest of the Biden White House. Hey, friends, you're listening to Verdict with Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson. We'll be right back to the podcast after I take a minute and tell you about American Hartford Gold group. Friends, if you're like me,

you're growing more and more concerned about the future. Inflation is at its highest level in forty years, interest rates or skyrocketing. Market experts like Jamie Diamond, CEO of JP Morgan not only predict a recession, but are using terms like economic hurricane and unprecedented. If you want to protect your future, do what I did. Call the only precious mental dealers I trust, American Hartford Gold. They can show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by

diversifying your portfolio with physical gold and silver. All it used to get started as a short phone call and they'll have physical golden silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or four or one K. They are the highest rated firm in the country with an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfy clients. And as an exclusive offer for Verdict fans, if you call them right now, they'll give you up to a fifteen hundred dollars, a free silver and a

free safe on qualifying orders. So don't wait, call them now. Dial eight five five seven six eight eighteen eighty three. That's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or text cactus to six five five three two. Again that's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or text cactus c act us to six five five three two. And now back to the podcast. I know there's so many people that are going to listen to this.

They're gonna say, I'm angry, I'm frustrated. So why isn't someone going to go to jail for this if you're gonna talk about consequences in a minute. Okay, let's keep going through the thread. Okay, Now, this is a very interesting one, to which former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker again ceeds to advise staying the non course because quote caution is warranted. Let's pull up exactly what Baker said. Jim Baker knew privilege and confidential. Notice the lawyer sticks

privilege and confidential. That's oh crap. This is a document that would be really bad if anyone sees, by the way, the thing that has totally screwed them all is Elon Musk bought the company. And so you can always weigh privilege the fact that Elon must decided to release it. It's Twitter that has the privilege. Yeah, so in litigate, not the individual right because Twitter is the client. So attorney client privilege the client owns and possesses it. The

client can wave attorney client privilege. So when Jim Baker typed this, he figured will Jack Dorsey owns Twitter? So Twitter will never name this privilege. And the relevance of this is if you had a lawsuit and the other side filed for discovery and tried to get this email anything that's labeled privilege and confidential off the record, at that point, a lot of it you'd have an argument.

You would have an argument in front of the chord about whether it was in fact privilege, whether it was attorney client privilege, whether it was advice being given to the client. And they're ways to waive that privilege, but the simplest one is for the client to say I waive it, which is what Elon Musk has done by releasing it. So let's see what Jim Baker says I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess

whether the materials were hacked. In other words, he's admitting we don't know if they were hacked or not at this stage. However, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been, and that caution is warranted. By the way, the Biden campaign wasn't saying they were hacked. Never once they say the laptop wasn't true. Never once the camp they say that it was inaccurate. Never once they come out and condemn it or say anything negative

about it. They were silenced because they understood that they couldn't say that. The email continues. There are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information. Now, who is Jim Baker? He was the general counsel of Twitter. You know what he did

before that, or was his job before that? He was the General council of the FBI, who, by the way, what everyone just take a moment to digest that that's a really big deal the FBI General Counsel who, which is not a little job, explain how big of a job that is the its a huge job in the FBI, and Jim Baker was intimately involved in much of the abuse of power we saw at the FBI. He then runs over and is at Twitter doing the same thing continuing.

One of the things that comes out in this thread is how much of a continuous web it is from the deep state at the FBI to big tech and Twitter, which is willingly part of the FBI's effort to silence dissent from those they disagree with. It really is stunning

that it's literally the same people. Can I hit pause on Twitter for a second, and again, I know that you don't know, but I think we can speculate at this point if this was going on at Twitter, is there any ounce of your thought process that thinks that somehow, other big tech companies like Facebook, we're not doing the exact same thing, the exact same emails, get having the

exact same communications that we're now seeing. Revealed by Elon Musk, they all were, and the mothership is Google, Google, and they own YouTube. Google is the biggest and the most powerful. Twitter was the most brazen, like like Dorsey was just screw it all. We're leftists and we're proud, but we know Facebook was doing this. They did the same thing on the Hunter Biden story. And Google is where you

have the biggest impact. And so I guarantee you Google and Facebook are both looking at this going oh crap, oh crap, you're airing dirty laundry. Don't talk about this in public. First rule of fight club as you don't talk about fight club. This for all a big tech and the abuse of power. This is pulling back the curtain.

Let's go to the next one. Although several sources recalled hearing about a quote 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. In fact, that might have been the problem. Let's gone to the next one. Quote they just freelanced it end quote is how one former employee characterized the decision. Quote

hacking was the excuse. But within a few hours pretty much everyone realized that wasn't going to hold, but no one had the guts to reverse it. Now stop and think about that, like they made up this hacking thing. That was the alibi. No, but he was conclaiming it, including the candidate, including Hunter Biden. Right, if Hunter Biden it came forward said this is not my laptop. Okay, that might be something. If Hunter Biden had come forward and said my laptop was hacked, you might at least

have something. None of that happened. Twitter just made it up. Oh crap, bad stuff for Joe Biden. I know it's hacked, but within hours let me read again the quote from one former employee. Within hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn't going to hold, but no one had the guts to reverse it. So they knew they were lying, but they thought they'd never get caught. Next to tweet all right.

An amazing subplot of the Twitter slash Hunter Biden laptop affair was how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey and how long it took for the situation to get unt Yeah again, they didn't abbreviate FT, but were this is a child friendly show, so we're doing so, as one X employee put it, even after Dorsey jumped in, So listen, I don't exonerate Dorsey in this. He created a culture where he put in place decision makers who were hard partisans, who hated Donald Trump, who

wanted Biden to win. And we're willing to do anything. We're willing to lie, We're willing to act at the behest of the Biden campaign. Remember the exchange at the beginning, Handled it? Handled it? Yeah, they view themselves as we have an obligation. What's the obligation learn from the quote lessons of twenty sixteen and make sure it doesn't happen again. There's been a lot of reporting saying Jack Dorsey is

mentioned there knew nothing. Was that on purpose by these employees, or do you think maybe he said leave me out of it so I have the ability deniability? Or do you think they just knew their marching orders so well, we can do this and this is normal active business for us. We're just gonna keep doing it. We don't need to call him because this is what we've been

doing for all these other stories. Possibly you know some combination who knows, who knows where he was, who knows what he was doing, who knows what his state of mind was at the time this was happening. I don't know any of that because you've actually questioned Dorsey. I have questioned, and it got pretty intense when you were questioning it. We have gotten into it on this topic.

And in a subsequent verdict, will we'll pull up and go back to Dorsey's testimony before Congress in light of this exchange that that will be one of the podcasts coming up. Let's finish going through this thread. All right, Now, here's an interesting thing. I'm just gonna read this. In one humorous exchange on Day one, Democratic Congressman Rocanna reaches out to Gaddy to gently suggest she hop on the

phone to talk about the quote backlash respeech. Kanna was the only Democratic official I could find in the files who expressed concern. And let's look at his email, Rocanna wrote, generating a huge backlaw on Hill re speech. Happy to chat if you're up for it, best Row. So number one, this Democrat congressman is on a first name basis with these high muckety MUCKs at Twitter, sends him this email. He to his credit, Look, I don't know Rocana my understanding. Yes,

he understood. This is a bad road to go down. He's a left wing Democrat, but apparently he's one of the very few liberals, who actually is a real liberal in that they believe in free speech. But let's do Let's do the next one. Twitter files continued quote the First Amendment isn't absolute. Zabo's letter contains chilling passages relaying Democratic lawmaker's attitudes. They want more moderation, and as for the Bill of Rights, it's quote not absolute. Let's read

the whole thing here. The Democrats meanwhile, complained that the companies are inept. They let conservatives muddy the water and make the Biden campaign look corrupt, even though Biden is innocent. They link this to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. She did nothing wrong, but the press wouldn't let the story go. It became a scandal far out of proportion. In their mind. Social media is doing the same thing. It doesn't moderate enough harmful content so that when it does like it

did yesterday, it becomes a story. If the companies moderated more, if they censored more, conservatives wouldn't even think to use social media for disinformation, misinformation or otherwise. And it continues. The Democrats were in agreement social media needs to moderate more because they're corrupting democracy and making all quote truth relative when pushed on how the government might insist on that consistent with the First Amendment. They demurred, quote, the

First Amendment isn't absolute. Now, this guy is a consultant or a lobbyist. I'm not sure what he does exactly, but it's some guy on Capitol Hill who's talking to a whole bunch of Democrat lawmakers right in the middle of this, and he's reporting back that, Hey, when I talk to the Democrats other than Rocana, none of them are unhappy at you censoring this story. But they are unhappy you're not censoring more. The request from Democrats is

censor more. In fact, censor so much that conservatives won't even be able to tell your censoring because you just silence everything. And that's what they did. Everything was fact check. We saw. Look, I was at CNN at the time when this was happening, as a conservative commentator fighting the tough fight there. We had to deal with media matters, and we had to deal with all of the things we were sharing being silence, and it was it happened instantaneous.

And now you have to wonder if you're not paranoid, you're just dealing with probably the reality that they said, Hey, these conservatives that are on TV. We want to shut them down, these concervatives. We need to just start nailing them and silencing and making sure their distributions. And clearly from those early texts, it was anything that went viral. It you didn't have to be famous, and you didn't have to have a mark. And notice the Democrat congressman

or complaining about quote truth. Right, the Hunter laptop was true, and they knew it was true. And well they knew at least that the Biden campaign wasn't denying it. They didn't care. Their definition of truth is anything that politically benefits Democrats. The definition of false is anything that politically hurts Democrats. All right, let's move to the next one. All right, So this is a very interesting This is not part of the Twitter thread. But to understand, you asked,

what are the consequences going to be? Yeah, So this is a tweet from Shaan Cooksey. Shaun Cooksey is a commissioner on the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission. I know Sean well. Shan used to be a lawyer on my staff in the Senate Office before he got appointed and confirmed to the FEC. Here's what Shaan Cooksey tweets out. Here's what Twitter told the FEC in its response to

a complaint about this event quote. Twitter did not receive a request from the Biden campaign to review, much less restrict, the New York Post articles and go to the next one. Nor did decision makers at Twitter, or to the best of the company's knowledge, anyone authorized to act on Twitter's behalf, even communicate with the Biden campaign regarding Twitter's decision to enforce its content moderation policies with respect to the New

York Post articles. You want to talk about very real consequences. It appears that Twitter lied to the Federal Election Commission, and I will point out so I've got here here in my hand. Their actual response. It's a lengthy response where they make those statements, but they attach at the back of their response two sworn affidavits, one from Yoel Roth, who's one of the senior officials deeply implicated in this where he says here a couple of things in his

sworn affidavit. As a matter of practice, neither I nor the other members of the site integrity team communicate directly with persons outside Twitter that report content for violating Twitter's policies. That's a lie. We know that, although he does say then, since twenty eighteen, I've had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security. And then

he goes on. He says Twitter's trust and safety leadership determined that the New York Post articles violated the distribution of hacked materials policy and the Private Information policy, and instructed the site integrity team to execute enforcement of those policies. We know from these internal discussions. No, they didn't determine it violated the hacked policies. They pulled that out of their rear end and then realize, oh, crap, there's no

evidence for us, no basis for us. But well, let's just stick to it, run out the clock and election day, and Roth's sworn Affidavid, the final two paragraphs I want to read for you. I did not receive any communications from, or have any communications with representatives for Biden for President, the Democratic National Committee, or any of their agents regarding the New York Post article before Twitter implemented the enforcement

actions on October fourteenth, twenty twenty. The final paragraph of the affidavit. To the best of my knowledge, no Twitter employees received any communications from or had any communications with representatives of Biden for President, the Democratic National Committee, or enter their agents regarding the New York Post article before Twitter implemented the enforcement actions on October fourteenth, twenty twenty.

There's a second sworn affidavit from Lauren Culberson, who was the head of US Public Policy, and she likewise, she says that she's the point person for officeholders, election officials, candidates, campaigns, and party committees. And she says that the public policy team receives requests from persons for tweets to be reviewed for ciance with Twitter's policy, and we forward those requests to review content to enforcement agents, including members of the

Trust and Safety teams. So she's the portal to send the request on and then she has the final two things. I didn't receive any communications with Biden, to the best of my knowledge, no one else received communications with Biden. And there's scorn affidavits, so that changes things. These two individuals who signed their name to sworn affidavits, if they don't have lawyers, they need to call a lawyer. They need to call a lawyer right now, because they are

facing potential civil liability, potential criminal liability. And I'll point out on top of that, Twitter faces liability, but you know who else faces liability the Biden campaign and the DNC. Really, so they could be sued and it could be legitimate. Well, look, the basis of the complaint that Twitter lied to the FEC about was that Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story was an in kind campaign contribution to Biden for president. And so their whole defense is no, no, no, we

just did this based on our hack materials policy. It wasn't it wasn't about Biden at all. We now know that's a total lie. And I'll tell you what's interesting. The next tronch of materials is dropping any minute now, which means we know what Wednesday's show is going to be about. Yep, We're gonna keep doing a deep dive into this. I will say this to everyone that is listening and watching us Wednesday morning, we will continue part two of this. We will go through it for you

so you understand what's happening. We do want you to get in the fight in the game. Make sure you hit that forward button, the share button, share the video the audio file with all your family and friends. Senator crew is gonna keep going deep into this on Wednesday morning.

We do this podcast Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. I have a feeling all this week it's gonna be on this, So if you if you miss an episode, make sure you go back and listen to it as this keeps coming out and I have a feeling sent and I think you'll agree with me. What they're doing at Twitter right now is they're saying this is who we were, and we're not going to be this moving forward, and we're not going to pull back from this. We're going to keep unloading this information in a way. And it

was clear Elon must said this is basically just the beginning. Now, I would assume he's seen everything, which means there's a lot more to this and it gets worse than what we've even seen. So stay with us all week. It's gonna be very interesting to see what this means. I'm

going to make a prediction. I think this is going to bring a lot of pain to Facebook at some point, absolutely, And I think what it's also seeing now is this worrying you're hearing is document shredders at Facebook and Google and YouTube that they're shredding things like crazy because they're worried what's coming next. Well, and if there's anything you can connect these two dots with is what they were

doing with the laptop. And the way they dealt with these things is exactly the same way that they were dealing with doctor Fauci and anything he wanted to be silenced with COVID nineteen. And if you look at how different those stories are, one was quote fake hack material, the other one was just a government saying we want the narrator to be what it is. I think these stories are going to be intertwined in a way like we never could have imagined. Stay with us all week long.

We'll see you back Wednesday morning. Hit that share button right a five star review center. This has been fun. Wednesday morning, We'll see all you guys back here.