How a left-wing cabal rigged an election
Elon Musk may be the only person on the planet who can save our republic. Without free speech, there is no survival.
Opening statement
There was a secret conspiracy by a media-government-left-wing fusion to ensure Donald Trump lost the presidential election in 2020. It was a well-funded cabal of powerful people working behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules, flout laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information. Social media helped to suppress the truth and spread the lie about the provenance of Hunter Biden’s laptop. This is how the cabal shaped the 2020 election news coverage and rigged an election.
Authoritarian regimes are characterized by propaganda, surveillance, and media control. The control of social media by a few big tech companies, working with the Democratic Party and government officials, is anathema to free speech. All are designed to censor and silence unwanted free expression while advancing state and Party propaganda.
Exhibit 1
Mark Zuckerberg did not simply use his companies to moderate and censor information for political purposes or collude with the FBI media teams. He infused $419 million (tax-deductible) into supposedly nonpartisan, tax-exempt political groups that were created to absorb or fuse with the work of registrars in key left-wing precincts to warp and expand the Biden vote.
Elon Musk has exposed the efforts of former Twitter executives to suppress free speech and promote [woke progressive] political bias on its social media platform. On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs rationalized the banning of Trump and changed the company’s policy for him alone.
Exhibit 2
Internal correspondence shows that Twitter executives partnered with the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate efforts to censor and moderate election discussions and content. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding” actions by Trump and supporters “throughout the election and frankly last 4+ years.”
However, federal and state governments may not direct social media platforms to censor the expression of political views, Covid-19, Hunter Biden’s laptop, or anything else. The law is clear: the First Amendment prohibits the government from using private companies to accomplish what it cannot do directly. The challenge for individuals to bring a case alleging censorship is almost impossible. Without discovery, it is hard to prove the government targeted a specific person – and any paper trail is likely to be of the “plausible deniability” kind.
Argument
Twitter executives censored and silenced voices to manage and shape public narratives. Their objective was to prevent Trump from winning a second term as President. Government agencies ‘suggested’ and Twitter complied enthusiastically, regardless of company rules, and violated the First Amendment. As a private company, Twitter has the right to restrict what is said on its platform, but if it does so on behalf of the government, it violates constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Twitter’s complicity
In the months before January 6, there was an erosion of standards within Twitter: decisions by high-ranking executives violated company policies during an ongoing and documented interaction with federal agencies. Twitter removed President Donald Trump on January 8 after the January 6 Capitol riots. As soon as they banned Trump, Twitter execs started processing new [censorship] powers.
Exhibit 3
After January 6, internal correspondence shows Twitter executives enjoying their intensified relationship with federal agencies. Here’s Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth lamenting a lack of “generic enough” calendar descriptions to conceal his “very interesting” meeting partners—the FBI, DNI, and DHS. Roth’s past tweets reveal how he felt about Trump and his supporters—hatred, and contempt. In 2017, Roth tweeted that there were “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,” and “this is the reason we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine.”
Initial reports 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 and disgraced Deputy General Counsel (and former top FBI lawyer) Jim Baker.
There was tension between Safety Operations – a larger department whose staffers used a more rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats – and a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy execs like Roth and Gadde. The latter group was a high-speed Supreme Court of moderation, issuing content rulings on the fly, often in minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, and even Google searches, including cases involving the President.
During this time, executives were liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about the moderation of election-related content. They were also liaising with the Democratic National Committee and White House officials.
Twitter executives denied such secret suppression efforts both in public and before Congress. CEO Jack Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.” Dorsey also explicitly denied under oath that there was “shadow banning” based on political ideology. Likewise, in 2018, Gadde declared, “We do not shadow ban. And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
Exhibit 4
However, internal communications about the Hunter Biden laptop show that Roth met weekly with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Some of Roth’s later correspondence indicates that his weekly confabs with federal law enforcement involved separate meetings. In one post he ghosts the FBI and DHS to go first to an “Aspen Institute thing,” and then take a call with Apple. Could these discussions be about keeping Trump out of office? In my view, it passes the Duck Test, a form of inferential logic usually expressed as “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it likely is a duck.”
Closing statement
Before J6, Twitter was a unique mix of automated, rules-based enforcement, and more subjective moderation by senior executives. The firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most of which were thrown at Trump, and others, pre-J6. As the election approached, senior executives, perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more often as time progressed, increasingly struggled with rules and began to speak of “vios” (violations) as pretexts to do what they would likely have done anyway.
Elon Musk has unmasked how the Left rigged the election and deceived the American people. It’s time to fight the rotten and corrupt cabal trying to control our lives and how we think. If we fail, we lose our country and the American way of life. The window of opportunity to turn our country around will close at some point, and it may already be too late. If so, this will not end well. Elon Musk may be the only person on the planet who can save our republic. Without free speech, there is no survival. Trump was right about the big issues, and they crucified him for telling the truth. As he tried to drain the swamp, they pulled him in, one lie at a time. Elon Musk has unmasked how the Left rigged the election and deceived the American people. It’s time now to say Enough!
https://boingboing.net/2022/12/12/video-of-elon-musk-getting-booed-on-stage-at-dave-chappelles-show-last-night-was-removed-from-twitter-heres-a-copy.html
Lol