Elon Musk releases internal documents of conversations between Twitter staff and political figures, and among Twitter staff and executives, about various restrictions on accounts that allegedly violated Twitter policies. Blocking accounts that Tweeted or re-Tweeted a NY Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop — nominally under Twitter’s Hacked Materials Policy — drew intense internal discussions. Subsequent episodes of the Twitter files discuss the heavily-Democratic Twitter staff’s approach to controversial conservative content, and former President Donald Trump’s tweets. Should House Republicans issue subpoenas, and hold hearings to probe the roots and consequences of Twitter’s controversial actions?
Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott, have hosted a current events news show multiple times each week since 2009 thanks to our Members and donors. To give with PayPal, bank card or check, tap the big blue button above. To become a Member, tap the big green button today.
21 replies on “Let the Hearings Begin! Elon Musk Drops ‘The Twitter Files’ (Should House GOP Issue Subpoenas?)”
It’s not just the carrier/producer thing, it’s also, as you brought up earlier, they were working at the behest of the Federal Government.
That’s why I stopped watching Fox News over a decade ago. I might even agree with Hannity on many … most things. But that kind of shallow “rah-rah” and talking over people when any kind of counter-point is made. There is no debate on Fox (or any other cable news). It’s basically pontificating. And impolite pontificating when they pretend to ask for other opinions.
Bari Weiss. I subscribe to her newsletter. Good stuff.
58% of the people … who voted for Biden …. said yes, or 58% of the people who were asked said yes? Either way … that’s a huge swing.
I think y’all on Right Angle are missing a key ingredient. What I gathered from you is: “Elon Musk can make Twitter a carrier by refusing to censor anything, OR he can be a publisher by selectively censoring certain things and in so doing give up all his Section 230 protections, but he can’t do both. And by way of example, you talked about him kicking Ye off for his Nazi/Hitler remarks. “All of a sudden, he’s a publisher” one of you said, although I’m paraphrasing.
I think you’re wrong, and I’m hoping Musk is smart enough to see why.
Have you ever read Section 230? I mean actually read it? It’s pretty short, and it’s surprisingly legible. It’s here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
In relevant part (as the lawyers say), it says:
=============
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or…
=============
[emphasis mine]
Everybody misses the Good Samaritan and in good faith parts. And that’s the whole problem that there has been with Twitter and the rest of social media since Trump arrived on the scene. Their efforts have not been in good faith; they haven’t been Good Samaritans. They’ve been exercising raw, naked partisanship, and the recent Twitter Files have proven that. They’ve been enjoying Section 230 protection that they didn’t deserve because of their own behavior.
So, the question becomes: Can Musk thread that needle? That is, can he exercise some modicum of control over what’s being posted while still enjoying the protections of Section 230? Can he be a carrier rather than a publisher?
I think he can. I think he’s smart enough, and I think he surrounds himself with enough smart people to do it. If he (or more precisely, his staff) can suppress only those things that all of our society agrees is bad (glorification of Hitler; child porn), and be transparent and public about what he’s doing and why, I think he can still enjoy the protections of Section 230. And that’s something I would root for.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the previous management of Twitter violated the Good Samaritan or in good faith parts of 230. No doubt whatsoever. But that doesn’t mean Twitter should lose Section 230 protection so long as Musk gets his house in order.
If multiple civil cases are proven against the Twitter employees by individuals who were silenced and therefor injured, the DOJ, even under Obiden, will have a horribly hard time of ignoring these 1st Amendment atrocities.
Dr, Malone is reinstated at Twitter. He said HE IS BACK. This goes against what he said earlier about getting off Twitter! Good grief.
Alison Fauci, Fauci’s daughter, works inside Twitter. Gee, I wonder what was the purpose of that?
Would it surprise anyone that The Qatar Authority is heavily invested in Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter? Dr. Robert Malone says that Twitter is a cyber weapon and he appears to say that it cannot be reformed. He advises people to leave Twitter and not be a part of supporting its intentional anti America and anti free speech PSY-Ops .
BILL …. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do something to fix your audio production quality. You are speaking down a tin tube and almost totally incomprehensible! Both Steve and Scott have excellent audio that are completely understandable … you are NOT!!!
Not all that long ago we gave the GOP The House, The Senate and The White House. They pissed it away because… reasons. Well, that and TDS.
More recently Mitch McConnell got a twofer by taking campaign money away from Blake in Arizona and giving it to Murkowski in Alaska against Tshibaka, thus assuring his continued control as Senate minority leader by eliminating two potential dissidents to his leadership. Kevin McCarthy is Mitch lite. Rona McDaniel as RNC chair I don’t follow as closely and I probably should but she seems as useful as the other two GOP leaders. Collectively, they have been called variations of McFailure by Matt Gaetz, and others.
I don’t want that lot leading any investigation as their thumbprints would be all over the scales of justice… overlying those of the “D’s” that came before.
Please Bill. Fix your Microphone.
Bill, I think that your Borg voice modulator needs adjuting…
Bari is pronounced with a long ‘A’, Steve. 8>)
The real problem in holding these people to account is the Department of Justice.
It is to be expected that politicians are going to preen, prance and pose when they’re given the chance. That’s the nature of the beast. That doesn’t mean that while they’re politicking they can’t get some actual work done. For instance, I don’t care a bit if Jim Jordan or Ted Cruz are playing the cameras for all they’re worth as long as they are also accomplishing something.
If what they accomplish is the exposure of crimes and criminal actors that’s great. They can refer those crimes and criminals to the DOJ for investigation and prosecution. That’s the end of their say in the matter and that’s as it should be. Don’t ever forget that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and any changes or precedents we set may be used against us to devastating effect in the future. Ask Harry Reid about that and how he feels about the way his rule change led to a Conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
The problem is that even when actual crimes are exposed and referred to the DOJ, the DOJ refuses to do anything about them.
The Justice Department as a prosecutorial body is not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial Branch of the government is defined but not the Department of Justice headed by the U.S. Attorney General.
The DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch by statutory law as defined in 28 USC Part II. Being as this is statutory law the DOJ is subject itself to laws and changes in the laws.
A means needs to be created to force the DOJ to enforce any and all laws of the United States of America. This means we can create laws to do just that and we should do so with top priority the next time the Republican Party is in power.
Congress should be given the power to impeach the Attorney General for dereliction of duty and to hold all members of the DOJ accountable to real justice henceforth. A means to enforce this needs to be studied and created which would apply equally to the power of the DOJ no matter which party holds predominant power in the U.S. Government.
We should be OK with the laws created by our Government being applied to us as well as the other side. Those laws can always be rescinded or changed by the next Conservative government we elect.
The DOJ must be forced to apply the law equally, without prejudice for the party in power or against the party not in power.
If you want to see these criminals held accountable then this is the way to do it. Griping and grousing does nothing, this is a practical solution that can be practically implemented under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America.
I agree with your general comment, and have some additional ideas that might bear discussion or debate for feasibility or viability. Reality will probably end up being more complicated than this simple list, but I don’t see anything here that hasn’t probably been thoroughly addressed by legal beagles in a similar context for normal civil or criminal cases.
To give congressional oversight real teeth when referring items to the DOJ for investigation and high likelihood of indictment, I believe:
Perhaps it slipped your mind that Article II, Section 4 does allow for impeachment of “all civil officers”, in addition to the Pres. and VP. I thought members of the federal judiciary were also subject to “impeachment”, but in my quick scan of Article III I did not happen to see that explicit language used, vs. “good Behaviour”.
I agree in general principle that criminal referrals from Congress should take a priority but we have to remember that sometimes there will be a Democrat Congress and some of those referrals could be very petty and more politically driven than actually a matter of seeing justice served. So that’s a problem I can foresee.
I don’t like the idea at all of giving the DOJ money above and beyond its considerable budget to do something it ought to be doing anyway. That smells of bribery and corruption to me. It would be terribly easy for a Democrat controlled Congress to just pump a bunch of cash into the DOJ with the promise of even more to come “if they like what they see”. It’s already too easy for the Left to weaponize government institutions against their opposition, that would make it a lot easier and a lot more legal to do that.
I’d take the opposite tack. If the DOJ receives X number of criminal referrals from Congress per budget year and does not act in a timely manner (less than 6 months) on a large percentage of them (say 90% or so) then the DOJ budget will be reduced by 1 million dollars per ignored referral. Or some mechanism like that, I’m not sure what would be best but I think the right brains can come up with the right answer.
If the DOJ and Attorney General knew every ignored criminal referral was going to cost them a chunk of their budget that might motivate them to pay a little closer attention to those referrals no matter what party holds power.
I also think that regarding criminal referrals by Congress the DOJ should be required to regularly (monthly) make a report on progress to that body of Congress or the Committee that originated the referral.
Basically a criminal referral from Congress is the same thing as probable cause. It shouldn’t be all that time consuming or complicated to determine if the probable cause sent over from Congress is valid or not, then write a legal report on the conclusions so that they can be reviewed by independent criminal lawyers to see if the DOJ is pulling a fast one or doing its job.
The Checks and Balances system allows for this sort of oversight and check on Executive Branch power. If DOJ doesn’t do it’s job then it has to be incentivised to change its ways.
I didn’t forget about Article III impeachment powers but I can see by rereading what I said I didn’t make myself clear either.
Congress has the power to impeach all civil officers. The Attorney General is absolutely a civil officer. What I want to see is grounds laid. specified and codified that spell out exactly what is required for an impeachment conviction. Saying “Oh we’re going to impeach so-and-so” sounds all grand and more than a little nebulous. The qualifier “on good behavior” in Article III is open to interpretation. I’m sure Barack Obama and Potato Joe thought their Attorneys General were behaving very good.
Saying “We’re going to impeach and remove Merrick Garland under USC Part N section x.y.z for dereliction of duty and here’s the evidence he violated that statute … ” is a much more specific threat and is much more likely to have some result.
Put some teeth in Article III because it looks to be all gum to me. Congress absolutely has the power to do this and I don’t think they need to kiss DOJ’s ass to do it.
Subpoenas, and investigations are not what the average mom and pop want. Folks want to be able to afford to have eggs and milk and bread at a reasonable price and be able to heat their home this winter.The GOP can investigate until the cows come home and the present administration will not punish anyone.
I just want the GOP to be able to tell us what they plan to do and how they are going to do it. They say they have plans so let’s hear what they are.
The election (2020) is over, and we need to move on as there is no way in Hell that there is a way to remove the POTUS and we need to deal with it in a constructive fashion. Let’s initiate positive change for the betterment of all.
I know I speak for a lot of folks. We’ve been down this road so … many … times. With … no … consequences.
Bill – being “under oath” never stopped Comey from lying. Never stopped Fauci from lying on his deposition. Never stopped Brennan from lying. Appearing before Congress and lying under oath has become a badge of honor because the consequences are nil.
Call me jaded and cynical, but any “investigation” done by “Congress” just leads to more posturing, preening, and face time for the politicians. In short, an investigation done by either house of Congress isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on — especially, as Steve noted, under a Biden DOJ.