‘Biden Team’ Requested Twitter Scrub Scandalous Hunter Biden Info Days before 2020 Election

[Valletta]

In an email dated October 24, just days before the 2020 presidential election, the “Biden team” reportedly demanded that Twitter scrub information critical of Hunter Biden from the site, according to a jaw dropping release of “The Twitter Files” by new CEO Elon Musk.

‘Biden Team’ Requested Twitter Scrub Scandalous Hunter Biden Info Days before 2020 Election | National Review

Content the ‘Biden team’ asked Twitter to delete included graphic images of Hunter Biden’s nudity.

www.nationalreview.com

It really makes me sick, the deception these people are willing to perpetrate in order to win an election.

 

[stevil]

In an email dated October 24, just days before the 2020 presidential election, the “Biden team” reportedly demanded that Twitter scrub information critical of Hunter Biden from the site, according to a jaw dropping release of “The Twitter Files” by new CEO Elon Musk.

‘Biden Team’ Requested Twitter Scrub Scandalous Hunter Biden Info Days before 2020 Election | National Review

Content the ‘Biden team’ asked Twitter to delete included graphic images of Hunter Biden’s nudity.

www.nationalreview.com

It really makes me sick, the deception these people are willing to perpetrate in order to win an election.

Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Of course Twitter could say no to the government.
I would deem it a problem if the government tried to force Twitter, like, let's say they threatened to unleash an intrusive tax audit, or threatened to create laws against Twitter, or such.
Did the government threaten or pressure Twitter?

 

[Valletta]

Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Of course Twitter could say no to the government.
I would deem it a problem if the government tried to force Twitter, like, let's say they threatened to unleash an intrusive tax audit, or threatened to create laws against Twitter, or such.
Did the government threaten or pressure Twitter?

Government resources cannot be used in political campaigns. That means if you work for the government and information might damage the candidate of your choice, you can't use a government phone or identify yourself as working for the government and contact someone to suppress that information.

 

[stevil]

Government resources cannot be used in political campaigns. That means if you work for the government and information might damage the candidate of your choice, you can't use a government phone or identify yourself as working for the government and contact someone to suppress that information.

OK, sounds exciting.

Michael Cohen got done for co-conspiring in the pay-off of Stormy Daniels. (Individual 1) was mentioned but I presume as he was the sitting president was not charged. Money exchanged hands and was deemed as an illegal campaign contribution. In that situation the lawyer faced legal repercussions, the president didn't face any repercussions, no charges, no censure, no impeachment, no hearing, nothing.

So here, there is a suggestion (without evidence) that someone in office (or FBI for some reason) asked Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop articles or posts. When Joe Biden was running for office he was not already in office. The White House was run by the Republicans. The FBI is obviously an independent.

At this stage, it doesn't seem that there is any evidence to suggest that anyone did any wrongdoing, so if an investigation is started, it doesn't seem to be founded on anything.

 

[JosephZ]

So the Biden team (A non-government entity) was asking Twitter to take down tweets showing nudity, which is a violation of Twitter's policies anyway. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The bigger issue seems to involve the Trump administration (The government) requesting that twitter remove certain content from Twitter. In both cases however, the final decisions on what content to allow and what content to suppress were made by Twitter (A private company). There really doesn't appear to be anything news worthy about any of this.

 

[Valletta]

OK, sounds exciting.

Michael Cohen got done for co-conspiring in the pay-off of Stormy Daniels. (Individual 1) was mentioned but I presume as he was the sitting president was not charged. Money exchanged hands and was deemed as an illegal campaign contribution. In that situation the lawyer faced legal repercussions, the president didn't face any repercussions, no charges, no censure, no impeachment, no hearing, nothing.

So here, there is a suggestion (without evidence) that someone in office (or FBI for some reason) asked Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop articles or posts. When Joe Biden was running for office he was not already in office. The White House was run by the Republicans. The FBI is obviously an independent.

At this stage, it doesn't seem that there is any evidence to suggest that anyone did any wrongdoing, so if an investigation is started, it doesn't seem to be founded on anything.

You asked about whether the activities were illegal or unethical. As I said, if the government was involved, and we now know they interfered in the election in other ways, that would be illegal. Collusion between Twitter and the Biden campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee to suppress a story is extremely unethical. Either way there is no question that there is wrongdoing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You asked about whether the activities were illegal or unethical. As I said, if the government was involved, and we now know they interfered in the election in other ways, that would be illegal. Collusion between Twitter and the Biden campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee to suppress a story is extremely unethical. Either way there is no question that there is wrongdoing.

Doesn't Twitter allow inappropriate contentography?

 

[Valletta]

Doesn't Twitter allow inappropriate contentography?

Kayleigh McEnany was locked out her personal Twitter account after she shared the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop and an email linking Joe Biden to his son's job for a Ukrainian energy company. The idea at Twitter was to suppress the story so Joe could get elected.

 

[stevil]

You asked about whether the activities were illegal or unethical. As I said, if the government was involved, and we now know they interfered in the election in other ways, that would be illegal. Collusion between Twitter and the Biden campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee to suppress a story is extremely unethical. Either way there is no question that there is wrongdoing.

Depends on your definition of wrong doing.
I have not seen any evidence of "collusion" between Twitter and the Biden campaign and /or the DNC.

Biden would not be allowed to pay money to Twitter to kill a story. But I don't see any problem with Biden or other asking twitter to remove a story. Twitter can easily refuse.

Fox News after all were "colluding" with Trump and his campaign running upto the 2020 election. Hannity and Piro went on stage with Trump at the Rallies. And Hannity was texting Mark Meadows on where a push was needed to drum up republican voting. That was bad from a supposed "news integrity" point of view, but was not seen as illegally "colluding" or being an off the books campaign contribution.

It really seems to me that the far right propoganda people are pushing really hard to make something out of nothing here. And it doesn't seem to be all that hard to get the average joe Republican supporter who is already suspicious of everything, i.e. The Deep State, the Doj, the FBI, The Tech companies, the RINO's. Its all just silly paranoia and leads people to believe an election was stolen (without any supporting evidence) and believe that the "left" are controlling the media and controlling the tech companies (without any supporting evidence). Just paranoia and lots of opinion show personalities selling this nonsense 24x7.

 

[Pommer]

Collusion between Twitter and the Biden campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee to suppress a story is extremely unethical.

Hearst was “influencing elections” long before Jack Dorsey’s father was a glint in his father’s eye.
But, please do enjoy being outraged over influencers influencing.
Nonstory.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Kayleigh McEnany was locked out her personal Twitter account after she shared the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop and an email linking Joe Biden to his son's job for a Ukrainian energy company. The idea at Twitter was to suppress the story so Joe could get elected.

It's hard to disagree though I think Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think the left cares about their team colluding with big tech.

 

[JosephZ]

Doesn't Twitter allow inappropriate contentography?

Yes, but not non-consensual nudity.

inappropriate contentography and other forms of consensually produced adult content are allowed on Twitter, provided that this media is marked as sensitive. Doing so provides people who may not want to see this type of content with a warning that they will need to acknowledge before viewing your media.

Non-consensual nudity: You may not post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent.

Sharing explicit sexual images or videos of someone online without their consent is a severe violation of their privacy and the Twitter Rules. Sometimes referred to as revenge inappropriate content, this content poses serious safety and security risks for people affected and can lead to physical, emotional, and financial hardship.

Under this policy, you can’t post or share explicit images or videos that were taken, appear to have been taken or that were shared without the consent of the people involved.

Examples of the types of content that violate this policy include, but are not limited to:

• hidden camera content featuring nudity, partial nudity, and/or sexual acts;
• creepshots or upskirts - images or videos taken of people’s buttocks, up an individual’s skirt/dress or other clothes that allows people to see the person’s genitals, buttocks, or breasts;
• images or videos that superimpose or otherwise digitally manipulate an individual’s face onto another person’s nude body;
• images or videos that are taken in an intimate setting and not intended for public distribution; and
• offering a bounty or financial reward in exchange for intimate images or videos.

Rules and policies

help.twitter.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hearst was “influencing elections” long before Jack Dorsey’s father was a glint in his father’s eye.
But, please do enjoy being outraged over influencers influencing.
Nonstory.

Was Hearst a publisher? or was Hearst running "platform" or "public service" and enjoying the benefits and legal exemptions that go along with it?

I'd argue that collusion between government entities and a platform to remove certain content so people can't see would be more likened to if, pre-email days, Fed Ex was the primary vehicle for sending written communication back and forth (and not the USPS), and if Fed Ex had a staunch political leaning, and took it upon themselves to make sure mailers and newsletters from the other party got intercepted and didn't reach the intended audience.

A cozy relationship between the government and a "platform" (that's recognized to be in the "private sector) is a problem in the same way that straw purchases of firearms are a problem. It's an entity (that has restrictions against them and aren't allowed to do something), getting someone else, who can, to do it for them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Of course Twitter could say no to the government.
I would deem it a problem if the government tried to force Twitter, like, let's say they threatened to unleash an intrusive tax audit, or threatened to create laws against Twitter, or such.
Did the government threaten or pressure Twitter?

Of course they could say "no"...much like someone could say "no" to the local crime boss when he stops by one's business for a "visit"

There's always the implication of force and pressure when you're dealing with the regulatory body who has the power to make or break you.

"if you don't play ball with us, it could be bad for you...it'd be a shame if we got together and had a little vote and passed a little bill that reclassified you as a publisher instead of a platform and you got sued for something illegal someone put in the comments section...if you work with us, we can make sure we protect you from that"
...is not unlike...
"nice restaurant you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it, but we can protect the joint for you"

 

[DaisyDay]

Government resources cannot be used in political campaigns. That means if you work for the government and information might damage the candidate of your choice, you can't use a government phone or identify yourself as working for the government and contact someone to suppress that information.

Are you unaware that Biden was not government in 2020?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Importantly this was not government, it was the Biden campaign.

 

[Don't Panic]

Would that actually be illegal or unethical?
The government asking the owners of twitter to take stuff down?

Of course Twitter could say no to the government.
I would deem it a problem if the government tried to force Twitter, like, let's say they threatened to unleash an intrusive tax audit, or threatened to create laws against Twitter, or such.
Did the government threaten or pressure Twitter?

It wasn't the government making the request, it was the Biden campaign and hence no question of legality. Should campaigns not argue against the dissemination of what they see as unfounded malicious information? You tell me.

 

[stevil]

Of course they could say "no"...much like someone could say "no" to the local crime boss when he stops by one's business for a "visit"

There's always the implication of force and pressure when you're dealing with the regulatory body who has the power to make or break you.

"if you don't play ball with us, it could be bad for you...it'd be a shame if we got together and had a little vote and passed a little bill that reclassified you as a publisher instead of a platform and you got sued for something illegal someone put in the comments section...if you work with us, we can make sure we protect you from that"
...is not unlike...
"nice restaurant you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it, but we can protect the joint for you"

If this happened, if threats were made or implied, then I'd have a problem with it. But if people simply asked, then I wouldn't have a problem.
It's very different to when Trump was withholding javellins from Ukraine when Ukraine were under attack from the Russians. Trump was withholding and telling them that they must first appear on USA TV and announce an investigation into Joe Biden. The Ukraine president even got to the stage that he had booked his tv slot. But luckily news broke of the extortion scheme and so he didn't need to carry through with it.

If Biden had done something similar with Twitter, then it would be problematic. Although, it doesn't seem that there is any evidence to suggest this has happened. Unless I have missed some news. Has a whistle blower come forward? Or is this something that right wing opinion show hosts have imagined and broadcast into the unthinking minds of their audience??

I do remember that nothing happened to Trump though. His subordinates in the Senate decided it wasn't a problem.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Given how the Trump campaign and Trump himself (as POTUS) almost ceaselessly demanded an end to media "witch hunts" and "fake news", the excitement over this nothingburger is hilarious.

 

[Valletta]

Are you unaware that Biden was not government in 2020?

Joe was running for office in 2020, it was the FBI and Justice Department that were working with Big Tech in order to see Joe was elected.