Twitter Files Part 2

Post Millennial The tools of suppression 

Not so much about outside influences in this batch, mostly just how censorship and bias was exercised by the Twitter staff. 

One item of interest regarding the release of the Twitter Files. It appears that former FBI lawyer and later Twitter lawyer Jim Baker concealed files from Musk and may have destroyed some.  

94 thoughts on “Twitter Files Part 2

  1. The revelation of blacklists stands out to me in this Part II release.

    It is one thing to censor a single message based on its content, but it is something else to censor multiple messages based on the identity of the messenger. The first might sometimes reflect editorial judgement. The second is pure bigotry (or witch hunting).


  2. I spoke too soon about the lack of outside influences.

    In addition to Jim Baker, who left the FBI (maybe) to work for Twitter, Jeff Carlton, the head of the Twitter Strategic Response Team, which did the censoring, joined Twitter immediately after being employed by the FBI and then the CIA.

    So, the Twitter censors appear to be Deep State transferees.


      1. Hannity is an opinion provider, not a news person. He makes no claim to be anything else.

        My problem is that the MSM does not make that distinction, their news is advocacy.

        If you find bias in FOX News, let me know,

        Honest coverage of news you would prefer be ignored ike the MSM, that is not bias.


        1. Murdoch was grooming and supporting Trump for president for years. He used his NewsCorp empire to propagandize for Trump.

          When you say MSM you really should recognize NewsCorp as one of the biggest. Same with Sinclair in radio.

          So FOX didn’t edit their news coverage by omission? Sure.

          Liked by 2 people

        1. “Musk correctly identified Wokeness as a mind virus, driving reason from the minds of those infected.”

          Yes. It’s bad. Just look at how irrational and emotional it makes you people. The idea that other people care more about injustice and racism than you do is so hard to take. Who do these virtue-signaling meanies think they are?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “I don’t think the woke really are concerned with injustice so much as the appearance of being concerned.”

            Oh, what makes you think that? Since there is no way of knowing what is in other people’s minds the only source of insight would be projection from your own.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Conservative MSM collaborated with Trump, but I don’t recall any outrage from the right.”

      MSM and social media are different animals. In a typical MSM enterprise, content is produced by specialists, but in a typical social media enterprise content is produced by the public. Because the models of operation are different, the essential problem sets are different. Thus, for example, bias and malpractice are problems for MSM whereas censorship is a problem for social media.

      With the Twitter releases, however, we are learning that MSM and social media have something in common — the scourge of corporatism wherein political, business and ideological interests converge, driving out liberty.


      1. “…the scourge of corporatism wherein political, business and ideological interests converge, driving out liberty.”

        That is free press in a capitalist society. Media magnates go way back in our history. Hearst was a brutal publisher who was not terribly honest. And in bed with politicians. Even Mark Twain warned against media power and influence (press) since they buy paper by the ton and ink by the barrel.

        Today is probably the most open media field we have because anyone can access virtually thousands of sites for coverage of a story. And do so with mouse clicks instead of hours or days at libraries.

        In our conspiracy driven nation, no matter which media publishes, ignores or censors, it will be taken to task. Twitter is the flavor of the month for right wing vapors. Not long ago it was FaceBook.
        perhaps next month it will be Gettr or Truth Social.

        But for now, the right wing is flapping its wings about Twitter in a desperate attempt to divert attention from its own nest of ideological hatchlings. That, and jealousy because they cannot create successful social media that everyone wants to use. And, more importantly, that can make money through advertising. You know, the free market capitalist style.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “That is free press in a capitalist society.”

          No, it is a controlled press in a centrally planned (non-capitalist) society.

          RE: “Today is probably the most open media field we have because anyone can access virtually thousands of sites for coverage of a story.”

          Don’t confuse quantity with quality.

          RE: “In our conspiracy driven nation…”

          You are the one pushing conspiracy theories here. For example, you accuse “right wing is flapping its wings about Twitter in a desperate attempt to divert attention from its own nest of ideological hatchlings.”

          RE: “You know, the free market capitalist style.”

          Sorry, the point about the Twitter revelations is that the free market of ideas was compromised.

          I think your comment is an attempt to rationalize your own biases. You could make a more effective argument if it were possible to show that Twitter did NOT practice blacklisting.


          1. You seem to disagree without explanation.

            How are we a centrally planned society?

            “You are the one pushing conspiracy theories here.” By pointing out the obvious? I don’t think what Republicans are doing is a conspiracy. I just think it’s what they do.
            Trump absconds with state secrets, then stories about Obama loading 33 million in the back of a pickup, or it’s sillier equivalents.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “How are we a centrally planned society?”

            The current Twitter story exemplifies central planning — as any organized attempt to control public information would. Twitter doesn’t represent our whole nation, but one can find other examples, such as the fact that all of MSM is owned by just six corporations.

            RE: “By pointing out the obvious?”

            Your assertion was far from obvious. You asserted that Republicans are attempting to divert attention, but you don’t substantiate the claim. You are just theorizing.

            Instead of making every story about Trump or other Republican bogeymen, why not focus on the issue raised — in this case, blacklisting and censorship in social media?


          3. “ …all of MSM is owned by just six corporations.”

            International media also? 6 corporations are more than US car companies.

            Trump is relevant. His rants, threats, lies and incitement set the stage.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. “No, it is not, it is actual journalism.”

            You are entitled to your opinion but many others differ when it comes to ANY of Rupert Murdoch’s properties. In fact, some of the journalists working at NYP refused to be party to the laptop story when it was first published. That’s how bad it was from a professional journalist point of view.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. That show exactly how much you know about New York tabloids.

            Any source that feeds your narrative, is “actual journalism”. Anything that doesn’t is MSM and not worth your time.

            That is EXACTLY what I take from this comment from you. And you don’t see how blinded you are by your tribalism. Of which you accuse others of regularly.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Oh my! Twitter had a couple of staffers who used to work for the government security services. Thank God for Elon Musk. I guess we dodged a bullet. And what a break for free speech and President-for-life Putin. Now his bots and trolls will not have any of that pesky moderation to keep him from promoting the next dickhead he installs to carry water for him. We can all breathe a sigh of relief – especially those who managed to dump their Twitter stock.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, you have no problem with the incestuous relationship between Big Tech and Deep State Spooks?

      With modern data capture and the totalitarian instincts of the Deep State, they are a far greater threat to our way of life than Putin ever could be.


      1. “So, you have no problem . . .”

        What problem? Your constant hair-on-fire excitement about the “Deep State” is your problem. Not mine. I see the continuity and institutional memory that the federal bureaucracy provides our nation as a good thing. If a new President has not got the intellect, management skill, and energy to harness them to his program that is HIS problem. Trump did not even try. He famously would not even be briefed on anything like a regular basis. Too much like work.

        Twitter is deeply infested by Russian trolls and bots doing their best to undermine and divide our country. They are good at what they do. They are a real danger. That Twitter would have sought out people with some background in national security to help weed them out makes perfect sense to me.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “Do you have evidence of a large number of Russian bots surviving on Twitter since Musk took over?”

            I have no idea. And neither does Musk since he fired most of the moderation and IT staff that used to try to keep the service legitimate. What we do know is that the steps he has taken have made it easier for Russian trolls and bots, not harder.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I see no reason to believe that ridding twitter of dead weight will adversely affect its ability to shut down bots. one of Musk’s stated goals since before the purchase.


          3. “I see no reason to believe that ridding twitter of dead weight . . .”

            That is a tautology. It tells us nothing we did not already know.

            Your IT understands seems to be on a par with Musk’s who also thought that Twitter pretty much runs itself. That is why his first act was to lay off half of its 7,500 employees. And promise the survivors unrelenting and un-compensated overtime work.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “I see the continuity and institutional memory that the federal bureaucracy provides our nation as a good thing.”

          I see that as a very bad thing. A nation’s culture is the natural source of continuity and institutional memory (a redundancy). Expecting government to play the role of culture is an invitation to totalitarianism.

          To suggest that censorship at Twitter is a good thing because there are bogeymen on the platform is Orwellian.


          1. “Expecting government to play the role of culture is an invitation to totalitarianism.”

            And yet, when culture fails us, government can make it work.

            Civil Rights legislation comes to mind. Our culture said Blacks were inferior and not worthy of full citizenship. We were told by law in the South that we could not eat, drink, socialize, swim, attend school, play sports with, marry, or live next to minorities, etc., because that was the culture. The North also had both legal and de facto discrimination for the same reason. Even the federal government discriminated with the GI bill.

            It took major legislation enforced by courts and marshals to just start integrating. And this was after considerable violence.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Government cannot fix a failed culture, it can only amplify and accelerate its failure.”

            So truthy sounding! Such baloney!

            The government was way ahead of the failed culture on civil rights. And began to turn it around. For example, it was many years after the 1960’s civil rights legislation before we began to see non-white actors portraying normal lives in movies, TV and commercials.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Jim Crow was failed culture, just like apartheid was.

            Considering the incredible efforts to thwart integration and the sacrifices in blood, sweat and tears to codify it, I don’t see how we would have progressed in race relations without government and its legislative powers. After all, we waited 100 years for a culture shift and it never happened.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. It’s been almost 60 years since the Civil Rights act passed, yet the left claims racism is still systemic.

            So, either government has failed to cure culture, or the woke are liars


          5. “So, either government has failed to cure culture, or the woke are liars”

            Oversimplified as ususal. Change in any culture is not instantaneous. It is a process. And an important part of the process is for everyone to become “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality” that is to say, woke.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “… government has failed to cure culture, or the woke are liars”

            Hard to change an ingrained culture claiming racial superiority that existed for centuries. It takes at least a few generations. Parents teach children and influence their grandchildren. But if you notice, commerce can pave the way. There are few ads today that don’t have multiple races among the models. Even more interesting, and encouraging, are the mixed race couples with children, and even gay mixed race couples.

            If you disagree, then consider that we are still fighting the Civil War primarily over the cultural aspects of memorializing defenders of slavery. Only decade or so ago, the Confederate colors came off the SC statehouse. Lone wolf extremists are still targeting minorities at church, shopping, etc. Where do they get those ideas? And why are they still prominent enough to incite violence? There is still a strong undercurrent of racist approval among the darker corners of society and, more influential, the anonymous web. A killer who should be a pariah will have an audience and self sustaining motives.

            Each generation will dilute the race issue. Even LBJ said that the Democrats would lose the South for a long time. He knew his countrymen. But although we still have many issues surrounding race, they are more subtle and less common than in 1960.

            I think that had we not address civil rights in the 60’s, we would not have changed much at all by now. After a century of terror enforced apartheid, it was obvious that laws requiring the mingling of races in school and it the economy were needed. Social integration would eventually follow.

            Government can and does do good things. The laws are what we the people voted on and government was told to carry them out.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Racism dies when it becomes an embarrassment to your children, trying to crush it with intrusive laws just makes people dig in their heels.

            How may signs have you seen in businesses that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Those are there as a response to the “public accommodation” policy in the Civil Rights act. The marketplace deals with discrimination more effectively than law.

            Darius Rucker has done more to really end racism than the EEOC.


          8. “ Racism dies when it becomes an embarrassment to your children…”

            So how does that happen? Magically? Or, perhaps when the kids come home from school and realize that the classmates he sat next to were just like him. But they would not have even been there without a law saying they had a right to be there.

            Merchants would have been happy to make money from all the local residents. Culture and terror supported by law said he couldn’t and if he did, he would lose customers or worse.

            The market would justify selling to minorities, but culture nixed that. Change the law, change the culture…eventually.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. How many time have I written that the marketplace requires that government exclude force and fraud for it to function.

            Government failed in that duty in much of the country, deferring to the Klan in the South and labor unions in the North tioexclude Blacks from participation.


          10. “How many time have I written that the marketplace requires that government exclude force and fraud for it to function.”

            Your response is laughable.

            The market will solve discrimination without government interference, you say. When it is pointed out that the market failed to do anything for a century your answer is that the government failed to interfere. I could not make this up if I tried.

            And by the way, the actions of the KKK and labor unions during that century represent a very small part of the force and fraud that defended the culture of racism.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “I see that as a very bad thing.”

            Okay, you and I have different opinions on almost everything.

            I would add that the “culture” itself provides the institutional memory and continuity in government is kind of absurd. What does the “culture” know about, say, the current state of our nuclear weapons arsenal? Or where we have agents in Russia? Or how the tax system works?

            Liked by 1 person

          12. RE: “What does the ‘culture’ know about, say, the current state of our nuclear weapons arsenal?”

            What does it NOT know? Surely the information you are talking about is written down somewhere. If it is hidden, that is reason to contemplate the potential for tyranny.


          13. “Surely it is written down somewhere?”

            It may well be, but where is that somewhere?

            Do you really think we could dispense with the federal bureaucracy and that newly appointed temporary employees with each change of administration could learn what they need to know to function by finding the right files? Maybe you do.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. RE: “Do you really think we could dispense with the federal bureaucracy and that newly appointed temporary employees with each change of administration could learn what they need to know to function by finding the right files?”

            I really think, as stated, that it is not government’s role in society to provide “continuity and institutional memory.” I regard this line of thinking as ignorant and exceptionally foolish, as it conflates the benefit of bureaucratic recordkeeping with, say, the benefits of religious (or philosophical) education.


          15. “I really think, as stated, that it is not government’s role in society to provide “continuity and institutional memory.”

            You are so eager to talk about what you want to talk about you are not paying attention. I was clearly referring to the “continuity and institutional memory” of the bureaucratic organizations that constitute our government. EVERY large institution REQUIRES such “continuity and institutional memory” in order to function.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. You are the one who wrote: “I see the continuity and institutional memory that the federal bureaucracy provides our nation as a good thing.”

            Presumably you meant that the Deep State either doesn’t exist or is a desirable entity because it is bureaucratic. I could have called you out for circular reasoning, but chose instead to note that “continuity and institutional memory” are not valid justifications for government.


          17. “Presumably you meant that the Deep State either doesn’t exist or is a desirable entity . . .”

            A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. You and I are referring to the same thing when your refer to the “Deep state” and I refer to the federal bureaucracy. “Bureaucracy” is a noun. It is neither good nor bad.

            And, yes, the federal bureaucracy is a desirable and, in fact, an essential entity. It is NOT a “valid justification of government.” It doesn’t claim to be. It is a tool of government. If a lazy, weakling of a President is unable to shape it to his purposes, that is on him.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. The title of this blog post says it all.

    A long read, with a w ole lotta debunking going on. I strongly suggest those who believe the Twitter story is “something” vice “nothing” to take the time to read it.

    Can’t wait to here the Right wing posters here attempt to discredit it.


      1. Ignored the post? Yeah, not surprised.

        The blacklisting is addressed in the blog. And if you actually read it, you would see that the “blacklisting” was not as big a deal as the right wants it to be. Just like Hunter’s Laptop.

        A private business can choose to blacklist anyone they want. Remember the signs that said “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Ignored the post?”

          Not at all. I chose not to criticize it, because it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

          I get it that moderation of social media is difficult and that Twitter was trying its best and pursuing its business goals in a methodical way. But that’s no excuse for the now-documented censorship it practiced. So, again, Do you wish to argue that blacklisting on social media is acceptable? Or, do you wish to make an issue of me, personally?


          1. I did not commit one way or the other concerning blacklisting. I only added the context of the blog post for discussion. But because you don’t LIKE or agree with what is said there, you attempt to make it about whether blacklisting is acceptable or not.

            It is not about you personally. It is about your ignorance of what I posted and not wishing to criticize it. Probably because there is nothing to criticize about it without making a fool of yourself.

            And if you actually read the blog, and comprehended what was said, there was no “censorship”. Only governments can actually censor things. Twitter’s business decisions, good bad or indifferent were theirs’s alone to make. And there was no coordination between the deep state, the Democratic party or the Biden family.

            You have attempted to move the goal posts on the Twitter-Gate nothingburger because you (and Don) have been shown to be duped into thinking there was soemthing there that really wasn’t.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Any business should be able to ban violent or hateful people and misinformation from their enterprise whether brick and mortar or online.

        Conservatives won a court battle over whether or not a baker can deny service for a gay couple’s wedding. And you are saying Twitter, or any social media, cannot reserve the same right to run their businesses as they see fit.

        Blacklisting is the extension of banning a threatening post by getting rid of repeat offenders. If people using your site are posting things that are abhorrent to you or what you want for your business, and won’t stop, then you stop them.

        Owning a social media site does not mean you owe the posters unrestrained use of your servers.

        Now this Hunter Biden issue is the single most important agenda for Republicans. Right up there with “grooming”. So I understand the want for revenge and it’s pilot light of outrage. But it does not make Twitter’s policy nefarious or in league with the so called “deep state”. It just makes it normal.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Twitter, and other social media platforms, hold themselves out to be a virtual public square. They are supposed to be platforms for public speech, and in return for serving that useful purpose, they receive pre-emptive protection from liability for what appears on their site.

          That makes them very different from content providing media, which is held responsible for slander or libel in their content.

          But when they filter the content pf their customers to alter the output, they have become content providers themselves, by subtracting part of the debate,

          So, if they wish to have Section 230 protection, they have an obligation to be even handed in filtering out obscene or inciteful content.

          Twitter, prior to Musk’ failed in that duty, allowing incitement to violence from liberal sources while pre-emptively silencing conservatives because they thought they might say something dangerous, what is called prior restraint.

          That they did so in collusion with the Deep State and the DNC makes it criminal violation of the 1st Amendment by the government actors involved.


  5. Here is the NEWS STORY concerning the FEC’s decision, as previously discussed.

    The first three paragraphs are pretty clear:

    “The Federal Election Commission has ruled Twitter
    did not violate federal elections law when it restricted the distribution of a New York Post article with unverified claims about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, according to documents made public Wednesday.

    It also found Twitter did not violate the law by adding warning labels to former President Donald Trump’s tweets or allegedly “shadow banning” conservative viewpoints.

    The agency found in a unanimous decision that Twitter had made valid decisions based on commercial reasons, according to a statement by the commission’s Vice Chair Allen Dickerson and Commissioner James “Trey” Trainor III, who are Republicans.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What the FEC found is uninteresting.

      What the article and the TechDirt piece both ignore is that while the copy Giuliani had might have been of uncertain provenance, the FBI had the original in its possession and knew damned certain it was real and unaltered, and the FBI was in communication with Twitter’s censors.

      So, either Twitter knew it was genuine and used the Giuliani copy uncertainty dishonestly as an excuse. Or the FBI knowingly mislead Twitter to interfere with the election.

      So, take your choice, either Twitter’s head belong on pikes or the FBI’s


      1. “. . . the FBI had the original in its possession and knew damned certain it was real and unaltered”

        Laughably clueless. There is no way for anyone to know that the contents of the laptop were “unaltered.” Compared to what? To this date no one can say that the contents of the laptop are “unaltered.”

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “The FBI now admits it was authentic.”

            Your statement remains FALSE. The FBI did not know that it was unaltered as you claimed and they still don’t. It is impossible to know if it was altered because there is nothing to compare it to. After many months of forensic work they can NOW conclude that it SEEMS to be authentic but given its very squirrelly provenance, no one can ever be sure that everything on it is pristine.

            Beside all this, so what? Nothing has come from it that indicates any sort of crime At most, it may provide secondary evidence around possible tax irregularities by Hunter and maybe further evidence of his drug use. That’s it. The “Big Guy” reference that has you people smirking was in reference to a possible and LEGAL business deal AFTER Vice President Biden had left office.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. There were not ‘many months of forensic work.’ Auten locked it away and denied access to it. Any qualified geek could have checked the time stamps on a significant sample in a couple of hours. (Every time you change a file, the OS updates the metadata timestamp. You can alter those manually but it would take years of work for one guy to falsify them all.)

            Auten just called it Russian disinformation and buried it.

            The context of “the Big Guy’ was that it was an ongoing practice, not a one time thing. There is no level of evidence that will convince you of the corruption of the Biden Crime Family.


          3. “ Auten locked it away and denied access to it.”

            Trump could have told Barr and Wray that he wants the laptop and “he wants it now”.

            This was a president who didn’t care what people thought in at least two recorded conversations trying to extort dirt on Biden and throw the election. Recordings he approved and knew about. FOX would do the dirty work of keeping the laptop front and center.

            Whoever made the decision to not have the president demand action on the laptop story in October is either terminally ignorant or convinced the laptop would be better off kept in the dark. Best I can tell, that was Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. The FBI did not acknowledge that it had the original laptop until their hand was forced by Guliani in the October before the election. I doubt Trump even knew is existed prior to that.


          5. So? October was the best time to make hay among an electorate that has the attention span of my dog. Not even, really.

            Trump knew. He was so desperate to get dirt on Biden that he risked, and was, impeached.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. Easily, you start on day one. Hillary Clinton got
            blindsided just a few days before the election by the FBI announcing unverified email data on another computer.

            “Deep State” I suppose? Or does that apply only when the right wing feels hurt?

            Look, I am not naive enough to believe that government and the media don’t have a relationship to disseminate information. Been that way since the founding. A century ago we had yellow journalism designed to destroy careers at the beck and call of powerful interests. We were at lot more at risk then since verification was nearly impossible.

            Today, the media is pervasive and still competitive enough to make it easy for us to mouse click simple research. Perfect? Of course not.

            Remove all MSM, right and left, by fiat. Or as Trump wanted, to sue them out of existence after changing the law.

            What’s left? Government announcements, decrees and public relations.

            The First Amendment guaranteed that criticism of the government was protected. Nothing about accuracy. Toss in free market journalism and you have a mixed bag, but still an indispensable one for any chance at keeping the politically and economically powerful at least looking over their shoulders.

            I think LBJ said when we lost Cronkite support of the Vietnam War, we lost. Too much power in the media? We lost 55,000 people fighting for a hotbed of lies, among other BS.

            Flip side, when an influential NYT reporter supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq knowing the falsities about WMD, it cost us trillions and lives. That was when government was raising specters of not being patriotic for challenging the war. The MSM failed us.

            So hammer this “scandal” for all its worth. I know you will. It’s politics and power after all. I suggest, though, that without MSM, you would not even know about this laptop story. Who was Musk going to tell. Just Twitter alone only goes so far without media.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Remember that Twitter, and other platforms are different. Because they are purportedly platforms for the public square, they enjoy protections form liability under Section 230 of the CDA, They can’t be sued for libel are slander for what appears in user content. Content providers, like FOX and CNN can be sued.

            So long as they remain impartial platforms, excluding only unlawful content, like obscenity, child abuse and incitement that is proper, but if they filter the full spectrum of content so that one point of view is favored, they have effectively created their own content and thus do not warrant special protections.

            An impartial Twitter serves as a check on the MSM, preventing stories from being ignored to death, and that gives it value far beyond those who actively participate. If Twitter keeps NBC honest, it benefits all of NBC’s audience. The same is true for the rest of the MSM.

            But if Twitter is biased, it can lead the rest of MSM in suppressing a story by giving them cover.

            So, it benefits us all for Twitter to be an unbiased umpire keeping all media honest.


          8. “How do you vet and then publicize the laptop without cooperation from the press in 17 days?”

            Where did you get 17 days? Republican operatives had the laptop for several months before the election. THEY chose to sit on it.

            Here is what really happened, IMHO. Those GOP operatives studied the laptop during those months and found nothing of much significance. They then decided the best political use of the laptop would be as an “October surprise” where the only news would be of its existence with no chance for objective organizations to study what was on it. They were too clever by half. By trying to use it that way they destroyed the presumption of validity that the story needed.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “There is no level of evidence that will convince you of the corruption of the Biden Crime Family.”

            With all due respect, your accusation of my indifference to evidence is a joke. It is you who does not give a tinker’s damn about where the evidence leads. Once again you display the characteristics of being – generously – an intellectual lightweight (I do not want to disrespect pygmies). You can’t even name the crime much less has anyone provided ANY evidence that ANY crime took place. But that does not stop you. Meanwhile the obvious, documented and proven crimes of the Trump bunch you pretend is all a hoax, fake news and a witch hunt.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “As VP Biden used US aid to force Ukraine to protect Burisma, Hunter’s “employer.”

            That is a LIE. That makes you a LIAR. And you cannot plead ignorance. Several of us have provided you with the evidence that this story is a LIE. Again and again.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. No, you have not, You have made the claim that the prosecutor in question should have been fired anyway, which may or may not have been correct but is in any case irrelevant.

            Biden demanded the firing of the prosecutor under threat of withholding aid, Correct or not?

            Hunter was getting $85,000 dollars a month for a no-show job from Burisma, an enemy of that prosecutor, Correct or not?

            Is there video of the demand being made as quid pro quo? No, but the exchange of services is plain and there is no other rational explanation for the employment of Hunter other than influence on Joe.

            That you claim the obvious is a lie is just a reflection of your slavish devotion to your party.


          12. “Biden demanded the firing of the prosecutor under threat of withholding aid, Correct or not?”

            Biden was acting on policy, not on his own. His action had NOTHING to do with Burisma which was not even under investigation at the time. Here AGAIN is one of countless articles provided to you several times summarizing the relevant facts.


            You say there is no rational reason to add Hunter Biden to the Board EXCEPT for corruption. Such a claim shows you to be completely clueless. Companies FREQUENTLY add people to their Boards whose name alone adds to the prestige and gravitas of the company. Hunter Biden was such a person. On this particular Board there was also the elderly, retired President of Poland. He was there for the same reason.

            You were challenged with your inability to even name a crime committed by President Biden. Your attempt to do so was a known LIE debunked countless times. I will say again, people who constantly LIE are LIARS.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. You have to be buried under the silo to ignore the reports of several INTERNATIONAL news organizations reporting the POLICIES of the US and European governments concerning the UN-prosecuting prosecutor in Ukraine.


          14. Shokin WAS not investigating ANY corruption as he was supposed to be doing.

            Your article says clearly he was TOLD. That is just feeding into your narrative that Biden was acting of his own volition when he was DOING his job of voicing US Government policies to allies.


          15. “You have to be deep in the bubble to believe that.”

            You have to be a clueless partisan hack to believe otherwise. And it is very clear that that is exactly what you are. On almost every subject where evidence or the lack of it SHOULD inform your thinking but does not.

            Hunter Biden traded on his father’s name. So do the children of famous and influential people everywhere. It is the way of the world. There is no better example of that than the business dealings of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump who – without their father’s position – are total non-entities.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Certainly family members of famous people get a leg up in business. But not like Hunter, who knew nothing about the natural gas business, Ukranian law or even the language.

            He has gotten millions from oligarchs and the Chi-Coms for absolutely nothing other than access to his father and there is no possibility that Joe doesn’t know what Hunter was selling.

            That alone is corrupt, and the quid pro quo with Ukraine is obvious.


          17. Hunter Biden did not need to know anything about the natural gas business or to speak Ukrainian. It added to the gravitas of Burisma to have him on the Board. That is reason enough. Just like the former President of Poland. You imagining more is NOT evidence.

            BTW, The international language of business is ENGLISH. I personally worked as the CFO of a Dutch company working out of Eindhoven and I do not speak a word of Dutch.

            All of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Chinese companies were while his father was out of office. Where is the “corruption” in that?

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “Shokin was investigating Burisma.”

            So, your source for this proven LIE is the propaganda web site, The Daily Wire, which is reporting on an alleged conversation that Shokin had with Rudy Giuliani while Rudy was sniffing for Ukraine dirt on behalf of the criminal extortionist Trump? And allegedly these self-serving claims were made by Shokin – the disgraced, dishonest and corrupt prosecutor that the entire western world wanted removed? Have I got that right?

            Once again you exhibit a lack of critical thinking that would be an embarrassment to a middle school kid. The Daily Wire is not trustworthy. Giuliani is not trustworthy. Shokin is not trustworthy. And ALL are motivated to LIE. But you treat them like Gospel when they reinforce your preferred “facts.” Laughable. And I mean that most sincerely.


          19. Shokin says he was told to back off in Burisma. I do not see your speculation as proof he was lying.

            Was Shokin corrupt? Probably, at the time, Ukraine was rated the most corrupt nation in Europe. Today it is second to Russia. But demanding the replacement of one corrupt prosecutor with a prosecutor just as corrupt serving a different cabal of Oligarchs is also corrupt.

            But it is undeniable that Biden demanded the removal of a prosecutor who at least claimed to be investigating Hunter’s “employer” and used his position as VP t back u0p that demand with control of US Aid.


          20. “Shokin says he was told to back off in Burisma. I do not see your speculation as proof he was lying.”

            The old case involving Burisma was a closed case. Burisma was not under investigation and was not the reason the Western nations wanted Shokin removed. It was his failure to act on corruption that brought him down.

            A Senate Committee controlled by Republicans and led by Ron Johnson spent months and millions of dollars investigating the LIES you keep repeating and found absolutely nothing of note.

            Question: Who keeps spreading known lies?
            Answer: Liars.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. “And yet Biden thought getting him fired was important enough to condition US aid on it.”

            What a piece of work you are! Biden’s thoughts had NOTHING to do with it. It is established beyond any doubt that Biden was acting as a messenger for the Obama administration and the other governments considering loan guarantees for Ukraine. They wanted less corruption and they wanted the official failing to address it gone. Biden was delivering THEIR message.

            But I get what you are up to. Even though Biden was talking about international loan guarantees not US aid and was in no way acting for himself, you want to analogize his mission with Trump’s criminal extortion. Once again, both sad and laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. Biden was fulfilling the policy of the GOVERNMENT, not his personal whimsy. You are getting really good at confusing the Trump family with the Biden’s. Actual corruption by the Trumps is ignored, while LIES and mistruths about Biden are your one and only focus.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “What the FEC found is uninteresting.”

        Interesting that you find factual information “uninteresting”.

        Once again you show that ANY information that does not feed into your preconceived delusional notions just can’t be accurate or interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s