By HatetheSwamp December 12, 2022 7:11 am Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

On Saturday, CEO Elon Musk and journalist Michael Shellenberger released the fourth batch of Twitter documents that show internal communications by the company’s executives between Jan. 6-8, 2021, including and shortly after the riot at the Capitol Building.

Among the files, Shellenberger reported “internal and external pressure,” including from the former first lady, fell onto the company calling for Trump to be banned from using Twitter.

“Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior–and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technologies from being used by the nation’s leaders to fuel insurrection,” Obama wrote in a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Jan. 7.

She added: “And if we have any hope of improving this nation, now is the time for swift and serious consequences for the failure of leadership that led to yesterday’s shame.”

So, Twitter wasn't doing the bidding of the Dems, eh!!!!!? Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh!

You progressive Swampcultists were all enthusiastic supporters of the decision of the J6 Committee to subpoena OrangeMan. I can't wait for the day when Michelle Ma Belle sits in front of the GOP dominated Biden Crime Family Committee to answer questions about her connection to Twitter and other social media platforms. Hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hahahahahahahahaha!

I imagine that even our resident Good German will take notice, though I'm certain that he'll be comfortable with everything his Eva Braun has done.

Comments Start Below

by Donna on December 12, 2022 7:17 am LOL, where was the "pressure"? Or else what? by HatetheSwamp on December 12, 2022 7:54 am Donna, the point is, actually, that there was no pressure AT ALL! This is one, essentially perfect, piece of very juicy evidence...just one mind you...that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" campaign, the SwampMedia, the Dem party and Twitter had been colluding, cooperating. To defeat OrangeMan. And, that the election was rigged as best they could swindle America. All ma Bella had to do was send a note. Bingo! Done! And, to be sure, this is not all the evidence already released from Twitter. It fits a large and, already, well established pattern...and there's more to come... ...no matter what Joy and Rachel and Morning Joe are doing to play their fiddle while their kingdom burns. pb'll do what he can to fill you in on the highlights. But, promise me. When ma Belle answers her subpoena, you'll watch in Arizona as I watch here in the Alabama of the north. by Donna on December 12, 2022 9:09 am What do you think should be done about it? by HatetheSwamp on December 12, 2022 9:24 am I think a lot of things should be done. Am I right that you've joined much of the progressive Swampcult in moving from saying that none of this happened and that it's another vast right wing conspiracy to that it's a tempest in a teapot...nuthinto see here? pb thinks that criminal charges should be brought against who people seem to be guilty of crimes. pb's guessing that the "news" sources you consult for your propaganda haven't reported that Jack Dorsey, based on what Twitter has already leased, lied in his congressional testimony about shadow banning. Don't believe me. Watch Rachel! Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh! Of course, members of government should be investigated criminally and ethically and members of "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" campaign and of the Dem party should be prosecuted if they've violated election law. Do you disagree? pb also thinks that social media platforms should be regulated in a way similar to the way public utilities are regulated. by Donna on December 12, 2022 9:53 am I don't think that Big Brother should be in the business of dictating to anyone or any business what they can or cannot say. What regulations do you think Big Brother should foist on private media companies that aren't currently? by HatetheSwamp on December 12, 2022 10:08 am I don't think that Big Brother should be in the business of dictating to anyone or any business what they can or cannot say. Donna! This is the guy who opposed every mandate and lockdown you welcomed with open arms. You'll never get close to equaling pb's support of individual liberty. None of what's coming out in this has anything at all to do with government dictating a single thing Twitter had to "say," apart from Dorsey's apparent lies under oath to Congress...which has always been a crime. Surely, you're not condoning perjury. If you're tempted, remember that OrangeMan is being subpoenaed. Goose and gander, and all. by Donna on December 12, 2022 10:15 am I'm clearly discussing speech. You're upset about Michelle Obama voicing her opinions on Twitter. What do you think should be done in response about Michelle Obama? by HatetheSwamp on December 12, 2022 10:24 am Donna. You're not nearly as dense as you SEEM TO BE...and I'm not buying it. pb's concerned, in context, with what appears to be Twitter talking orders from a mover and shaker Dem...as evidence of the collusion of a rigged the election. pb's not discussing ma Belle's speech. This IA all about Twitter’s action. You have this old trick, as I've pointed out many times in the past, to claim to be conveniently naíve. pb's not buying it for a second. You're not that stupid...and we both know it. by Donna on December 12, 2022 10:31 am Just trying to understand your complaint about Michelle Obama and Twitter. It doesn't sound to me like you think that anything should be done about it, but that you're just annoyed by it. If my assumption's wrong, then correct me. by Donna on December 12, 2022 10:36 am ...Although you did say that you think media companies should be regulated like utility companies. Can you give me an example of such a regulation that you'd like to see Big Brother foist on media companies that it currently isn't? I asked you before but you didn't give an answer. by HatetheSwamp on December 12, 2022 1:24 pm Although you did say that you think media companies should be regulated like utility companies. Can you give me an example of such a regulation that you'd like to see Big Brother foist..." Foist? By a court?, or a band of bureaucrats?, without legislation passed by "the people and their representatives?" I can't think of one. by oldedude on December 12, 2022 5:31 pm "Although you did say that you think media companies should be regulated like utility companies. Can you give me an example of such a regulation that you'd like to see Big Brother foist on media companies that it currently isn't? I asked you before but you didn't give an answer." I think if they're working for a political party, those receiving the "Favors" should claim them as donations. That way, it's open source to find out who owns who. It's either a pay to play, or a quid pro quo. Either way, it's really close to a bribe, or blackmail if it's done when requested. Also, that way, if it's not claimed, the politicians get wrapped up in campaign fraud and then it comes out in the media. by oldedude on December 12, 2022 5:36 pm Donna, is that an okay step? It's not regulatory, but it is a donation with a value (monetary). by Curt_Anderson on December 12, 2022 6:17 pm OD, That's not practical either. It's not as terrible an idea as HtS's unconstitutional idea of the government regulating the media, but it's bad. Who decides what sort of news coverage or "favors" as you call them are actually a political donations? Hannity, Carlson and the rest of FOX primetime didn't mention the Trump tax fraud guilty verdict. What would that donation be worth? FOX is the most watched cable news channel. Also the same basic story could be presented on MSNBC and FOX News but have different slants. If a media outlet runs a negative story about a candidate, do the political opponents have to declare that as a "favor"? We hardly need an open source to know that FOX favors the GOP, MSNBC favors Democrats, etc. by oldedude on December 12, 2022 6:59 pm When you call someone to kill a story, or to change the facts, it's a donation. If this were reversed, what would you say? Would you justify Trump telling twitter to kill a story that was true? What if he interceded in the media for political gain? That's justified? Honestly, campaign financing law is exactly like this. And whose to say? The FEC, who works with all the campaign oversight. By not knowing the way this is done, you're overthinking it. I rarely talk about it with "routine" issues because there isn't much done about it anyway. AOC is on the hotseat right now over taking tickets to an event that she didn't pay for (and a dress that was made for her) and there was no reason to be there (such as being a speaker, etc). Don't know how that's going to go, and it's not a huge deal to me. She may get a slap on the wrist, or maybe a small fine, but that'll be about it. by Curt_Anderson on December 12, 2022 7:30 pm What if it were reversed? It has been reversed...often. I'd feel the same way if Trump or Obama or George W. Bush. Matt Taibbi wrote that both Trump and the Biden campaigns had back channel access to Twitter (and no doubt other media outlets) to request content be removed. “Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored,” he said, adding that “celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party.” ---Matt Taibbi Tweet. Musk responded to the screenshot of the request, writing: “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” In another tweet, he added: “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.” The Biden campaign was a private entity — not the government — at the time of the request. Trump’s White House, however, was the government, but Musk did not address reporting that said they also made and were granted requests. Taibbi did not provide evidence the White House — or the Biden campaign — “ordered” or coerced Twitter into removing content. The government asking a private company to do something and the company agreeing is not inherently a violation of the First Amendment, as David French wrote in The Atlantic. balkantimes.press by oldedude on December 12, 2022 8:41 pm "The Biden campaign was a private entity" Lead- I think you're entirely correct. Nobody could fake this. I think he's mocking us. NO one can be this clueless. Curt- You're kidding me, right? It's campaign, therefore it falls under FEC. Period. This includes gifts, quid pro quo, donations, etcetcetcetcetc. ANYTHING of value given to someone running for office. The federal level is FEC. Background The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, Senate, Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Federal campaign finance law covers three broad subjects: Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections Explore campaign finance data » Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections Search and browse legal resources » The public financing of presidential campaigns Learn more about federal candidates and committees » Mission To protect the integrity of the federal campaign finance process by providing transparency and fairly enforcing and administering federal campaign finance laws. History As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966. In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act, instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the FEC. The FEC opened its doors in 1975. Musk did not address reporting that said they also made and were granted requests. If they made those requests, I need sources of information. The government asking a private company to do something and the company agreeing is not inherently a violation of the First Amendment, as David French wrote in The Atlantic. That's called pay to play, or a bribe. And the FEC is the over-riding agency in this case. It is a completely separate issue than the first amendment. It's campaign law. He asked for and received something of value. The value is the story he didn't want told was buried. I'd say, that's a pretty hefty value. fec.gov by Curt_Anderson on December 12, 2022 8:59 pm OD, Well, somebody here is clueless. Private entities can make requests of the media. Even the White House and Congress can make requests of the media. For example, the White House might request that a speech be broadcast live. Sometimes the media grants the request sometimes not. Do you think it's accidental that members of Congress appear on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.? That's all coordinated by political staffs. You've heard term "spin room"? That's when candidate surrogates claim their guy was marvelous in the debate. That's influencing the media. And it's OK. These sort of media favors are not considered political donations. It has nothing to do with the FEC. Thank goodness for the First Amendment. Our news media is unencumbered by any sort of governmental interference. by Curt_Anderson on December 12, 2022 9:17 pm In addition to what said above, practically every elected politician and most candidates flood the news media with positive press releases about their guy or something denigrating their rival(s). Nobody says the news media has to report on it, but sometimes they do. It's not considered an in-kind political donation. by HatetheSwamp on December 13, 2022 4:29 am Curt, How is pb's notion that social media be regulated unconstitutional? Despite your ostrich imitation over Musk's Twitter releases, there's a very strong possibility that there were ethical violations by members of government and even effin crimes. There can be no doubt that Jack Dempsey lied...under oath...in his congressional testimony about Twitter’s manipulation of news. FOX...bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh...has been replaying his lies nearly hourly...since Musk's fourth tranche. Keeheeheeheeheeheeheehee! But, since you watch Fox so regularly, you know that. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. Whata hoot! One thing that's become inescapably clear is that Twitter presented itself as a site that facilitates free speech. It's likely, based on what we know now, Twitter committed fraud in the way it manipulated the free expression of the people who participated on the site. In the past, Twitter clearly violated the public trust. It demands oversight. What's unconstitutional about the government assuring citizens' free speech!!!!!? by Donna on December 13, 2022 6:31 am You think media companies should be regulated, but you just can't think of a regulation. LOL! Like it or not, nothing's likely to change. by Donna on December 13, 2022 8:19 am "Foist? By a court?, or a band of bureaucrats?, without legislation passed by "the people and their representatives?"" - Hts The ACA was passed by Congress but you always characterize it as having been foisted, so I was just using your definition. by HatetheSwamp on December 13, 2022 9:46 am Donna, I honestly don't recall thinking of it as being foisted. Back in that day, what I was saying about foisting is that SSM would never become law unless it was foisted on the nation by the courts. I was right. As you know. What I recall being said about OCare is that it was imposed on the nation by The ONE in the face of intense opposition through Chicagoland political thuggery. As the result of the 010 election proved... I was right. by oldedude on December 13, 2022 12:46 pm "Private entities can make requests of the media." Politicians are NOT considered "private entities." There's a whole different set of rules they have to follow. Or were you not aware of that? Those fall under the FEC, and the House and Senate rules, and there is a different set of rules for the White House (inclusive). These include (at times) what family members are and are not able to do. Including officially speaking to foreign dignitaries while not registered (obviously, talking about the weather, etc are not part of this. Talking about policy or agreements between the countries is). And you're convoluting "spin room" with burying a story to shift the tide of an election. Those are two different things. If this is/was "no big deal" why do they insist the story buried? Why not allow it to be told and just explain it away? If it wasn't going to hurt the elections, or even after the elections, why have they fought so hard to keep everything a secret? It seems to me (and many thousands of others) they are going to extremes to kill this. You haven't answered me after asking several times. "If this were Trump, would your answer be the same?" by oldedude on December 13, 2022 1:03 pm I still think it ought to go under campaign laws. If a politician manipulates someone to change a story, that should be reported under campaign finance. That's oversite of those that need it without making a blanket law. Of course curt is still in the land of butterflies and unicorns because it's the pedobiden crime family that's in trouble here. If it were the Trumps (or any GOP member for that matter), he'd be screaming at the top of his lungs for them to go through another kangaroo court that Stalin would wince at. by Curt_Anderson on December 13, 2022 1:15 pm You haven't answered me after asking several times. "If this were Trump, would your answer be the same? --D Yes, I did. I wrote in comment #16: "What if it were reversed? It has been reversed...often. I'd feel the same way if Trump or Obama or George W. Bush. Matt Taibbi wrote that both Trump and the Biden campaigns had back channel access to Twitter (and no doubt other media outlets) to request content be removed." Let me add... It's ridiculous, not to mention unconstitutional, that the media reports should be considered in-kind donations by the FEC. Where would it end? News reports aren't the only thing that influences voters. If late night comics joke about a candidate do that candidate's rivals have to declare the joke as a donation? by oldedude on December 13, 2022 3:50 pm "Let me add... It's ridiculous, not to mention unconstitutional, that the media reports should be considered in-kind donations by the FEC. Where would it end? News reports aren't the only thing that influences voters. If late night comics joke about a candidate do that candidate's rivals have to declare the joke as a donation?" You need to take a high school course in American Government. You complete lack of knowledge and stupid comments are nothing but a distraction and inane. by Curt_Anderson on December 13, 2022 4:02 pm OD, Please let us all know when your suggestion becomes reality and the law. Namely, that media "favors" are required to be declared as political donations by the politicians to the FEC. Civics teachers will want to know about this. by oldedude on December 13, 2022 4:29 pm As soon as you actually understand the FEC and how you will think they "violate" a candidate's rights. Which in most cases they do. They must, by law, state where every donation comes from. on the flip side, they are required by law to state where each donation was spent. This ensures that money can be used for, say food at a campaign headquarters is bought out of the correct admin number. One candidate this year, paid their spouse to be their campaign manager. That is illegal. Another politician used money ear-marked for foreign trade (beef, etc). They took a flight with that money to Martha's Vineyard to meet with another group associated with the campaign, but not associated with the earmark. They were censured by the FEC and had to pay the money back. In kind donations have zero to do with the first amendment. It has to do with campaign funds. Two totally different things. I would like you to ask yourself. Have you ever worked at a job where you could be fired for saying something to the outside world that would jeopardize the company? YOU are claiming that is a violation of the first amendment when labor law is very clear that could be a breach of contract. You knew that when you accepted the job. YOU'RE FIRED. it's the same thing in campaigns. Same thing with people with a security clearance or in the military. Military members can't even have bumper stickers on their vehicles that support a candidate. by Donna on December 13, 2022 4:52 pm What does any of that have to do with Namely media "favors" [meaning, in the context of the discussion, running or not running certain news stories in an effort to help a certain politician ir political party] being required to be declared as political donations by the politicians to the FEC? by Curt_Anderson on December 13, 2022 5:13 pm No, I don't think the FEC violates a candidate's rights. By the way, one way to tell that the favorable media coverage is not considered an in-kind donation (you call them "favors") to a candidate is that they don't include disclaimers---as the FEC requires on political advertising. In answer to your question, yes, I had a job where something said outside the office could result in my being fired. I used to direct television and radio commercials. Besides the usual car dealers and appliance stores, I directed television ads for political candidates. As such I was privy to internal poll numbers, campaign strategies, opposition research and of course the ads that wrote and directed. It went without saying (although I might have signed a non-disclosure agreement) that blabbing secrets could irreparably harm the client's campaign and it would be grounds for my immediate dismissal. That would not have been a violation of the First Amendment. I don't know where you got that idea. In case you wondered, I directed television and radio ads for about a dozen candidates running for the Oregon House and Senate. All were Republicans. All of them won elections. by oldedude on December 13, 2022 7:32 pm By the way, one way to tell that the favorable media coverage is not considered an in-kind donation (you call them "favors") to a candidate is that they don't include disclaimers---as the FEC requires on political advertising. Yes, but in fact, those are "supposed to be "non-partisan" (if you want me to explain that, I'll give you the Webster version). That is such a small part of political money, it is generally left to mayors, and school board members who have a very small fund. So. I'm done. do what you want. You won't listen so I won't address you anymore. by oldedude on December 13, 2022 7:32 pm By the way, one way to tell that the favorable media coverage is not considered an in-kind donation (you call them "favors") to a candidate is that they don't include disclaimers---as the FEC requires on political advertising. Yes, but in fact, those are "supposed to be "non-partisan" (if you want me to explain that, I'll give you the Webster version). That is such a small part of political money, it is generally left to mayors, and school board members who have a very small fund. So. I'm done. do what you want. You won't listen so I won't address you anymore. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page