Category: journalism

The Amazon Files

THE RECORD IS REPLETE with stories of censorship by the Biden regime of Facebook and Twitter content. Now, thanks to emails released by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), we now know the regime browbeat Amazon into censoring books on its site that the regime loathed. Jordan’s revelation appeared on Feb. 5th as a thread on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

The internal documents and emails Jordan released had been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee and House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The regime was mostly intent on censoring books that were critical of the Covid shot. At first, Amazon allegedly tried to resist, but found the bullying tactics of the regime to be insurmountable, and caved. 

The regime’s point man, Biden’s former White House Senior Advisor for the COVID-19 Response, Andy Slavitt, was apparently very convincing. And he had experience censoring Facebook. He began the crusade against Amazon shortly after the installment of his boss in the White House, on March 2, 2021. He demanded to have a discussion with Amazon over its sale of supposed ‘disinformation.’ In his email to Amazon, he referred to “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon.” Apparently, no rigorous search was actually done by Slavitt. He merely clicked on a couple of hot-button issues, such as ‘vaccines’ to populate his list of offending materials to censored.The list would then be sent to Amazon for corrective action to be taken. 

Amazon wanted to hold off on censorship to not be so obvious about it and to avoid understandable criticism. The online retailer believed “retailers are different than social media communities” and needed to provide “customers with access to a variety of viewpoints.” The regime was predictably displeased and amped up pressure. 

A week later, Amazon met with White House officials. Amazon wanted to know if the regime wanted the subject books banned or simply buried deeper in the search results. Later that day, Amazon initiated a “Do Not Promote” measure for all books that questioned the efficacy of the Covid shot and evaluated other means to reduce readers’ ability to find the books in the website. 

This new information will be used by lead plaintiff, Gateway Pundit publisher Jim Hoft, in an forthcoming First Amendment Supreme Court case, in conjunction with the profusion of other censorship evidence against the Biden regime. The case, Missouri v. Biden, arose from a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the federal government had engaged in a massive campaign of censorship. (Read it here.) The case will be heard by SCOTUS on March 18th. The Missouri brief is here. There are many amicus briefs filed, as well. Of particular note are those of Rep. Jordan (here), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (here), and the Twitter Files Journalists (here). 

The National Science Foundation Files

ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE that happened on Friday, the U.S. Department of the Treasury confirmed to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) that it has used political watchwords in searches throughout its surveillance of Americans’ financial transactions. The admission was made in a letter to Scott, who is ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. Examples of the watchwords used by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, include “MAGA,” “Antifa,” Trump,” “Biden,” “Kamala,” “Schumer,” or “Pelosi.” Banks were to surveil private financial transactions after Jan. 6, 2021 protests at the Capitol, according to a letter Fox News Digital received. 

The terms weren’t used in isolation, but instead, used alongside other data that banks regularly use as part of their anti-money laundering (AML) programs to detect and report suspicious activity. That such surveillance has been ongoing isn’t new, but what the search terms are is. It is clear they were based on political ideology alone, which is what makes it particularly pernicious and offensive. That such acts by the government violate Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution was ignored, perhaps because it wasn’t expected to ever be discovered. 

Only days before, on Tuesday, we learned more about just how far-reaching the government has become in our collective lives. It’s not only surveillance (such as with Homeland Security or FinCEN), it’s also censorship (such as with Twitter or Amazon) and propaganda (as with Ukraine or Russia.) Under Joe Biden’s regime, we now know the National Science Foundation expended vast millions into artificial intelligence-powered censorship and propaganda ‘tools’ in order to suppress online speech ‘at scale.’ The NSF further went to serious efforts to conceal its censorship from the media. We only learned this from a report issued by the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. 

The report states the NSF granted multi-millions of dollars to university and non-profit research groups, ostensibly to quell alleged ‘misinformation’ regarding Covid-19 and the 2020 election. In a press release, the Judiciary Committee said: “The purpose of these taxpayer-funded projects is to develop A.I.-powered censorship and propaganda tools that can be used by governments and Big Tech to shape public opinion by restricting certain viewpoints or promoting others.” 

The Judiciary Committee reached its conclusion through non-public documents it, and the Select Subcommittee in the Weaponization of the Federal Government, obtained. These documents also indicate the researchers and non-profit organizations knew very well that their acts constituted ‘content moderation’ and ‘censorship,’ but continued the work anyway. They have also stonewalled efforts by the House committees to obtain further information for literally years. At this point, Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has subpoenaed the NSF to obtain communications it had with the private companies and non-profit groups. 

Lee Fang is an investigative journalist who has reported extensively in surveillance and censorship. He also presented his views in the Weaponization committee on Tuesday, which he called, ‘Examining the threat to the First Amendment posed by artificial intelligence and the federal government.’ In his presentation, he said a British A.I. firm named ‘Logically’ came to the U.S. market looking for “contracts to monitor and remove alleged social media misinformation in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.” The company reportedly conducted censorship for Great Britain during the pandemic, and wanted to expand its market. It bragged about its relationship with Meta, parent of Facebook and Instagram, and how it could automatically suppress ‘misinformation.’ 

In other words, the government was contracting out its desired censorship to private concerns in order to try to evade detection and culpability. This is expressly unconstitutional, however. After reports surfaced on what the NSF was doing, it strategized means to obfuscate its actions and developed a media strategy to blacklist media outlets reporting on it. 

The Daily Caller’s Supreme Court reporter, Katelynn Richardson, testified about this, and  something it has cryptically named ‘Convergence Accelerator:’

“After I reported on Convergence Accelerator grants shortly after their announcement, the NSF devised an official media strategy instructing research teams to highlight the ‘pro-democracy’ nature of their projects. I only know this thanks to emails unveiled in a report this committee put out today.”

Greg Lukianoff, President an C.E.O. of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), believes leftist bias is inherent in existing A.I. and generates a “massive body of official facts that we can’t actually trust.” He, too, testified:

“[T]he most chilling threat that the government poses in the context of emerging A.I. is regulatory overreach that limits its potential as a tool for contributing to human knowledge. A regulatory panic could result in a small number of Americans deciding for everyone else what speech, ideas, and even questions are permitted in the name of ‘safety’ or ‘alignment.’” 

He did a show-and-tell to illustrate his point. He asked Chat GPT to write a poem about why certain members of the Weaponization committee were the best politicians in the country. Chat GPT did so for Democrats, but not for Republicans. (Lukianoff self-describes as left-leaning.) FIRE, he added, is filing a brief with SCOTUS warning of the perils of ‘jawboning,’ or using government pressure to coerce social media platforms to censor speech.

The report by the Weaponization committee, called ‘The Weaponization of the National Science Foundation: How NSF is Funding the Development of Automated Tools to Censor Online Speech ‘At Scale’ and Trying to Cover Up its Actions,’ can be read here.

No Servers Crashed, but News Broke.

THURSDAY, February 8, 2024 may be one of the most consequential and intense news days of my life, with stories breaking, developing, and resolving in rapid succession. 

In Trump news, with little time to have even fully digested the appeals court ruling on Trump’s presidential immunity claim from earlier in the week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the 14th Amendment argument by Colorado to keep the 45th president off that state’s ballot in November. It should be an easy case, but one of first impression, so who knows how it will go. The justices, even the liberal ones, seemed highly dubious of ruling for Colorado, however. Then Trump gave a presser at Mar-A-Lago afterward. Usual Trump silliness, but no one’s perfect.

Later, the Virgin Islands finished its caucus which Trump won with 74% of the votes and 99% counted. Neither G.O.P. presidential candidate went to the V.I. to campaign, though Haley worked the territory hard and did virtual appearances. She came in second with 26% of the vote. 

The day before, Wednesday, Haley had lost the primary in Nevada, which is holding both a primary and caucus for reasons previously articulated. She lost there, too. Not only did she lose, she lost to “none of these candidates.” Trump wasn’t in the primary: he chose to participate in the caucus, instead, which is where the delegates were assigned. 

Nevada began its caucus later on Thursday, and again, Trump won. The lines to caucus were reportedly literally a mile long with two hour waits in some precincts. Turnout broke records. People waited their turn even though it was cold. These were voters who were told in no uncertain terms, and who instinctively understood, Trump would need to win by a landslide to prevent cheating in the general election. The final tally was 98.8% for Trump, giving him 26 delegates, though no one else of consequence was on the ballot. It seems some voters voted twice, and it wasn’t all that clear they couldn’t legally, which is as weird as holding both a primary and a caucus is.

Then at 6 p.m. EDT, Tucker Carlson’s highly anticipated two-hour interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin was cast on his website and on X, formerly known as Twitter. It was a smashing success—no servers crashed that I know of—and fascinating. Despite American predictions to the contrary, Putin is still alive and looked well.

Putin talked extensively about Russian history, what went wrong in Ukraine (nazification of the Donbas, Ukraine being supported by NATO); why the ‘limited military engagement’ hasn’t been quelled (no security insurances for Russia); and who derailed the proposed Turkish settlement (Boris Johnson, per Biden). Also of note were his comments on the Nordstream pipelines, and who was responsible. (Who has an interest and who has the capability? Fill in the interstitial blanks…). Carlson asked about the Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershovich, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty editor currently imprisoned in Russia. Putin claimed Gershovich was engaging in espionage, but could foresee sending him back home, but the negotiating teams on both sides needed to iron things out. 

After, Carlson said he also met Ed Snowden while in Russia. One would presume Snowden was interviewed, as well, and we can hope to see it, hopefully sooner rather than later. He also met with Tara Reade, who had accused Biden of sexual assault, though why she was there was admittedly not known to me. Turns out, she had defected to Russia last year because the U.S., she claims, isn’t safe for her because of Biden. Who knew?

Then there was the release of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s mishandling of classified materials. (Read it here.) It was found he “willfully retained and disclosed” classified information, but will not be charged with wrongdoing because it was concluded he was a “well-meaning elderly man with poor memory” so a jury would not convict him. Cited as examples of his poor memory in the report were that he did not remember when he was vice president, or when his son died. Never mind he wasn’t an elderly man when he purloined the classified dox, and he disclosed the materials for money—he shared them with the ghostwriter of his biography.

Biden held a press conference after the release, too, if you could call it that. It was more an embarrassing and inarticulate temper tantrum with many misspeaks. He was clearly senile and substantiating that fact in his responses. He blamed the records being in his home on his “staff.” He became angry at Hur, yelling “How the hell dare he!” Before the presser was over, he made another embarrassing gaffe he is notorious for: he confused Egypt with Mexico. The press suddenly had questions, even though he’s had major gaffes for many months. These aren’t small errors. He has a tendency to name the wrong foreign leaders or get undisputed historical facts wrong. This is a not just an American embarrassment, it’s also a potential national security peril. 

Next, Just the News reported Biden used a private email address and fake names (RobinWare456@gmail[dot]com) since at least 2010 as he was conducting White House business asVice President, and shared the communications with sons Hunter, Beau (of late), and younger brother James. None had authorization to receive such communications which are said to be some 82,000 pages, only about 60 which have been received by JTN thus far. 

This has been a problem since the Clinton days, making archiving or retrieval for legitimate government purposes exceedingly difficult. These documents could be vital to provide historians and negotiators with accurate records of national importance. Nonetheless, just because the Clintons got away with it doesn’t mean ignoring the rules can go on in perpetuity. Either one can do this or not, and, regardless of party, should apply to all similarly situated. 

Last, the U.S. Senate advanced a ‘clean’ foreign-aid-only bill for Ukraine ($61b), Israel ($14b), and Taiwan ($5b), costing over $95 billion. Seventeen Republicans joined the Dems. Final passage is possible, but not assured over the weekend. Yet, Volodymyr Zelensky has fired Valerii Zaluzhnyi, his top military commander. The U.S. border crisis, however, remains out of control.

As Between a Fascist and a Neocon, I’ll Pick Evil Every Time.

IT’S HARD TO DECIDE which G.O.P. woman I abhor more: former U.N. Ambassador and RINO presidential candidate, Nikki Haley, or former U.S. rep (Wy.) and wannabe future presidential candidate, Liz Cheney. IMO, both are reviling human beings. Yesterday, I would’ve said Cheney, but after Haley’s fascist musings Tuesday on Fox News’ Voters’ Voices, I’m left truly betwixt.

A voter in the Fox audience, understandably concerned about rising antisemitism and ‘disinformation’ being promulgated in schools around the country, asked Haley if she believed there was any limiting principle on free speech. Indeed there is in Haley’s dark world from outer space. She blamed the problem in the first instance on use of social media by young people. All of society’s ills have been blamed by many on young peoples’ use of something, whether it be comic books, weed, rock music, cell phones, or something else, so Haley sounded like a cranky old woman even though she is only the former, not the latter. So what does Haley propose?

First, Haley says that as president, she would make media platforms disclose their algorithms. She doesn’t seem to realize that would be unconstitutional. After all, if money is speech, which is the case under current case law thanks to Citizens United (2010) and, if code is speech, which is also current case law precedent from Bernstein (1996), she’d be violating the First Amendment in any such an initiative. Furthermore, requiring such a disclosure would be an unconstitutional government ‘taking’ without due process because these algorithms hold extrinsic and intrinsic value as intellectual property that companies have invested not insignificant sums of money and human resources on developing. I guess Haley’s notion is, all the brilliant ‘young people’ who cannot even pass basic general knowledge or math tests in school, would suddenly be intellectually adept at analyzing the algorithms and recognizing their untoward effects on their ability to reason or think, thereby thwarting ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation.’ That’s absurd, of course.

Secondarily, Haley proposes outlawing anonymous social media accounts, proposing official I.D.s be required to open them. That clearly violates the First Amendment, and also could constrain things we value as a society, such as news gathering or whistleblowing. Perhaps she should apply for janitorial work at Meta’s One Hacker Way instead of a government post at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Read FB BS here. Haley’s answer at Fox, now being backpedaled, is here.

The Washington Post: C.I.A.’s Dark Cloak Dies Underwater

IT WASN’T THAT LONG AGO the World speculated about what nation was responsible for sabotaging the Nord Stream Pipeline that posed enormous danger to Europe’s energy infrastructure at a critical juncture. I seem to recall many blamed Russia, but that’s de rigueur (and everyday Democrat pablum.) Now, however, we have the benefit of WaPo’s unorthodox insight into whodunit and it may very well be the correct conclusion, at least in part.

On Sunday, WaPo revealed that Ukrainian Colonel Roman Chervinsky “was integral to the brazen sabotage operation” on the Nord Stream pipeline, “according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation.” Chervinsky is a senior player within the ranks of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces who coordinated the pipeline attack—executed flawlessly and in upmost secrecy. He denies it, but it always made sense it was Ukraine: it had an overwhelming interest in not letting Russia bypass Ukrainian pipes, thereby depriving Kiev of voluminous transit fees. 

In a written statement provided to WaPo and Der Spiegel (which undertook the investigation into the story jointly), Chervinsky said, “Without merit, Russian propaganda is spreading all rumors regarding my participation in the assault on Nord Stream.” WaPo reports Chervinsky didn’t plan the operation nor did he act alone (and was also quick to acquit Zelensky of culpability). Chervinsky apparently took orders from senior official who reported directly to Gen. Velery Zaluzhny, the highest-ranking military officer in Ukraine.

Where did Zelensky fit into the scheme? He, too, vehemently denies Ukraine involvement, but not so very long ago, he was an actor (and comedian.) As for renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s allegation of C.I.A. and U.S. Navy complicity in the explosion, the U.S. and NATO have been deeply involved in Ukraine, and Hersh still surmises, probably correctly, that it’s just America’s proxy war with Russia.

It’s not clear how long WaPo has sat on this story, but given even mainstream media is now reporting America is finally running out of defense bribe money to give to pay off Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for Brandon, it seems safe enough to get the news out without prejudicing the Ukrainian funny man and before other media sources get it out first.

Meanwhile, Chervinsky is now being held in a Kiev jail for allegedly trying to induce a Russian pilot to defect to Ukraine in July of 2022 in an abuse of power.

Westminster Declaration Decries ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’

WONDER OF WONDERS, this almost got lost in the press. Last month, an international coalition of over 140 journalists, intellectuals, and prominent figures penned their names to something called the Westminster Declaration, a document opposing increased censorship in the world today or the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’ 

In part, it says, “Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.” 

It refers to a miscellany of censorship techniques including but not limited to filtering, labelling, manipulating of search engine results; de-platforming and flagging social media, use of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ to limit discussion or debate. It cites as examples Ireland’s planned ‘Hate Speech’ bill, Scotland’s Hate Crime Act, Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill, the E.U.’s Digital Service Act, and the U.K.’s Online Hate Speech Bill. Interestingly, it cites with admiration the First Amendment, while ignoring its repeated and flagrant violation.

Among those signing were Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange (who is still with us and influential despite his continued unjust incarceration). The Westminster Declaration can be read in its entirety here. 

In an interesting development, the so-called Squad and pro-MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have united to call for the government to withdraw its extradition request for Assange, who they say did not violate the 1917 Espionage Act (let alone, 17 times) and whose First Amendment rights have been violated. They signed a joint letter to Biden last week, reproduced in significant part here. 

“We note that the 1917 Espionage Act was ostensibly intended to punish and imprison government employees and contractors for providing or selling state secrets to enemy governments, not to punish journalists and whistleblowers for attempting to inform the public about serious issues that some US government officials might prefer to keep secret,” they observed.

The WikiLeaks founder and publisher remains in London’s Belmarsh Prison still awaiting his fate. So, too, is the Wikipedia entry on the Westminster Declaration, which apparently poses such a threat to the mainstream media and its government sponsors in the censorship industrial complex, it probably needs to be nipped in the proverbial bud. 

I have captured a screenshot of the possible deletion of the article here, as of 11:34 pm ET on 11/12/23 in case it is carried out in an attempt to deny the plea and the problem: 

The article itself is merely what is called a ‘stub,’ so it exactly taking up much space or time, but maybe…Wikipedia has a bit of a guilty conscience because it has been doing its own dirty work for the government and its compromised or corrupted cronies?

Matt Taibbi knows a little about that first-hand. Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger could be convinced, too, apparently, so maybe. 

First Amendment Lawsuits: Bring ‘Em On!

ITHE LAWSUITS KEEP COMING when it concerns censorship and the First Amendment. Today Consortium for Independent Journalism, a nonprofit publishing Consortium News (which I regularly read) filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government and an internet ‘watchdog’ called NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. in Manhattan over alleged First Amendment violations. More specifically, CNs’ suit charges that the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, which is a component of the intelligence community, with contracting with NewsGuard to identify, report, and abridge the speech of American media which dissent from the official policy positions of the U.S. government. NewsGuard, it is claimed, is “acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints” as to Ukraine, Russia, and Syria, imposing a form of “censorship and repression of views” which differ from that espoused by the United States government and its allies. In other words, agree with your government—or else. 

NewsGuard allegedly uses its software to tag news sites that have been targeted, including all 20,000+ CN articles since 1995, with warnings to “proceed with caution,” or telling NewsGuard subscribers that CN produces “disinformation,” “false content,” and is an “anti-U.S.” media organization. Not only did they tag CN articles, NewsGuard only directly took issue with six of the articles.

Robert Parry, a multiple-award winning investigative journalist, was the editor of CN from 1995 until his death in 2018. Among the stories he covered were the Iran-Contra Affair and this gem (here) Ukraine’s Nazi ‘heroes’ written back in 2015.

Consortium News’ attorney, Bruce Afran, said:“The First Amendment rights of all American media are threatened by this arrangement with the Defense Department to defame and abridge the speech of U.S. media groups. When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’ and are accused of publishing ‘false content’ because they disagree with U.S. policies, the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment.”

CN seeks a ruling that the practice by the defendants is unconstitutional and equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction against such practices. It seeks damages of over $13 million for defamation and for civil rights violations.  The Complaint may be read in full here. (Not too sure the Southern District of New York the best forum, but WTF?)

SCOTUS Refuses to Discuss Censorship in Murthy v. Missouri.

.

IT WAS A MIXED BAG on Friday for free speech advocates. The Supreme Court agreed to review a Biden censorship scheme and determine whether it passes constitutional muster in Murthy v. Missouri. The Court also blocked a lower court’s temporary stay on the scheme by federal agencies until the case is decided, sometime before the end of June of 2024. The bottom line is that the Biden regime can resume its censorship through directing Big Tech companies to limit Americans’ speech and debate with impunity for at least that long. 

The genesis of the case were groups concerned over the proscriptions on debate surrounding “the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.” They particularly objected to officials who “coerced, threatened, and pressured” social media platforms. The District Court for the Western District of Louisiana believed the plaintiffs had a case likely to prevail on the merits. As such, it issued an injunction on the Fourth of July against offending federal agencies and officials that make up what has become known as the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” In his 155-page memorandum (here), the District Court judge, Terry Doughty, found: “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court agreed with the lower court’s findings and ruling, writing: “[T]he district court was correct in its assessment — ‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’” (Ruling here.)

Unfortunately, but predictably, the regime again appealed, and even more unfortunately, and less predictably, SCOTUS overruled the decisions.  The justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, did not provide a rationale. But Justice Samuel Alito penned a scathing dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch (here), writing: “[W]hat the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.” Indeed, it is, but maybe SCOTUS will get it right—eventually.

Former Counterintelligence Agent Who Covertly Worked at “X” Revealed.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, new evidence through The Twitter Files revealed that a former C.I.A. counter-terrorism agent engaged in a smear campaign against The New York Post’s exposé on Hunter Biden’s ‘laptop from hell,’ concealed her true position while at Twitter, now “X.” Her name is Nada Bakos. 

Substack writer/reporter Texas Lindsay obtained an email Bakos sent where she was anxious to secure her social media profiles when she appeared on the cover of The New York Post along with colleagues at the agency who had tried to discredit the laptop story in its earliest days. It appears Bakos may have played a crucial role in Twitter’s policy enforcement framework as recently as March of 2022. This would have allowed her to directly influence the implementation of the platform’s content moderation procedures. Lindsay’s piece is definitely worth reading, here.

Bakos worked at the agency under former C.I.A. Director, Mike Morrell, during the Obama regime. Morrell drafted the now debunked an infamous ex-intelligence official letter claiming the laptop story reeked of a Russian misinformation campaign aimed at election interference or killing our democracy or some such nonsense. 

Assuming it’s true that Bakos was in a senior policy position and an essential part of Twitter in 2020, there is remarkable irony in that the former intelligence agent both discredited a story and manipulated its social media trajectory at the same time. Archives on the internet found by Lindsay suggest Bakos used her personal accounts to amplify negative views of Trump, which show her lack of neutrality in pushing media narratives—not that social media platforms even purport to be objective arbiters of reasoned opinions or proven facts anyway. 

But it does suggest a crossover between government and the private sector in censorship and/or gaslighting of Americans. And worse, it sets a dangerous precedent of having counterintelligence agents engaging in covert operations partnering with social media to steer narratives to suit a particular political outcome or personal preference. It also ensures tech giants will continue to lose credibility, especially for the more media-savvy among us.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), et al. is seeking information from Bakos, here.