Twitter Executives Shield the FBI in House Hearings—Why?

Former Twitter head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth testified on Wednesday that the Hunter Biden laptop story did not, in fact, violate Twitter’s policies. The House Oversight Committee is questioning four former Twitter executives on the issue of Hunter’s laptop. Roth himself noted that he wrote an e-mail to his team at 8:51 a.m. saying the story, published by the New York Post, “isn’t clearly violative of our hack materials policy, nor is it clearly in violation of anything else.” But by 10 a.m., Roth e-mailed the team again telling them of the decision to censor the story anyway. Why? The truth may not be what it seems.

Expert opinion: Roth testified that he contravened Twitter’s policy after seeing tweets from so-called experts on how the laptop was preelection Russian disinformation.

We were following discussions about this as they unfolded on Twitter. Cybersecurity experts were tweeting about this incident and sharing their perspectives, and that informed some of Twitter’s judgment here.
—Yoel Roth

The Twitter Files have exhaustively exposed how the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other government agencies colluded with Twitter to restrict free speech and silence government critics and opponents. Yet when asked if his testimony meant he hadn’t spoken to the fbi about censoring the Hunter story, Roth replied, “That’s right.”

The facts: To be sure, several “experts” were tweeting about how the laptop was fake news. But Roth’s testimony, coupled with the Twitter Files, means one of two things can be true:

  • Twitter’s only basis for censoring the laptop was hearsay from certain “trustworthy” accounts that it was Russian information; or
  • In that hour between Roth saying there were no grounds to censor the story and him deciding to censor the story, someone did direct him to censor it, even though it didn’t violate Twitter’s policies.

Both scenarios would be a scandal. But Roth seems to have opted for the former. The Federalist commented that Roth and his colleagues seem to want to distance themselves from the fbi even though the Twitter Files make that impossible, and “being beholden to the so-called experts tweeting out warnings of supposed Russian disinformation would hardly be an improvement.”

So why choose to shield the fbi? Who are they protecting and why?

The Trumpet said: Editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote in “Barack Obama and the ‘Twitter Files’”:

When Twitter Files 8.0 was released, people mostly talked about how Twitter worked with the United States government to spread propaganda. But what happened between 2009 and 2017 at Obama’s Department of State, Department of Defense and other government agencies? This is an obvious question with a clear answer, yet few will even ask it!

Musk has been responsible for revealing large amounts of important information through the Twitter Files and has even fired employees, such as Twitter counsel and former Federal Bureau of Investigation general counsel Jim Baker, who have tried to block the information from getting out. Yet he and the current Twitter staff have still not revealed what Barack Obama did! If something as clear and as important as that continues to be kept secret, it shows that these Twitter Files, as much as they reveal, are still failing to fully expose the whole truth! To pull a shroud over the man who started all this deceit, deception, theft and lying leaves the most important part of the story untold!

It seems that even in these hearings, these former Twitter execs are willing to take the blame for incompetence rather than point to the real source of their decisions. “That code of silence and noncompliance with authorities and outsiders is what is used in the mafia!” Mr. Flurry wrote. It is critical to know and understand the whole truth of what is playing out in America today.