Digging deep into their timelines on Twitter, individuals may have discovered something we hadn’t expected: The FBI was more active than we had previously thought. New details concerning this engagement were recently discovered in a San Francisco “Twitter Files” collection, providing an unparalleled look into investigation techniques and social media monitoring.
Infringing on the constitutional rights of users who were restricted on their site, did those responsible violate federal law? The result can have broad repercussions.
TRENDING: NEW Trump Diamond Bills Will Drive Liberals Crazy!
The well-known Tweetville journalist Michael Shellenberger recently published his unexpected results. If you haven’t heard the news yet, be ready to learn more with this succinct analysis of what it means.
A surprisingly large number of former FBI employees worked for Twitter, including the legendary James Baker who had been chief counsel of the esteemed institution.
FBI agents made an attempt to warn Twitter Head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth about a potential Russian misinformation operation in the days and weeks before Hunter Biden’s laptop tale became public.
When news of Hunter Biden’s laptop broke, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan was compelled to get in touch with Roth. Even more fascinating was Roth’s participation in a “tabletop exercise” conducted by the Aspen Institute that contained a setting very similar to the actual one but without any indication of hacking. It seems that this caused media influencers to be ready for what would happen when the case made headlines and how they would cover it.
The New York Post published an in-depth exposé on President Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s business transactions on October 14, 2020, revealing a plethora of factual facts that shocked Washington.
In order to make sure that Twitter’s Yoel Roth understood our concerns, our devoted team persisted in applying pressure.
Roth attended in an Aspen Institute event in September 2020. “tabletop exercise” on a possible “Hack-and-Dump” a Hunter Biden-related enterprise
Our goal was to control how this incident was portrayed in both conventional and online media.
Jack Baker was at the center of a shocking “Twitter Files” data leak that revealed how he persuaded Twitter CEO Jack Roth to suppress the New York Post’s report on a laptop under their policy for compromised materials. This went against Roth’s past communications in which he said that this course of action would not be adopted. “it isn’t clearly violative of our Hacked Materials Policy, nor is it clearly in violation of anything else.”
In an attempt to respond to Roth’s concerns, Baker persisted on taking a strong stand against the veracity of the Hunter Biden information, claiming that it was either faked or obtained illegally, both of which are against Twitter rules. This position was discussed through email and Google Docs on October 14 and 15.
The FBI had made large financial expenditures in Twitter for staff support, it was revealed after an unexpected finding.
Due of the significant financial assistance they gave Twitter for people resources, the FBI had an advantage in their influence effort.
“I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!” early in 2021, according to a Jim Baker colleague.
Dave Rubin, a podcaster, noted that this wasn’t a good look:
Could this be a method for @elonmusk and others to make the platform lucrative in light of the shocking discovery that the government really paid Twitter to suppress people? Nevertheless, it could cost too much for him to bear.
The platform’s owner agreed with him in this perspective and considered this connection as a problematic matter.
Through 18 U.S. Code 241 and 242, we may deduce that if the FBI made these decisions, it would be considered a criminal conduct. This has significant legal ramifications.
Section 241 makes it illegal for “two or more persons [to] conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Section 242 on the other hand, forbids “any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom” that “willfully subjects any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
According to the website of the U.S. Department of Justice, Section 242 “typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards. However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, and other public officials, can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.”
Following the American Civil War, regulations were passed in reaction to a rise in vigilante activity by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. According to Philip Hamburger’s Wall Street Journal article on December 13th, these rules aimed to preserve an antebellum social order by coercion and violence.
The DOJ observes that in the present day, “Section 241 is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions. It was historically used, before conspiracy-specific trafficking statutes were adopted, in Human Trafficking prosecutions.”
More possible breaches of Section 241 are now being recognized by the government than ever before.
In 2021, Douglass Mackey, widely known as the troll he is on social media,“Ricky Vaughn” When a joke in 2016 urged Hillary Clinton supporters to vote through text message, it resulted in a severe prosecution. The event brought attention to the need for responsible conduct and knowledge of relevant regulations throughout election procedures.
Vote-by-text is still far from becoming a choice for people, despite the Democratic Party’s attempts to increase voting alternatives. When Joe Biden was elected president, the federal government disregarded this recommendation and said it was not a serious idea.
“There is no place in public discourse for lies and misinformation to defraud citizens of their right to vote,” An indictment against Mackey has been announced, according to a statement made by Seth D. DuCharme, acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
“With Mackey’s arrest, we serve notice that those who would subvert the democratic process in this manner cannot rely on the cloak of Internet anonymity to evade responsibility for their crimes. They will be investigated, caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
Hamburger’s breakthrough study demonstrated that the murky collaboration between the FBI and Twitter to silence both independent groups and people might possibly fall within the increased reach of Section 241.
“Because the First Amendment doesn’t bar private parties from independently suppressing speech, Section 241 would apply to tech censorship only if government officers, acting as part of a conspiracy, have violated the Constitution,” he wrote. “Doctrine on Section 241 requires this underlying constitutional violation to be clear.
“But clarity isn’t elusive. The type of suppression most clearly barred by the First Amendment was the 17th-century English censorship imposed partly through cooperative private entities—universities and the Stationers’ Company, the printers trade guild.”
Moreover, Hamburger added “Government remains bound by the First Amendment even when it works through private cutouts. There would be no purpose to a Bill of Rights if government could evade it by using private entities to do its dirty work. As the Supreme Court put it in Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission (1926), ‘It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.’
“The First Amendment’s text confirms the unconstitutionality of such workarounds. Any ‘prohibiting’ of the free exercise of religion violates the amendment. In contrast, a mere ‘abridging’ of the freedom of speech is unconstitutional. The government thus violates the latter merely by abridging or reducing it.”
Because federal criminal charges have been brought against someone for just seeking to promote voting, this complicated legal matter is remarkable. The former general counsel of the FBI convinced a social media platform to restrict critical news items during a vital electoral season, particularly those of specific people and themes that were growing in popularity, which may have violated First Amendment rights. In order to prevent unjustified interference with free expression safeguards, a fuller investigation of this issue may be required.
If nothing else, the self-described “chief twit” finds it “interesting”:
Interesting
Such offenses carry serious penalties.
The DOJ website states that a violation of Section 241 “is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.”
As for 242, “A violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors prove one of the statutory aggravating factors such as a bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, death resulting, or attempt to kill, in which case there are graduated penalties up to and including life in prison or death.”
The severe punishments for the Twitter-FBI conspiracy are insignificant in compared to the heinous crimes punished by Sections 241 and 242 of American law, such lynching or human trafficking. It is obvious that situations like this call for harsher punishments than any charge involving social media networks can ever justify.
The most recent episode of “Twitter Files” offers a bleak picture and implies that maybe unlawful activities took place. It is crucial to fully analyze the situation and ascertain the veracity of these accusations.
