Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) tried to impugn journalist Matt Taibbi and Twitter CEO Elon Musk’s integrity in a House hearing on the Twitter Files yesterday.
However, the move backfired when Musk dragged a skeleton from the congresswoman’s closet.
Musk gave two liberal, Democrat-leaning journalists access to Twitter’s communication files that show conversations with government agencies.
The files prove that the federal government has been blatantly violating the First Amendment.
It should have been a bipartisan effort in Congress to get to the bottom of the issue.
However, the Democrats attacked the liberal journalists and Elon Musk rather than confront President Joe Biden about his administration’s efforts to undermine Americans’ constitutional rights.
During Thursday’s hearing, Debbie Wasserman Schultz led the charge until Musk stepped in to remind the public who she really is.
Musk said: “I think we should listen carefully to DWS, given that she is such an expert in ethics violations.😂
“She was forced to resign as DNC chair after being bust rigging the nomination against Bernie.”
I think we should listen carefully to DWS, given that she is such an expert in ethics violations 😂
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 10, 2023
WATCH: Exchange between Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) says @mtaibbi on Twitter Files: "You violated your own standard and you appeared to have benefited from it." pic.twitter.com/SZihbRYLrl
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 9, 2023
Below is a transcript of the exchange between Wasserman Schultz and Taibbi:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Mr. Taibbi, I want to ask about journalistic ethics and information sources. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities that can compromise integrity or credibility. Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity.
But a deeper concern that I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with that?
Matt Taibbi: I think it’s — I think it depends.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Really? You wouldn’t agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion?
Matt Taibbi: Congresswoman, I’ve done probably a dozen stories involving whistleblowers. Every reported story that I’ve ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives. Every time you do a story, you’re making a balancing test between the public interest –.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Reclaiming my time. Thank you very much.
Matt Taibbi: Okay.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: I ask you this because before you became Elon Musk’s hand-picked journalists and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan’s podcast about being spoon-fed information.
And I quote: ‘I think that’s true of any kind of journalism–‘. And you’ll see it behind me here. ‘I think that’s true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you’ve lost. They have you at that point and you got to get out of that habit. You just can’t cross that line.’
Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan? Yes or no? Yes or no?
Matt Taibbi: Yes.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Good. Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter Files. Elon Musk.
Matt Taibbi: No.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: It’s my time. Please do not interrupt me. Elon Musk spoon-fed — Elon Musk spoon-fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint, or at the very least, generates another right-wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard and you appear to have benefited from it.
Before the release of emails, of the emails in August of last year, you had 661,000 Twitter followers. After the Twitter Files, your followers doubled. And now it’s three times what it was last August. I imagine your Substack readership, which is a subscription, increased significantly because of the work that you did for Elon Musk.
Now, I’m not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it’s quite obvious that you’ve profited from the Twitter Files. You hit the jackpot on that Vegas slot machine to which you referred. That’s true, isn’t it?
Matt Taibbi: I’ve also reinvested–
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Some. No, no, no, no. Is it true that you have profited since you were you were this recipient of the Twitter Files? You’ve made money? Yes or no?
Matt Taibbi: I think it’s probably a wash, honestly.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You have made money that you did not have before. Correct?
Matt Taibbi: But I’ve also spent money that I didn’t know. I just hired a group of people to
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Patently obvious answer. Reclaiming my time. Attention is a powerful drug. Eyeballs, money, prominence, attention. All of it points to problems with accuracy and credibility.
And the larger point, which is social media companies are not biased against conservatives, and if anything, they ignored their own policies by allowing Trump and other MAGA extremists to post incessant lies, endangering public safety and even our democracy.
Hypocrisy is the hangover of an addiction to attention.