Elon Musk has just released “Twitter Files: Part 7,” exposing an “organized effort” by federal law enforcement and the intelligence community to influence Twitter and discredit allegations against Hunter Biden.
Musk tasked independent writer Michael Shellenberger with releasing the latest installment of the “Twitter Files” on Monday.
Shellenberger delves into how the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and intelligence community “discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.”
The files show a direct effort by America’s taxpayer-funded federal agencies to suppress negative press on the Democrat candidate during the 2020 election.
The latest release also reveals that the intel community has taken action on a domestic level to influence Twitter’s content moderation.
Musk has long been vocal about being transparent when it comes to Twitter’s past and present actions in curating content on the platform, including censored content.
The Twitter boss has enlisted independent journalists to slowly release evidence of these actions.
The series, dubbed the “Twitter Files,” continues to expose once-secret communications.
“In Twitter Files #6, we saw the FBI relentlessly seek to exercise influence over Twitter, including over its content, its users, and its data,” Shellenberger wrote.
“We have discovered new info that points to an organized effort by the intel community to influence Twitter & other platforms,” he later added.
“In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published,” he continued.
“The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden’s laptop.”
1. TWITTER FILES: PART 7
The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop
How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
In Twitter Files #6, we saw the FBI relentlessly seek to exercise influence over Twitter, including over its content, its users, and its data. https://t.co/g66XzH9ISr
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him
On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden's laptop. https://t.co/TdaYhHMVRH pic.twitter.com/JxdkrkgAkI
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
By Aug 2020, Mac Isaac still had not heard back from the FBI, even though he had discovered evidence of criminal activity. And so he emails Rudy Giuliani, who was under FBI surveillance at the time. In early Oct, Giuliani gives it to @nypost https://t.co/TdaYhHMVRH
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
Shortly before 7 pm ET on October 13, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, emails JP Mac Isaac.
Hunter and Mesires had just learned from the New York Post that its story about the laptop would be published the next day. pic.twitter.com/59RV5h8ZsM
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
7. At 9:22 pm ET (6:22 PT), FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter. pic.twitter.com/7j59zfBuJQ
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
8. The next day, October 14, 2020, The New York Post runs its explosive story revealing the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. Every single fact in it was accurate. pic.twitter.com/TC2AnLNJAw
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
9. And yet, within hours, Twitter and other social media companies censor the NY Post article, preventing it from spreading and, more importantly, undermining its credibility in the minds of many Americans.
Why is that? What, exactly, happened?
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
“It’s important to understand that Hunter Biden earned *tens of millions* of dollars in contracts with foreign businesses, including ones linked to China’s government, for which Hunter offered no real work,” Shellenberger wrote.
“During all of 2020, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Yoel Roth to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a Russian ‘hack and leak’ operation,” he wrote.
He added a screenshot of a sworn declaration by Roth discussing years of weekly meetings, warning of such an operation happening right before the 2020 election.
12. And yet, during all of 2020, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Yoel Roth to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a Russian “hack and leak” operation.
This is from a sworn declaration by Roth given in December 2020.https://t.co/IvTjyYw9iR pic.twitter.com/5iq2ATB3bW
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
Shellenberger noted that Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once said the FBI approached Facebook.
Zuckerberg said agents also warned of Russian “propaganda” ahead of the 2022 election.
“Were the FBI warnings of a Russian hack-and-leak operation relating to Hunter Biden based on *any* new intel? No, they weren’t,” Shellenberger wrote in a tweet sharing comments from FBI agent Elvis Chan.
“Through our investigations, we did not see any similar competing intrusions to what had happened in 2016,” Chan wrote.
Shellenberger also noted that Twitter executives “repeatedly” indicated there was “very little” Russian activity on the platform.
14. Were the FBI warnings of a Russian hack-and-leak operation relating to Hunter Biden based on *any* new intel?
No, they weren't
“Through our investigations, we did not see any similar competing intrusions to what had happened in 2016,” admitted FBI agent Elvis Chan in Nov. pic.twitter.com/tFPMqbydbA
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
15. Indeed, Twitter executives *repeatedly* reported very little Russian activity.
E.g., on Sept 24, 2020, Twitter told FBI it had removed 345 “largely inactive” accounts “linked to previous coordinated Russian hacking attempts.” They “had little reach & low follower accounts." pic.twitter.com/hy7hPahChS
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
Shellenberger wrote that Twitter even “debunked false claims by journalists of foreign influence on its platform,” including polarizing NBC News reporter Ben Collins who reported White nationalists posing as Antifa called for violence on Twitter.
“We haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim,” former Twitter exec Yoel Roth wrote to Chan on June 2, 2020.
16. In fact, Twitter debunked false claims by journalists of foreign influence on its platform
"We haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim” by @oneunderscore__ @NBC News of foreign-controlled bots.
“Our review thus far shows a small-scale domestic troll effort…” pic.twitter.com/fWYNv7mMea
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
17. After FBI asks about a WaPo story on alleged foreign influence in a pro-Trump tweet, Twitter's Roth says, "The article makes a lot of insinuations… but we saw no evidence that that was the case here (and in fact, a lot of strong evidence pointing in the other direction).” pic.twitter.com/jJjnczZnA5
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
18. It's not the first time that Twitter's Roth has pushed back against the FBI. In January 2020, Roth resisted FBI efforts to get Twitter to share data outside of the normal search warrant process. pic.twitter.com/NAssnLMpds
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
“It’s not the first time that Twitter’s Roth has pushed back against the FBI. In January 2020, Roth resisted FBI efforts to get Twitter to share data outside of the normal search warrant process,” Shellenberger wrote.
He then notes that “pressure had been growing.”
Shellenberger shared an email in which a Twitter executive told Roth the intelligence community wanted the company to share more information and change API policies.
“They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff),” Twitter’s director of policy and philanthropy wrote.
19. Pressure had been growing:
“We have seen a sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more info & change our API policies. They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).” pic.twitter.com/HWeaYdvNqo
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
20. Time and again, FBI asks Twitter for evidence of foreign influence & Twitter responds that they aren’t finding anything worth reporting.
“[W]e haven’t yet identified activity that we’d typically refer to you (or even flag as interesting in the foreign influence context).” pic.twitter.com/ghGNz4ZzXB
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
“Time and again, FBI asks Twitter for evidence of foreign influence & Twitter responds that they aren’t finding anything worth reporting,” Shellenberger wrote.
“Despite Twitter’s pushback, the FBI repeatedly requests information from Twitter that Twitter has already made clear it will not share outside of normal legal channels.”
21. Despite Twitter’s pushback, the FBI repeatedly requests information from Twitter that Twitter has already made clear it will not share outside of normal legal channels. pic.twitter.com/WyI03iZ0WF
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
22. Then, in July 2020, the FBI’s Elvis Chan arranges for temporary Top Secret security clearances for Twitter executives so that the FBI can share information about threats to the upcoming elections. pic.twitter.com/YXCR2Guxz5
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
23. On August 11, 2020, the FBI's Chan shares information with Twitter's Roth relating to the Russian hacking organization, APT28, through the FBI's secure, one-way communications channel, Teleporter. pic.twitter.com/HHLpCqcOoy
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
“Then, in July 2020, the FBI’s Elvis Chan arranges for temporary Top Secret security clearances for Twitter executives so that the FBI can share information about threats to the upcoming elections,” Shellenberger wrote, proving email evidence.
“On August 11, 2020, the FBI’s Chan shares information with Twitter’s Roth relating to the Russian hacking organization, APT28, through the FBI’s secure, one-way communications channel, Teleporter,” Shellenberger wrote.
23. On August 11, 2020, the FBI's Chan shares information with Twitter's Roth relating to the Russian hacking organization, APT28, through the FBI's secure, one-way communications channel, Teleporter. pic.twitter.com/HHLpCqcOoy
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
Roth recently said during an interview that the Hunter Biden laptop set off his “finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells.”
Shellenberger provided a video of Roth’s comments in the 24th portion of the lengthy thread.
24. Recently, Yoel Roth told @karaswisher that he had been primed to think about the Russian hacking group APT28 before news of the Hunter Biden laptop came out.
When it did, Roth said, "It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells." pic.twitter.com/RKoR4NtH1s
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 19, 2022
Journalist Matt Taibbi went viral with the first installment in early December with his “Twitter Files” focusing on Twitter’s internal discussions leading to it censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 presidential election.
Taibbi’s exposé shows some officials struggling to explain how the story violated its “hacked materials” policies.
It was later revealed that the first batch of “Twitter Files” was vetted without Musk’s knowledge by Twitter deputy general counsel Jim Baker.
Baker previously served as the FBI’s general counsel and was involved in the anti-Trump Russia probe, aka the “Russia Hoax.”
Musk fired Baker shortly thereafter.
Baker was swept up by Taibbi’s reporting about the suppression of the Hunter Biden story, telling his colleagues at the time, “I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked.”
“It’s reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted,” he added.
Additionally, Taibbi initially reported, “Although several sources recalled hearing about a ‘general’ warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story.”
It is unclear whether Baker’s involvement in vetting the “Twitter Files” led Taibbi to draw that conclusion and whether Baker omitted files that would have shown the federal government intervening in Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The second installment published by Weiss revealed Twitter’s “blacklisting” of prominent conservatives, including Fox News host Dan Bongino, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, as well as Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a longstanding opponent of COVID groupthink during the pandemic who expressed opposition to lockdowns.
Internal communications also reveal Twitter staffers admitting that the popular account Libs of TikTok never violated its “hateful conduct” policy despite being punished several times for allegedly doing so.
Those revelations appear to contradict what former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told Congress in 2018, saying under oath that Twitter did not censor or shadowban conservatives.
The third, fourth, and fifth installments of the “Twitter Files” focused on the permanent suspension of President Trump around the Capitol riot events in January 2021.
Taibbi reported how Twitter circulated election-related tweets from various users leading up to the 2020 election that were “flagged” by the FBI as being problematic.
Shellenberger revealed that Dorsey was phoning it in as he was on vacation while his deputies were pushing to deplatform Trump, with Roth in particularly spearheading efforts to censor other users pertaining to tweets about the 2020 election.
It became known that Roth met on a weekly basis with the FBI, DHS as well as the office of DNI in the weeks leading up to the election.
Weiss addressed the pressure Twitter management was facing from its employees who called for Trump’s permanent suspension, though the Free Press editor also revealed several Twitter staffers who enforce policies did not believe Trump’s tweets from Jan. 6 actually violated its rules.
However, it was Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s then-head legal chief, who asked if Trump’s tweets could be “coded incitement to further violence.”
Moments later, the so-called “scaled enforcement team” suggested that based on how Twitter interprets Trump’s tweets, it could violate the violence incitement policies.
Part six of the “Twitter Files” put a spotlight on Twitter’s close ties with the FBI.
Taibbi alleged the law enforcement agency was acting like a “subsidiary” of the tech giant revealing communications that showed the FBI, as many as 80 agents, systemically flagged Twitter users for tweets that included “possible violative content” pertaining to the election.
In response to the “Twitter Files,” a spokesperson for the FBI issued a statement, saying:
“The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities.
“Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.”
The FBI’s routine contact with Twitter regarding users that would ultimately face punishment for their tweets has raised major flags about potential First Amendment violations.
Check back for updates on this developing story…