Matt Taibbi files a supplemental thread to his review of DHS/FBI instructions, through the still undisclosed portal. [Supplemental Here]
Just a reminder… how the ‘asks’ actually took place is still a mystery, Taibbi & Weiss et al are only privy to the internal actions and discussions after the inbound requests arrive. Put another way, we are blind to the method of the DHS/FBI portal into the network. I do not believe that secrecy is accidental.
[Twitter File Supplemental Here]
The essence of Taibbi’s supplemental report is based on a few internal emails amid the group following DHS/FBI and ODNI officials telling the Twitter rulers they were not cracking down hard enough on the platform content.
As Taibbi notes, “The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th “DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,” that “you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”
Twitter official Yoel Roth then responded to the U.S intelligence community in a series of back-and-forth conversations, and internally to the Twitter censorship group.
As noted by Taibbi, “[Roth] was not “comfortable with the Bureau (and by extension the IC) demanding written answers.” Taibbi then seems to pull out the pretending not to know things card and ponders, “the idea of the FBI acting as conduit for the Intelligence Community is interesting, given that many agencies are barred from domestic operations.”
Gee, ya think? Go figure.
Within the short thread the Intelligence Community is responding to Twitter with citations from mainstream media publications like the Wall Street Journal. However, the citations from the journal are sourced from the same Intelligence Community citing them as evidence.
It’s the proverbial and circular use of the wrap up smear.
Intel community seeds media with false or manipulated narrative. Media prints false or manipulated narrative. Intel Community then uses media printed story as citation to tell Twitter to act on it.
Hmmm, where have we seen this before?