Will Adam Schiff’s Claims Now Be Blocked On Twitter? – Thelegaltorts

0
29
Federal Court Rules Against Trump Administration On The “Third-Country Asylum” Rule – JONATHAN TURLEY

Twitter logoJust a day after more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed a letter stating that the recent disclosure of emails from the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation, the FBI reportedly confirmed it was The material does not appear to be about Russian disinformation. While former officials like John Brennan insisted that the story "had all of the classic features of a Russian intelligence operation," the FBI does not appear to have found any such evidence. This followed a similar conclusion by the director of the National Intelligence Service in response to House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff that the story was pure Russian disinformation. The question is whether Twitter and Facebook will block access to Schiff's statements until further verification, as the actual intelligence services suspect that this could be a democratic disinformation. After all, a former Twitter manager is demanding that President Trump be banned from all social media until after the election in order to prevent “misinformation”. The burden of being a free speech advocate is the answer that is clearly no. Those like Schiff who have called for material on the Internet to be censored should continue to benefit from the protection of free speech.

From the point of view of freedom of speech, it does not matter whether the Schiff declaration and the letter have “all the classic characteristics of a (democratic) information operation”. We all benefit from free and solid discussion of such topics. We don't need these companies to censor or inhibit stories to protect us from misinformation.

The letter itself impresses not only with its comprehensive conclusion (without actually checking the laptop or emails), but also with its signatories. This includes some of those linked to the Russian investigation into the Trump campaign, based in part on the Steele dossier. This dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, was recently discovered to be based on information provided by a well-known Russian agent.

Throughout the campaign and for many weeks thereafter, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the preparation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump employees during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as "legal fees" under the $ 5.6 million paid to the law firm. The New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Clinton attorney Marc Elias had "vigorously" denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel attempted to tell the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously and said, 'You (or your sources) are wrong. & # 39; "Times reporter Maggie Haberman also wrote," The people who helped fund it lied about it, and with holiness, for a year. "Even as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, d When asked by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual arrangements with Fusion GPS, with Elias next to him, who helped draft the contract.

Of course, the content of the Steele dossier received extensive media coverage. The coverage included thousands of articles. It turns out that when the investigation began, the FBI warned that Steele may have been used to spread Russian disinformation – a view reinforced by the disclosure of Steele's numerous sources. To date, the media has largely ignored this story and how it was used to spread possible Russian disinformation.