RED AG 98 said:

---

AH, would like to get your take on attorney client privilege and how it does / does not apply with this release? I've seen a few blue checks bringing this up. I know that there are exceptions for actual fraud and crime -- but does that require a conviction or fine or anything? Or is suspicion enough? Or does it not apply here altogether because _____? Thanks!

---

Doesn't apply. Elon owns twitter now. He's the client. He can reveal whatever twitter lawyers told twitter irrespective of when the communication occurred.

Simple enough?

Misses the real point.

justcallmeharry said:

---

CNN says nothing to see here.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/musk-twitter-hunter-biden/index.html

Taibbi said the contact from political parties happened more frequently from Democrats, but provided no internal documents to back up his assertion. He also did not say that Democrats requested that Twitter suppress the Post story, and his account did not suggest that the US government had ever pressured Twitter to suppress the story."

---

now all of a sudden cnn is worried about verifying sources.

RED AG 98 said:

---

Perfect! Yes, thank you. I didn't know if it survived the change or not.

---

Attorney client privilege applies to the attorney, not the client. The prohibition on revealing client confidentiality is on the lawyer.

Manhattan said:

---

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

They either didn't work for the government or work for the government, which wasn't run by Dems.

---

Shall we circle back? https://t.co/b9FfDEqtTa

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 3, 2022

---

Biden campaign wasn't the government, hth,

---

You know good and damn well what happened was unethical, and you better be apologizing to anyone that you called a conspiracy theorist if you did that.

Manhattan said:

---

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

They either didn't work for the government or work for the government, which wasn't run by Dems.

---

Shall we circle back? https://t.co/b9FfDEqtTa

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 3, 2022

---

Biden campaign wasn't the government, hth,

---

They stopped after he was elected, amirite?

By the way, it was barely a month ago when @lhfang and @kenklippenstein published new blockbuster documents proving Homeland Security plays a direct role in Big Tech's censorship decisions.

The same people attacking @mtaibbi's story attacked this, too:https://t.co/vhyfd8ooeQ

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022

Just a reminder.

🚨🚨🚨

BREAKING: Last year Twitter disclosed to the FEC they were warned of ‘a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden’ by federal law enforcement that led them to censor the NY Post story

The disclosure was signed by Yoel Roth https://t.co/ibKYrCdCu7 pic.twitter.com/obQoVwA1JQ

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 3, 2022

Quote:

---

So who's lying here? The safest bet is to assume both entities are lying. Clearly, given the document dump that happened on Friday evening, Twitter was far more involved in censoring the story than just listening to the advice of the FBI. Democrat elected officials were colluding with the company to decide what should be taken down.

On the other hand, the FBI obviously lied when it told Twitter (and other social media companies) that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a "hack and leak operation." There was never any evidence that the laptop was hacked, and the FBI had been in possession of it for over a year at that point. Further, they gained possession of it from the computer repair store where the laptop was left. That means the FBI knew its provenance the moment The New York Post broke the story, but agents (no doubt backed by leadership) chose to falsely claim it was a foreign hacking operation anyway.

---

LINK

nai06 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

I simply do not understand what treason is if this is not it.

---

A correct statement

---

Any person who had taken an oath of office, so all federal employees and members of both houses of congress, committed treason when requesting they censor free speech in order to overthrow the government.

My comment is how others, particularly dolts on the left who so brazenly claim muh insurrection!, do not see this.

---

Can you imagine if this was the Trump administration? Our lib friends on here would be going nuts.

---

We don't have to imagine. According to Taibbi, the Trump White House requested removals that were granted just like the Biden Campaign.

Honestly the notion that a sitting president and his administration would be actively suppressing speech via Twitter during an election year should be a pretty big deal. So far this board only seems to care about the Biden campaign doing this. I wonder why that is?

10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 2, 2022

---

He later goes onto say Republicans were using their access to request conservative users be unbanned. Elon has commented in the past on their being nobody on the left banned, and conservatives getting unbanned is why the morons have fled to Mastadon.

20.This led public policy executive Caroline Strom to send out a polite WTF query. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms/policy teams, who had little/less control over moderation, and the safety/trust teams: pic.twitter.com/0IFnVPCOgY

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 3, 2022

nai06 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

I simply do not understand what treason is if this is not it.

---

A correct statement

---

Any person who had taken an oath of office, so all federal employees and members of both houses of congress, committed treason when requesting they censor free speech in order to overthrow the government.

My comment is how others, particularly dolts on the left who so brazenly claim muh insurrection!, do not see this.

---

Can you imagine if this was the Trump administration? Our lib friends on here would be going nuts.

---

We don't have to imagine. According to Taibbi, the Trump White House requested removals that were granted just like the Biden Campaign.

Honestly the notion that a sitting president and his administration would be actively suppressing speech via Twitter during an election year should be a pretty big deal. So far this board only seems to care about the Biden campaign doing this. I wonder why that is?

10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 2, 2022

---

You and Manhattan may want to slow your roll on the whataboutism. We now KNOW what Biden and friends and their other friends at the FBI were working to suppress, just before an election.

We should see what Trump and any Rs asked about and what procedure was followed. If they said, "Hey, here are several examples of misinformation that are blatantly agfains Twitter rules and we would like them reviewed and possibly removed".

That's a bit different then weeks before a campaign the campaign folks, up to and including Biden, asking privately to the execs at Twitter to BLOCK and remove any mentions of an article from the Nation's oldest newspaper because it was embarrassing to the candidate and used the FBI to give credence to a lie that the laptop was a hack and leak.

Oh, and for saying Dems were not in control of "the government" in 2020, that's funny and totally disingenuous (nothing new for libs). Remember, Team Lib blow on and on about an independent DOJ and that Trump is not a king nor dictator and he cannot order the DOJ to do this or that. And now you say "well, if it was the FBI telling Twitter what to do then that is a crime by Trump because he was head of the executive and the DOIJ has to do everything he says regardless of the US Constitution.

You don't get to have it both ways comrades. You and Manhattan and all your little lib friends are TOAST.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So who's lying here? The safest bet is to assume both entities are lying. Clearly, given the document dump that happened on Friday evening, Twitter was far more involved in censoring the story than just listening to the advice of the FBI. Democrat elected officials were colluding with the company to decide what should be taken down.

On the other hand, the FBI obviously lied when it told Twitter (and other social media companies) that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a "hack and leak operation." There was never any evidence that the laptop was hacked, and the FBI had been in possession of it for over a year at that point. Further, they gained possession of it from the computer repair store where the laptop was left. That means the FBI knew its provenance the moment The New York Post broke the story, but agents (no doubt backed by leadership) chose to falsely claim it was a foreign hacking operation anyway.

---

LINK

---

Important to add the FBI took this a step further as it coordinated the timing and message based on information obtained from spying on Rudy Guiliani's Apple accounts, including iMessages to Miranda Devine and emails and screenshots from our favorite computer repair man.

And as Hawg points out, all the while KNOWING the laptop was legit. Hence, people need to be hung or shot.

Dan Scott said:

---

Only thing missing right now is evidence FBI telling Twitter specifically the NY Post story is fake and Twitter acting on that. That would be real scandal. Without that, it looks bad but still circumstantial. I'd also like to know what prompted FBI to warn Twitter.

---

They were spying on Rudy and Post Reporter, Miranda Devine. Knew the article was about to come out.

How broken do you have to be to think that shedding some new light on the archetypical case of online censorship run amok reflects a "disgraceful downfall"? https://t.co/TcF4aCp9TB

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) December 3, 2022

Dan Scott said:

---

Also what constitutes leaked hacking materials? If I'm a reporter and hack into somebody's computer that seems like hacked materials. Is reporting on secret or proprietary info considered hack materials? If it's a random Russian or media outlet is that different? All the reporting on Trump leaks would then be in violation.

---

Hey goal keep.

The twitter emails admit the hacked materials angle was bull*****

But you tried. So there's that.