Twitter CEO Elon Musk made good on his promise to release information on Twitter that he thought the public deserved to know.
The information, now dubbed “The Twitter Files,” was shared on Friday evening and confirmed the allegations that there was extreme censorship directed by Democratic officials prior to the 2020 elections.
Journalist Matt Taibbi broke down the release of the Twitter Files in a series of tweets. The majority of his breakdown refers to the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop although he’s made it clear there is much more to digest in regards to “shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more. These issues are not limited to the political right,” he tweeted.
One name, in particular, was a key player in the back-end censorship arrangements and he’s no stranger to political interference. James Baker, the former FBI lawyer, was hired by Twitter a couple of months before the elections in June of 2020.
Baker was hired as Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel and advised Twitter to block access to the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Brandon Borrman who served as Twitter’s VP of Global Communications raised some concern over the removal and censorship of posts, as well as the account suspensions. In an email, he asked if the company could “truthfully claim that this is part of the policy.”
This is where Baker did what he does best; twist and manipulate legal jargon to favor particular narratives. He’s very good at it and it’s likely the reason Twitter brought him on.
“I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted,” Baker wrote in an email.
Using the term “hacked material”, Baker along with other Twitter execs put a dead halt on the laptop story.
In an internal email, several sources knew that there were issues with the “hacked materials” ruling, noting that it normally required an official/law enforcement finding of a hack. There was no such finding but they went with it anyway.
The problem with the "hacked materials" ruling, several sources said, was that this normally required an official/law enforcement finding of a hack. But such a finding never appears throughout what one executive describes as a "whirlwind" 24-hour, company-wide mess. pic.twitter.com/aONKCROEOd
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 3, 2022
If this feels familiar, it might be because Baker used the “go with it anyway” strategy when he assisted in the accusations against former President Donald Trump in the infamous Russian collusion hoax. Is it a coincidence that history repeated itself and Baker once again is found to be an integral part of the years-long campaign to destroy Trump?