Here’s an update on the case of Twitter suppressing the New York Post’s “potentially harmful” article on Hunter Biden’s emails:
Breaking News: The FEC ruled that Twitter’s decision in October to block an unsubstantiated article about President Biden's son, Hunter Biden, did not violate election laws, according to a document obtained by The New York Times. https://t.co/EzFKKvQ7X2
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 13, 2021
Sorry … to block what kind of article?
NEWS: The FEC has dismissed claims that Twitter acted illegally when it blocked users from posting an unsubstantiated Hunter Biden article.
Decision not public yet but sets a precedent for future cases involving social media sites and federal campaigns.https://t.co/egdp3KY1HV
— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) September 13, 2021
The New York Times is evidently trying to set its own precedent, that inconvenient truths can be dismissed as “unsubstantiated.”
NEW: Per FEC doc, Twitter says it was warned by federal law enforcement that "malign state actors" might hack and release materials — and that Hunter Biden might be a specific target https://t.co/egdp3KY1HV
— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) September 13, 2021
The suppression of the Hunter Biden story prompted a fury of conservative outrage.
But FEC, per document obtained by NYT, found that such decisions — when driven by commercial reasons — were allowed under the law. https://t.co/egdp3KY1HV
— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) September 13, 2021
“Conservatives pounced the suppression of a damning story about Hunter Biden.” As they should have, Shane.
And now, conservatives are pouncing on the New York Times for blatantly covering for a morally corrupt Joe Biden and his morally corrupt family.
"An unsubstantiated article"? https://t.co/OFoNJths71
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) September 13, 2021
"Unsubstantiated" https://t.co/1Id0HEit4t
— Ian (@IanLysaght) September 13, 2021
“Unsubstantiated”
Lol. pic.twitter.com/Y9aYyPJJdU
— Cousin Danny in the Boro (@cuzzo_danny) September 13, 2021
Unsubstantiated? Are we still doing this? https://t.co/Rd1mVK11oV
— Kenny has 2 podcasts now (@kchessor) September 13, 2021
Are we seriously still calling it an "unsubstantiated article" https://t.co/ZJleRcZSNK
— Rachel Bovard (@rachelbovard) September 13, 2021
Is it unsubstantiated though?
— Darren (@Darran31123261) September 13, 2021
But… the article wasn't unsubstantiated. https://t.co/KGzHFuJIPE
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 13, 2021
Unsubstantiated https://t.co/9ubXrsNNqc pic.twitter.com/LzjiTIjFT4
— SauerMelon (@SauerMelons) September 13, 2021
In fact:
It's astonishingly substantiated. https://t.co/sDx1pzCQRM
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) September 13, 2021
Substantiated AF.
"unsubstantiated"? Unrefuted, actually.
— Kristinn Taylor (@KristinnFR) September 13, 2021
I’m pretty sure this was substantiated thoroughly, over and over and over… https://t.co/zfWSz3BmHs
— Prison Mitch (@MidnightMitch) September 13, 2021
“Unsubstantiated” lmfao the laptop and various photographs say otherwise. Liars. https://t.co/qoByjGsFVj
— Shane B. Murphy (@shanermurph) September 13, 2021
https://t.co/uLIG96jpZy pic.twitter.com/UTDdFCuXGV
— CornPop ☭ (@RealC0rnP0p) September 13, 2021
We spoke to a cybersecurity expert last October when the story was published who confirmed via forensic analysis that the email at the center of the NY Post story was unquestionably authentic
via @AndrewKerrNC https://t.co/SdYKwZVnnB https://t.co/uQm1Cd4EXi
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 13, 2021
Who are you going to believe? The New York Times and Joe Biden, or your own lying eyes and ears?
The protection of this criminal family continues https://t.co/9nidApxQx8
— Michelle B – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@MissyLee1967) September 13, 2021
It's nice how they all protect each other. https://t.co/9qgWKuUTxH
— Steph Aknee (@IvannaComeAgain) September 13, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member