Last year, Elon Musk gained control of Twitter and commissioned investigative journalists to review company files and disclose whether or not government officials pressured or paid Twitter to censor or shape a particular narrative — particularly concerning COVID and the 2020 election.
In a stunning series of reveals, sometimes known as the “Twitter Files,” the FBI and DOJ appear to have paid Twitter millions to censor opinions that opposed Democratic policies and talking points.
Some allege that Democrats are retaliating by moving now to investigate Musk’s finances and demean Twitter Files findings.
One of the journalists commissioned by Musk to investigate and disclose Twitter file information was Matt Taibbi. At a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Democrat Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI) attempted to discredit Taibbi by referring to him as a “so-called journalist.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who is spearheading an investigation into the Biden administration’s weaponization of the DOJ and FBI for political gain, asked Taibbi to testify at the meeting.
Plaskett began her questioning of Taibbi by saying: “This isn’t just about what data was given to these so-called journalists before us now. There are many legitimate questions about where Musk got the financing to buy Twitter.”
Taibbi, a notable journalist with 30 years of experience, responded by defending his reputation:
“I’m not a ‘so-called journalist,’” Taibbi said firmly but calmly. “I’ve won the National Magazine Award, the IF Stone award for independent journalism, and I’ve written ten books, including four New York Times best-sellers.”
The intense hearing followed Jordan’s charge that the Biden administration is weaponizing federal agencies to intimidate and silence perceived enemies. He released an 18-page report with excerpts from recent letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Twitter.
Jordan asserted the government overstep is an example of the Biden administration “orchestrating an aggressive campaign to harass Twitter … [exerting] partisan pressure to target Twitter and silence Musk.”
The FTC recently demanded that Twitter executives disclose the names of all journalists who were given access to internal Twitter communications (presumably, to conduct investigations which did not bode well for the DNC).
The FTC justified the probe by citing an anonymous whistleblower complaint alleging Twitter violated a 2011 privacy safeguard agreement.
Plaskett, a non-voting member of the House subcommittee, ordered Taibbi to reveal which Twitter employees he had spoken to and received information. The veteran journalist cited precedent and noted he had a right to keep his source information confidential.
After Plaskett alleged Taibbi’s report was based on “his subjective selection of information,” Jordan stepped in and rebuked Plaskett for the line of questioning — particularly her demand that Taibbi reveal his sources. Interestingly, Plaskett denied she had requested Taibbi reveal source information.
Jordan disagreed and, for the record, said: “I just think this is interesting. First, the FTC is asking for your backgrounds, and now the ranking member on the Committee on the Weaponization of Government is asking for your sources.”
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.