BUSTED: Former Twitter CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal censored Trump's account after Twitter execs said Trump never violated Twitter's 'incitement' rules

MARCO BELLO / Contributor, MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Bari Weiss just dropped the fifth installment of "The Twitter Files" with the latest bombshell: that Twitter’s former CEOs Jack Dorsey and CEO Parag Agrawal ignored Twitter's review board, who concluded Trump did NOT violate Twitter’s “incitement” rules.

Trump makes his last appearance on Twitter before permanent suspension

In the aftermath of the Capitol Riots, Trump tweeted what would become his last two tweets before his account was suspended. On January 8, 2020, Trump tweeted his last two tweets in the aftermath of the Capitol riots. At 8:46 am, Trump tweeted, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

At 9:44 am, Trump tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Several hours later, 300 Twitter employees signed an open letter to then-CEO Jack Dorsey, which was published by the Washington Post, calling for Twitter to ban Trump’s account on the grounds of incitement. The letter went so far as to say Twitter would be complicit with “insurrection” if the platform didn’t take further action and ban Trump’s account: “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.”

Twitter's review team finds Trump NOT guilty of inciting violence

Twitter's review team began its internal review of whether Trump’s tweet merited incitement, and, to say the least, they weren’t convinced. One staffer wrote, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.”

Another employee agreed, “Don’t see the incitement angle here.” Similarly, the team found Trump’s tweet about “American patriots” was referring to “the people who voted for him” rather than the “terrorists” on January 6.

“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.”

Twitter policy official Anika Navaroli agreed with the team's review, concluding, “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet [...] I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios [violations] for the DJT [Donald J. Trump] one.” Navaroli subsequently notified the respective Twitter execs that “Safety has assessed the DJT Tweet above and determined that there is no violation of our policies at this time.”

"There is no violation of our policies at this time."

Bari Weiss pointed out Navaroli went on to testify before the House January 6 committee several month later, defending Twitter’s decision to ban Trump’s account.

“For months I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing—if we made no intervention into what I saw occurring, people were going to die,” Weiss wrote. Apparently, Navaroli wasn’t convinced that Trump’s account posed a threat when she recommended that his account remain active to Twitter’s higher-ups.

Former Twitter employee Anika Navaroli, who said Trump was "violation of our policies at this time," poses for a Washington Post special. The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Twitter execs immediately try to find ways to interpret Trump's tweets as "incitement"

Within minutes of Navaroli’s recommendation, Twitter’s higher-ups began looking for ways to interpret Trump’s tweets as “incitement.” Less than 9 minutes after Navaoli’s initial recommendation, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, asked whether Trump’s tweet could be interpreted as a “coded incitement to further violence.”

Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, attends a Twitter event with her husband, Ramsey Homsany.Mike Coppola / Staff | Getty Images

A few minutes later, Twitter’s Scaled Enforcement Team (SET) said Trump was, in fact, praising the “rioters” as “American patriots” rather than “the people who voted for him,” totally disregarding the previous recommendation from the review team. SET said that this interpretation could merit Trump guilty of “glorification of violence.”

Twitter employees compare Trump to Hitler and Twitter's refusal to ban Trump to being a "Nazi following orders"

SET members went so far as to “view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.” Twitter exec Yoel Roth says that Twitter’s refusal to ban Trump’s account equates to “Nazis following orders.”

Trump is a "leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler."

Within two hours, Twitter execs hosted a 30-minute all-staff meeting in which then-CEO Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former general counsel and the head of legal, policy, and trust, answered staff questions as to why Trump wasn’t banned yet. One hour after Dorsey requested from Roth and his team “simpler language” to explain Trump’s suspension, he announced Trump’s permanent suspension from the platform.

Why did Twitter go against the review team's recommendation?

It’s clear Twitter had one goal in mind and no one with an opposing opinion could deter them from their aim: to permanently remove Trump’s Twitter account and discredit his followers. Even though the review board concluded Trump’s tweets didn’t incite violence, other higher-ups from different teams bent over backward to provide justification to delete Trump’s account.

Even Navaroli, the head of Twitter’s review team, initially concluded Trump’s tweets didn’t merit permanent suspension--and she was no fan of Trump as she testified before the House January 6 committee several months later. However, her review was immediately dismissed by Twitter execs who already set their minds on their desired outcome–to permanently ban President Trump.

Anika Navaroli testifies in a Jan 6 Committee hearing in which she said "people were going to die" if Twitter didn't intervene. Pool / Pool | GETTY IMAGES

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is the fact that Jack Dorsey was complicit in disregarding the review board’s consensus and caving to the overwhelming push from Twitter employees to remove Trump’s account. It's clear they were involved with internal communications to find any possible way of justifying Trump’s ban following the contrary opinion from the review board. Were they also involved in covering up the review board’s opinion and convincing Navaroli to give a contradictory testimony before Congress? As Trump was permanently suspended from other social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, one can only wonder what efforts their teams went through to suspend the President’s accounts.

As Glenn continues to unravel the scope of Big Tech’s censorship against conservatives, we are only scratching the surface of the ongoing war against freedom of speech. If these big tech platforms have the lion's share of digital communication within the U.S., shouldn’t they be accountable to protect our freedom of speech in digital communication in the same way that written and spoken forms of communication are protected by the first amendment?

It's important to view Big Tech censorship in light of the Great Reset—the vision proposed by globalist elites during the 2020 World Economic Forum to bring about leftist utopia through centralized government expansion at the expense of individual liberty. Censoring opposing voices is a key step in this plan. They have done it to anti-establishment spokespeople, Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino. If they can do it to Donald Trump, a U.S. President, they can do it to anyone.

We are only scratching the surface of the ongoing war against freedom of speech.

The argument that Twitter, as a private company, can regulate speech as they see fit is increasingly becoming more feeble. The Twitter Files bombshells continue to reveal their censorship is one-directional against conservatives—particularly when Twitter publicly denies censorship, like in 2019 when Twitter published the following:

Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. ... Our goal is to ... protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.

Feeling a bit gaslit?

This is part of our ongoing series on "The Great Reset." To read similar content, click here.

Soros is trying to elect MORE TEXAS RINOs. Here's how YOU can stop him.

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

Texas is under threat of a George Soros-backed takeover.

Soros-funded RINO judges have been elected in some of the highest courts in Texas. These judges implemented restrictions that have blocked nearly a thousand cases of voter fraud from being investigated or prosecuted from across the state. These new restrictions are similar to ones in place in states like George, Arizona, and Wisconsin, leaving Texas more susceptible to election corruption than ever. If Texas falls to corruption, America will lose its largest bastion of conservative electoral power in the nation. Without Texas, Republicans WILL NOT be able to win national elections and liberal corruption will go unchecked across the country.

Fortunately, there is a way to stop this: YOU.

If you live in Texas you have a chance to stand up against corruption and to fight back! Starting Tuesday, February 20th, early voting for the primaries begins, where three of these judges are up for election. Go out and vote. If the right people are voted in, there's a good chance the restrictions will be lifted and election fraud can once again be prosecuted.

But remember, you can't just go in and vote for anyone who has an "R" next to their name. Sorors knows that a registered Democrat would never stand a chance in Texas, so his lackeys register as Republicans and ride the little "R" right into office. So who do you vote for?

Fortunately, Glenn had Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on his show today and Ken gave us his list of judges that he vouches for. His list is as follows:

  • Gina Parker
  • Lee Finley
  • David Schenck
The Primary Election runs from February 20th to March 5th. This is your chance to get out there and make a difference. It might be the most important election you ever participate in. If you need to know where your nearest polling location is, or any other information regarding the election, you can go to votetexas.gov to find out more.
It's time to stand up.

Hypocrisy EXPOSED: The 'Amazon Files' and what WE are doing about it

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Who is really banning books?

For years now, Conservatives have been taking flak from the left for supposed "book bans." The left likes to compare these "bans" to Nazi book burnings, accusing the right of sweeping authoritarian decrees designed to suppress information. In reality, this is a movement largely motivated by parents, who want to remove inappropriate books from children's libraries.

But if you want to discuss authoritarian book bans, look no further than the White House. As Glenn recently covered, the Biden administration has been pressuring the world's largest bookseller, Amazon, into suppressing books they disagree with.

On February 5th, 2024, Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a slew of subpoenaed documents that exposed pressure placed on Amazon by the Biden Administration. The documents, which Jordan dubbed "The Amazon Files" after Elon Musk's "The Twitter Files," revealed an email conversation between Andrew Slavitt, a former White House senior adviser, and Amazon employees. In these emails, Slavitt complained that the top search results for books on "vaccines" were "concerning" and then requested that Amazon intervene. Amazon initially refused, not out of some altruistic concern for the free exchange of information. They thought any action taken would be "too visible" and would further exasperate the “Harry/Sally narrative,” referring to the outrage that followed Amazon's removal of Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally.

Despite this initial refusal, Amazon agreed to meet with the White House a few days later. The number one item on their agenda was removing books from the website. An Amazon employee even admitted that the reason they even took this meeting was due to the pressure being placed on them by the Biden Administration.

What was the result of this meeting? Amazon caved. They began to implement ways of limiting the outreach of books that challenged the mainstream vaccine narrative and other books the White House might not like.

The White House was caught red-handed pressuring the world's largest bookseller to restrict the sale of books they consider in opposition to their narrative, and they have the gall to accuse conservatives of information suppression. This is just ONE of many actions committed by the Biden Administration that are more characteristic of a dictator than a president.

What can you do about it? Fortunately, you are not dependent on Amazon and its corrupted algorithm to help you find books. Every week right here on GlennBeck.com, we highlight books that Glenn is reading or talking about in our "Glenn's Bookshelf" series. Here you can find a wide selection of books free from Amazon's filters. Be sure to sign up for Glenn's newsletter to find out about new additions to "Glenn's Bookshelf" every week.

10 times Biden has acted like a DICTATOR

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The left-wing media's most recent tirade is accusing Trump of being a dictator. But, as Glenn said, "Everything they're accusing us of, they're doing."

Since day one, the Biden administration has overstepped the bounds placed on the executive branch set by the Constitution. In Glenn's most recent TV Special, he examined ten times Biden acted like a dictator, NOT a president. Here are 10 of Biden's Dictator Moves, and click HERE to get ALL of the research that went into this week's Glenn TV special:

5 ways to protect your First Amendment rights. Number 4 will surprise you.

Buyenlarge / Contributor | Getty Images

Every day it seems Glenn covers another story revealing how people across the world at all levels of power DESPISE the fact that YOU have rights, and they are actively trying to curtail them. Recently, there has been a string of attacks against the rights outlined in the First Amendment: the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition.

As a refresher, the First Amendment reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is powerful stuff, there is a good reason the Founding Fathers made it the FIRST Amendment. It's also the reason why power-hungry elites are attacking it. These attacks are designed to control the way you think, speak, and believe, vote, what you read, and who holds your representatives responsible. The First Amendment is our strongest weapon against tyrants, and they know it.

So what can you do about it? Hope that some wig in Washinton will eventually do something? We know how well that works. The best thing to do is to stay active, engage in the issues you care about, and exercise your rights.

So where to start? Here are a few things YOU can do to protect your First Amendment rights:

Religion

The best way to flex your Freedom of Religion is to—you guessed it—practice your faith. Become an active member in your place of worship, go to scripture studies, invite your friends to that late afternoon event, and walk the life. This can impact the way you spend money as well. Shop the businesses and brands that share your values, and don't shop at the ones that scorn them. Keeping the community alive and healthy is the best way to ensure that generations to come will be able to experience the freedom you enjoy.

Speech

Much like religion, the best way to protect your freedom of speech is... to speak. Engage your friends and family in polite, civil conversation. Stand up for what you believe in, and make your case to your peers. Just remember to keep it friendly. No one ever won an argument by shouting down their opponent. The civil exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of our republic, and a dialogue where the participants are well-informed, considerate, compassionate, and open-minded can have permanent impacts on all involved.

Press

Freedom of the Press seems a little tricky at first. Unless you work for the media, what are you supposed to do? Quit your job and go work for the local newspaper? The good news is that exercising this right is not nearly that difficult. In fact, you are currently doing it. The best thing you can do is to read from outlets that produce informative content. Want to know what Glenn consumes to stay informed every day? Sign up for Glenn's Morning Brief newsletter to get all the stories Glenn gets sent to his desk every day sent straight to your inbox.

Assembly

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Freedom of assembly is one of the more impactful yet underutilized freedoms in the First Amendment. Peaceably assembling and protesting with like-minded individuals can hugely influence politicians and policies while simultaneously creating community and fellowship between attendees. It's understandable why more people don't turn out. We're all busy people with busy schedules, and flying out to D.C. for the weekend seems like a daunting task to many. Thankfully, you don't have to go out all the way to D.C. to make a difference. Gather some like-minded people in your town and bring awareness to issues that impact your community. Big change starts locally, and exercising your freedom to assemble can be the catalyst to lasting impact.

Petition

If you've been a long-time listener of Glenn, then you will have heard a few of his calls to action where he asks his audience to contact their representatives about a particular piece of policy. There is a good reason Glenn keeps on doing those: they work. Whether it's your local mayor or your senator, a call and an email go a long way. If you really want to make a change, convince your friends and family to reach out as well.