Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

December 13, 2022
MARCO BELLO / Contributor, MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images
Katarina Bradford

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.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.