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.

Glenn has focused on exposing the dark side of the gender movements waging our culture war, and now, there's a new "trend" emerging as an offshoot to the transgender movement. A growing online community, particularly of men, who consider themselves "involuntarily celibate" or "incels" believe they can live a better life as a trans woman. Why? This community purports the world is rigged against men, particularly against traditionally "unattractive men." What's the solution? Stop being a man...

Incel or "involutarily celibate" communities have existed online in the dark corners of Reddit and Discord for years. The groups are marked by a hatred towards women, blaming them for rigging the world in their favor and denying them of sex. Several members of this growing community have been responsible for large acts of violence, most notably Alek Minassian, who killed 10 and injured 16 after driving a van into a busy area of Toronto in 2021.

However, the transgender movement has presented a new option for incel members: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... or, in the Transmaxxers' case, "become them."

The online Transmaxxer's Manifesto says, “Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.” According to the manifesto, transitioning to female not only opens up a different pool of sexual partners, but moreover, you gain access to female-only spaces and are “able to extract resources from males.”

“Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.”

Another member wrote, "If you do not currently feel like living as a female you might have to work on fixing that ... Identifying as male or being emotionally attached to a male body is bad for you if being male results in you living a bad life.”

This new movement is significant because it is in stark contrast to the mainstream narrative that "transgenderism" is an innate quality. Now, it can be an "option" people choose for social advantage. A moderator going by the alias “Vintologi” on the Transmaxxing Discord server, which boasts over 1,200 members, told The Daily Caller:

Transmaxxing is about transitioning for personal gain rather than focusing on things like "gender identity." ... What matters when it comes to medical transition is whether or not said transition would actually be beneficial, thus the extent to which gender identity is innate does not inform us much regarding when medical transition is appropriate.

One incel member on Reddit lamented that he can't Transmaxx to "have sex with white trans women" and to have "all the benefits of [being] female."

Transmaxxing sheds light on a concerning issue as an increasing number of people, particularly the youth, identify as "transgender." What used to be considered as a "finge case" is now being seen as a social advantage. Glenn recently sat down with de-transitioner Chloe Cole, and the amount of pressure she experienced to become a transgender man AS A TEENAGER was ASTOUNDING. She discussed the new community, friendships, and affirmation she gained when she started her transition journey, and she lost ALL of those social perks when she began de-transitioning. She exchanged affirmation for death-threats, friendships for stone-cold silence.

Transmaxxing is a very specific example of a larger movement that is deeply concerning. Not only is the thansgender ideology problematic on its own merits, but now, we are seeing a rise of a distinction of "social advantage" based on gender affiliation. This is deviating away from the original notion that transgenderism is an innate quality. Now, many consider it more "socially advantageous" to identify as transgender than with your biological gender.

At the same time President Biden's misplaced classified documents were sitting in his house, garage, and office at the Penn Biden Center, a whole lot of Chinese money was flowing around him. Is this just a coincidence, or did the Chinese get anything in return? Investigative journalist John Solomon joins to break down what was going on here ...

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Here are 5 RIDICULOUS moments from the Davos summit

Dimitrios Kambouris / Staff, FABRICE COFFRINI / Contributor, JOSEPH EID / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has been warning about the dangers of the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset, which is the WEF's goal to utilize the crises like the COVID pandemic to create a leftist Utopia. Now, these goals continue to take shape at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos. Here are five ridiculous moments from this year's summit that shed light on their ultimate vision Glenn has been warning about.

1. Ex-CNN host Brian Stelter hosts the WEF panel on "disinformation," calling for the criminalization of "hate speech" in the U.S.

The former host of Reliable Sources was fired from CNN in 2022 for raking in the network's worst ratings since 2019. CNN's CEO at the time, Chris Licht, accused Stelter of "drawing ire from conservatives" for misrepresenting the facts and propagating false narratives to demonize conservatives. Licht fired Stelter because he was a liability to CNN's attempt to "re-brand" itself as a "reliable" news source.

You would think the World Economic Forum could have found a more credible host for its "disinformation," than Brian Stelter, and it comes with little surprise Stelter's panel called for the continued censorship of conservatives.

Stelter asked his panel, "How does this discussion of disinformation relate to everything else happening today in Davos?"

Vice-President of the European Commission Vera Jourová answered "illegal hate speech" from right-wing extremists, and then called for the criminalization of hate speech in the U.S., asserting, "I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law" within the EU.

As former Trump advisor Stephen Miller pointed out, Stelter's refusal to further challenge Jourová's call for censorship is indicative of his failed career as a journalist.

2. Al Gore warns of "rain bombs," "boiling oceans," and "xenophobia" as a result of climate change.

Gore's speech "speaks" for itself...

After asserting that we're creating an "open sewer" in the troposphere, Gore exclaimed:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs, and sucking the moisture out of the land, and creating the droughts, and melting the ice and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees!
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Speaking of refugees, Gore blamed the mass migrations of people on... you guessed it... climate change! Of course this leads to "xenophobia" and "fascism," so if we hate "xenophobia" and "fascism," we need to stop climate change IMMEDIATELY. Plus the rain bombs...

Does this sound reminiscent of the "Man-Bear-Pig?"

Courtesy of South Park

3. Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann urges for 1 million people to NOT eat meat—predicting a "meatless future."

It wouldn't be a World Economic Forum summit if bugs didn't take center stage. Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann said he was inspired by his 24-year-old daughter to stop eating meat to fight climate change and urged one million people to stop eating meat to balance out jet emissions—like the jets his fellow attendees used to travel to the conference?

Here's what he said:

If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems."
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Of course, finding "alternative sources of protein" means... you guessed it... BUGS. The EU is already cutting down on cattle farms and promoting the building of insect farms to initiate this "protein transition."

4. John Kerry calls Davos attendees a "select group" with an "almost extraterrestrial" plan to save the planet.

Kerry's opening speech at Davos shows the type of elitism the attendees believe about themselves. They are the "special ones" who can gather at a Swiss resort town to discuss how to "save the planet" and the "little people" who are too ignorant to have a say in the matter. His words speak for themselves:

When you start to think about it, it's pretty extraordinary that we — select group of human beings because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives — are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet [...] I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet [...] f you say that to most people, most people think you're just a crazy, tree-hugging, lefty liberal, you know, do-gooder, or whatever, and there's no relationship. But really, that's where we are.
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Well, not everyone was amused...

Businessman and conservative Tim Acheson called Kerry’s words, "Liberal delusions of grandeur." Jordan Peterson also tweeted, "Who are you going to sacrifice to save the planet, @JohnKerry -- and do you think and how will you ensure that they have any say in the matter?"

5. Davos attendees traveled on more than 1,000 private jets to the conference.

Greenspace, an environmentalist research group, estimates the total emissions used by Davos attendees on their private jets while traveling to the conference is equivalent to "about 350,000 average cars."

Greenspace also found that 53 percent of all private jet trips were short-haul flights of less than 470 nautical miles that "could have easily been train trips." This comes amid the EU's push to ban short-distance flights and opt for train travel instead, which many continue to point out.

Closing thoughts

What once sounded like conspiracy theories are now taking shape amongst the global elites at Davos. As Glenn continues to shed light on the dangers of the World Economic Forum, here's how YOU can fight back against their goals that threaten our freedoms and democracy.

In honor of the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, we would like to resurrect this gem from Glenn's Instagram archive. If "the Great Reset" doesn't work out, Schwab should consider reaching out to the Bond franchise for a Plan-B career.

Be sure to follow Glenn on Instagram for more!

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