FBI primed Twitter execs to censor NY Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, Twitter Files reveal

December 21, 2022

Teresa Kroeger / Contributor, South_agency | Getty Images

"The press doing the bidding of the government is what they had in Soviet Russia or what they have in China and North Korea today. Without a free and independent press, you can’t have a free and independent civilization."

Glenn recently wrote that in response to the "Twitter Files" and the continued unveiling of the depth of Big Tech's affair with intelligence agencies. As Part 7 of the Twitter files just dropped, we learn that Twitter was "doing the bidding" of the FBI to censor the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story.

This installment of the "Twitter Files" was covered by Michael Schellenberger, the bestselling author of Apocalypse Never and San Fransicko, revealing the FBI primed Twitter to censor the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story both before AND after it was published.

It all began in a Delaware computer shop...

In December 2019, Delaware computer store owner, John Paul (J.P.) Mac Issac contacted the FBI over a computer that was left at his store. This computer was owned by none other than Hunter Biden, whose computer contained damning evidence of criminal activity, from international bribery to illicit drug activity. As the evidence incriminated both Hunter Biden and his father, then-Senator Joe Biden, Mac Isaac contacted federal authorities. On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issued a subpoena and took Hunter Biden's laptop from Mac Issac's shop. The below tweet contains both copies of the FBI subpoena and Peter Schweizer's explanation of Hunter Biden's illicit dealings revealed in the abandoned laptop.

37. As for the FBI, it likely would have taken a few *hours* for it to confirm that the laptop had belonged to Hunter Biden. Indeed, it only took a few days for journalist @peterschweizer to prove it. pic.twitter.com/eD8uk9lefn
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

For almost a year, Mac Isaac never heard back from the FBI about the subpoenaed laptop. Unbeknownst to the FBI, Mac Isaac had made a copy of the computer onto a new hard drive, and, wanting answers to what he uncovered on the laptop, he contacted former NYC Mayor and Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani in August 2020. Giuliani subsequently gave the story to the New York Post, which, on October 14, 2020, published the smoking-gun evidence concerning Hunter Biden's criminal activity in THIS bombshell article.

The evidence of then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden's knowledge of his son's illicit business deals and criminal activity had the potential to alter the 2020 election, which was less than a month away from the date of publication. Yet within several hours after publishing, the article vanished into thin air. If its disappearance didn't eliminate the possibility of political debate about this key information about a Presidential candidate, Big Tech hammered the nail in the coffin by labeling the story as "Russian propaganda." A month later, Joe Biden was elected President of the United States...

Within several hours after publishing, the article vanished into thin air.

...What happened?

The cover-up Conservatives have been fighting for years

Since 2020, conservatives have been called conspiracy theorists for accusing the deep state and Big Tech of conspiring to take down the potentially election-altering story. Today, they were proven true in Part 7 of the Twitter files.

Let's back up to October 13th, the day before the New York Post published its bombshell article about Hunter Biden's laptop. On the 13th, the New York Post informed Hunter Biden and his lawyer, George Mesires, that they would be running the story the next day. Several minutes later, just before 7 pm, Mesires contacted Mac Isaac, requesting to review the copy of the hard drive containing the damning evidence against his client.

Shortly before 7 pm ET on October 13, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, emails JP Mac Isaac.

Hunter and Mesires had just learned from the New York Post that its story about the laptop would be published the next day. pic.twitter.com/59RV5h8ZsM
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

Coincidentally, at 9:22 pm, just several hours later, FBI special Agent Elvis Chan sent a 10-page document to Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, through Teleporter, a pre-existing one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter. The next day, Twitter, under Roth's supervision, took down the New York Post article on the grounds that it was potentially sourced from Russian hacking.

How was Roth so quick to come to that conclusion?

The FBI primes Twitter to consider the New York Post article "Russian propaganda"

As it turns out, the FBI had been priming Roth and others at Twitter for MONTHS to consider the New York Post article "Russian propaganda" in preparation for its publishing. In Dec 2020 after the Presidential election, Roth gave the following statement in a sworn declaration:

Since 2018, I have had weekly meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security. During these weekly meetings, federal law enforcement communicated that they expected "hand-and leak-operations" by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election, likely in October. I was told in these meetings that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter. These expectations of hack-and-leak operations wee discussed throughout 2020. I also learned through these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.

Roth disclosed under oath that the FBI and intelligence agencies warned him directly throughout 2020 of anticipated "hack-and-leak" operations, which would occur right before the 2020 election, most likely in October, and would involve Hunter Biden. Sound at all like the New York Post article?

But wait... there's more!

The FBI's effort to prime Twitter execs to view the New York Post article as a "hack-and-leak" operation didn't stop there.

On August 11, 2020, Elvis Chan, the same FBI agent who sent Roth the 10-page document the night before the New York Post article was published, shared information with Roth relating to the Russian hacking organization, APT28. The FBI again carried out this communication through the FBI and Twitter's one-way direct communication channel, Teleporter.

In a recent interview, Roth disclosed how he was primed to consider the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story as an APT28 operation based on the information he received from the FBI. He said, "It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells."

24. Recently, Yoel Roth told @karaswisher that he had been primed to think about the Russian hacking group APT28 before news of the Hunter Biden laptop came out.

When it did, Roth said, "It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells." pic.twitter.com/RKoR4NtH1s
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

Furthermore, in September 2020, Roth participated in an Aspen Institute “tabletop exercise" on a potential "Hack-and-Dump" operation relating to Hunter Biden. As Schellenberger reports, "The goal was to shape how the media covered it — and how social media carried it." The event was organized by Vivian Schiller the former CEO of NPR, the former general manager of the New York Times, and the former Chief Digital Officer of NBC News. Attendees included Meta/Facebook's head of security policy, and top national security reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others.

31. The organizer was Vivian Schiller, the fmr CEO of NPR, fmr head of news at Twitter; fmr Gen. mgr of NY Times; fmr Chief Digital Officer of NBC News

Attendees included Meta/FB's head of security policy and the top nat. sec. reporters for @nytimes @wapo and others pic.twitter.com/3yO5ZIc2Jy
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

Fast forward to October 13, 2020, when Roth received a 10-page document about the New York Post story about Hunter Biden being published the next day, a month before the election. Though Roth admitted the story "isn’t clearly violative of our Hacked Materials Policy, nor is it clearly in violation of anything else," he concluded the story "feels a lot like a somewhat subtle leak operation.” He had been primed the entire year to come to that conclusion.

34. On Oct 14, shortly after @NYPost publishes its Hunter Biden laptop story, Roth says, “it isn’t clearly violative of our Hacked Materials Policy, nor is it clearly in violation of anything else," but adds, “this feels a lot like a somewhat subtle leak operation.” pic.twitter.com/xMnEWzgxdU
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022

He had been primed the entire year to come to that conclusion

There's even more corruption between Twitter and the FBI revealed in Part 7 of the "Twitter Files." Schellenberger revealed that the now-fired deputy general counsel and former FBI agent Jim Baker celebrated Twitter's accomplishment of earning more than $3 million from the FBI since 2019. Internal communications also revealed Twitter had a Slack channel called "Bu Alumni" specifically for the sheer number of former FBI employees working at Twitter and that the FBI gave Roth and other Twitter employees top security clearance to share intelligence between the two "agencies."

So what have we learned from Part 7 of the Twitter Files?

First, we learn that we were right. Conservatives have been gaslit to believe that they were "conspiracy theorists" for arguing that there was a concerted effort to censor content that threatened the woke establishment leading up to the 2020 election, like the Hunter Biden laptop story. It turns out this "conspiracy theory" was a real conspiracy.

Second, as Glenn said while covering the Twitter Files, we learn Big Tech's adulterous affair with the deep state threatens two of the most sacred pillars enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: the right to freedom of speech, and the right to free and fair elections. As Glenn recently said, Twitter and the FBI "subverted the constitutionally mandated process of free and fair elections."

These questions still need answers...

So that's what we have learned... but what haven't we learned yet? Why did the FBI spend a whole year priming Big Tech and media execs to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story? When they obtained the laptop from Mac Isaac's computer shop, did they find evidence that they themselveswere implicated in Joe and Hunter Biden's illicit business dealings? Are they trying to cover their own tracks just as much as they were determined to see Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election?

It would be naive to think that the FBI's effort to cover up the New York Post's story wasn't motivated by some degree of self-interest. The question remains—how deeply is their self-interest intertwined with what is contained in Hunter Biden's laptop? These questions need answers.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep