Paul Sperry, senior staff writer at RealClearInvestigations.com, tells Glenn he was ‘in the middle of tweeting about the [FBI] raid’ when he received a message from Twitter informing him of his ‘permanent’ suspension. ‘They canceled my account without any explanation,’ Sperry says, which actually violates Twitter’s own rules. So are Twitter bigwigs — with connections to the FBI — trying to help the federal government? What IS going on at the FBI, and are good agents willing to stand? Plus, what specifically did Sperry say about the raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home before his suspension began? He and Glenn discuss it all, plus more, in this clip…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: We have Paul Sperry on with us now. Hello, Paul, how are you?
PAUL: Hey, how are you? Good.
Paul is a senior staff writer at RealClearInvestigations.com. Columnist also at the New York Post.
And he is also a Hoover Institution Media fellow. We have him on, because tomorrow night's special -- Wednesday night special is a weaponized government. How the Mar-a-Lago raid is an attack on all of us. So Paul, what was it that Twitter found so offensive about -- about your reporting.
PAUL: Well, that's still a mystery. They kicked me off the day after Trump's home was raided. And I was in the middle of tweeting more about the raid. And then suddenly, I got a message that popped up, saying, you have been permanently suspended.
GLENN: Permanently. Wow.
PAUL: Yeah. No reasons given. Didn't say what rules and policies I allegedly violated to prop that. Yeah. So they canceled my account without any explanation. Which is, by the way, a violation of their own rules. Because if you look them up, they're supposed to, quote, explain which policy you may have violated. Which content. And which content was in violation. And they did not do that in my case. Because they know I didn't break any rules.
GLENN: Yeah. So isn't one of the guys at Twitter, isn't he a former FBI high-ranking guy?
PAUL: Yeah. The deputy of general counsel is the -- the Comeys. Jim Comey. His former general counsel of FBI headquarters. His name is James baker. So he was disgraced after the -- the FISA warrant abuse scandal. He left.
And then Twitter picked him up. And now he is --
PAUL: I'm sure. I'm sure. Screening any matters -- any content-based matters that have a legal issue. Something like that. Would be a run-up to him. And so he has a lot of influence at Twitter.
GLENN: Do you have any idea if he's the one who banned you?
PAUL: No idea.
GLENN: Yeah. They're kind of a black hole of information, isn't it?
So talk to me a little bit about -- because I'm really concerned about the FBI, and the whole government. Right now, government agents have a bigger -- I don't even know what you would call it. A police than we have marines. That's a little staggering.
PAUL: Yeah. It's -- it's getting -- getting crazy out there. I mean, this -- it also had gotten very personal between the former president and the FBI. You know, this is -- like a full-blown war between the ex-president of the United States and the federal police. You know, when does that ever happen?
GLENN: Never. That I -- that I know of.
So how concerned are you? I mean, are you hearing from good FBI agents and enough of them to give you confidence, that at least the -- the average rank and file is not involved in this, and won't put up with this? Or what is your feeling?
PAUL: Well, a lot of them aren't putting up with it. There's been a number of whistle-blowers, that have come out to senator Grassley recently. So they're getting fed up with the politicization of the bureau. And unfortunately, the same FBI division that ran the corrupt Russia gate operation. And, by the way, coddled Hillary and Hunter and those investigations.
So they ran the questionable Trump raid, and they're now running what appears to be Russiagate 2.0.
PAUL: It's the counterintelligence division in Washington.
Even though, it's the focus of special counsel Durham's investigation of that prior corruption.
GLENN: I -- I talked to John Solomon yesterday, and he said that he was -- he was fairly confident, that these documents still exist. He's trying to get them from the national archives. Copies of them.
But he wasn't quite sure, what documents they were really looking for. Do you have any idea on that?
PAUL: Well, some former FBI and DOJ official say, they suspect that the FBI may have used their raid to cover their tracks in the Russia gate scandal. They may have been trying to deep six any evidence that Trump found on them. In other words,, you know, Trump may have had proof of their crimes. And they had to make sure that that proof never saw the light of day. It's a pretty -- it's a fairly reasonable assumption. That they're sifting -- sifting through those boxes, to look for that information. That would have a vested interest, especially if they're under investigation.
Criminally by Durham right now, to make sure those documents, if Trump had them do not become public.
GLENN: And is it true that Biden was signing an order saying, we're not going to release these things? And, you know, his -- his order to release and to make them public, is rescinded. To ever which it's my understanding, that's never happened before.
PAUL: Yeah. Yeah. When AG Garland came in. The Justice Department. Put the kibosh in that declassification order.
GLENN: And it was the last -- literally, the last hour of his presidency, wasn't it, that they pulled them?
PAUL: Right. Right.
And so they -- they have their own road map. They know what was in that binder. And they -- they want to make sure that there's not some copies in the seven books that they pulled out of Mar-a-Lago.
By the way, careful reading of -- of that warrant shows basically that the warrant basically allowed the agents to take anything they wanted from Trump's home. So no telling what they got. And what they're going to do with it. And how they're going to use it against Trump. Because it looks like it was a complete phishing expedition. And, by the way, that -- that belies what we got in that press conference from the attorney general.
He said that he told everybody, that the investigation was narrowly focused. And the search warrant was narrowly scoped.
GLENN: Not even. It was a general warrant.
PAUL: Yeah. The release of that warrant shows that he misled the pun, and acted -- so that already gives anybody, including most of all Trump, pause. Skepticism to believe that their current assurances that the affidavit, which is the document that supports -- that allegedly supports probable cause of a crime being committed, to a warrant, such as a raid in the search, was properly supported. You know, you have the whole track record. The FBI, just completely acting dishonestly. And unethically, in swearing out warrants for FISA courts. Surveillance on one of Trump's advisers.
GLENN: So Trump is not a dumb, stupid man. He is not. He plays three-dimensional chess at times. He might appear to be flying by the seat of his pants. And I think sometimes he is. But he's smart enough to -- if he has those documents, not just leave them in a box. He would have copied them or given a copy to his attorneys. Or some place for safekeeping.
Is -- would that be illegal?
PAUL: No. You know, he -- he had skiffs set up for him, in Bedminster. His place in Bedminster and also Mar-a-Lago.
People don't record this. But he was very careful, whenever he would go to these homes. You know, second White House homes like every president.
The secret Service built under the direction of the Intelligence Community sense of compartmented information facilities within his residences. And that's where he would receive his presidential briefings. He would store classified documents in there.
So this whole notion that he's this reckless guy, he's screwing around, you know, top secret, national secrets, nuclear secrets everywhere. That's BS because he had skiffs set up. This was all done, just like every other president has had done in their secondary homes
GLENN: How concerned are you, or when does this end? What will it take for this to end? The solution between the government and, for instance, Twitter or others. Where the government we now know, has told people, clearly, at Twitter, you really need to do something about this person.
What is it going to take? This is such an end run against our Constitution, these public/private partnerships with these media companies, and with social media.
Do you see a way to stop that?
PAUL: Well, you're right. These gatekeepers in big tech have so much power over our free speech these days.
And you would have to have somebody like Elon Musk, a very deep-pocketed billionaire to kind of come in and take over. Which doesn't look good now, especially with this latest cyber security, whistle-blower coming out. And saying, there was a lot more fake accounts than they let on. So that kind of strengthens Musk's case to back out of the deal. It's not very hopeful for guys like me, who, you know, are political prisoners locked in jail.
PAUL: But, you know, someone like that, would have to get in there, and get rid of Twitter's new CEO. This guy, you know, he -- he wants to focus -- he actually was caught saying, that he wants to focus less on free speech, and more on, quote, choosing who can be heard, especially in election years, apparently.
GLENN: Good God.
PAUL: So, yeah. That's the guy who is running this thing. He's an Indian fellow.
I forget -- I think it's Pickram or something like that. You know, it starts from the top. And guys like that, you know, they're mostly very liberal Democrats, who are running Twitter, including their board. And so that's what it would take. Put some fair-minded people in there, who respect and love free speech. I'm not saying a conservative way, or another. And I think music would be someone like that. Because he really does want a free-for-all. On a social media platform. He doesn't want to skew things --
GLENN: One way or another.
PAUL: Right. Right. That's how it should be, inciting violence. You put it out there. And it's up to the people to decide how they want to be. Leave it up to the debate. And eventually, the truth will percolate up through -- through free debate.
And that's not what the current Twitter powers that be, want. They want -- like this guy said, we want to choose who can be heard, and who can shape our political narrative the best. And people who are running fact-based content like me. And fact-driven content, that is inconvenient to that narrative. They don't want on their platform.
GLENN: Well, for now, you can find Paul Sperry at realclearinvestigations.com. That's real clear investigations.com. Paul, thank you so much. God bless. Keep us up-to-date, will you?
PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.
GLENN: You bet, buh-bye.