It’s the end of the republic.
The Federal Election Commission today dismissed charges against Twitter for blocking all content from Hunter Biden’s laptop during the presidential campaign. The FEC claimed Twitter followed their rules on hacked or stolen content. Of course, this only pertains to protecting Democrats. Hacked or illegally leaked content on President Trump was regularly leaked and permitted on Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. throughout his presidency.
So now we know the FEC is completely corrupt like the rest of Washington DC.
How disappointing but not so surprising. After all, they want to attend the parties too.
The fake news New York Times says the claims were unsubstantiated! Hah!
What complete BS.
The New York Times reported:
The Federal Election Commission has dismissed Republican allegations that Twitter violated electoral laws in October by blocking people from posting links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son Hunter Biden, in a decision likely to set a precedent for future cases involving social media sites and federal campaigns.
The FEC determined that Twitter’s actions in relation to the Hunter Biden article had been taken for a valid commercial reason and not a political purpose, and thus were permissible, according to a document detailing the decision by The New York Times was explained.
The commission’s ruling, which was delivered behind closed doors last month and will soon be made public, gives social media giants such as Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat more flexibility to control what is shared on their platforms related to federal elections.
The suppression of the Hunter Biden article sparked an avalanche of conservative criticism in October and led to allegations that the tech company improperly aided Biden’s presidential campaign, including a formal complaint from the Republican National Committee that said Twitter’s actions came down. on an “illegal in -friendly contribution” to the campaign.
But the FEC disagreed. The commission said Twitter “credibly explained” that blocking the article’s distribution was a commercial decision and that the move was in line with existing policy on hacked material, according to the “factual and legal analysis.” provided to the parties to the complaint.