Former Trump administration officials filed a lawsuit Thursday against President Biden after he asked them to step down from the U.S. Naval Academy Board, arguing in court documents that the removal is motivated by politics.
The suit filed by former White House press secretary Sean Spicer and former director of Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought says Mr. Biden doesn’t have the legal authority to remove them from the board.
The two officials have asked a judge for a restraining order to block the administration from kicking them off the board.
“The statute governing the Board provides for staggered three-year terms,” the lawsuit says. “And it makes no provision or allowance for at-will presidential removal based on political affiliation or otherwise.”
Former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was also asked to resign from the board, though she is not part of the lawsuit.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Washington Times.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki this month defended the removal, saying the move was to add more qualified people who were also aligned with Mr. Biden‘s agenda to the board.
“I will let others evaluate whether they think Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer were qualified,” she said.
“But the president’s qualification requirements are not your party registration; they are whether you’re qualified to serve and whether you’re aligned with the values of this administration,” she said.
Discussing the damage that forced masking has on children, Russell explains:
“My heart breaks for the kids who are already disadvantaged, and I’m thinking about kids that have speech delays, speech impediments, some kind of learning disability, ESL students— those kids are being left behind and nobody cares about them. I hear a lot of parents say, “oh, well my kid is fine in a mask all day.” Well great! How fortunate are you, while there’s a lot of parents who cannot say the same thing. So one of my motivations is to just give a voice to those parents who, maybe they do have a student with some kind of learning disability… and tell them that theres a lot of teachers that are with you.”
This is just a segment from a full episode of The Gunn Show hosted by Sheila Gunn Reid. If you’d like to see more like this, be sure to SUBSCRIBE to RebelNews+, where for $8/month you’ll get access to full-length, in-depth, TV-style shows from all of your favourite Rebel reporters.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today Senior Attorney Russell Nobile will testify in front of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in a hearing titled, The Need to Enhance the Voting Rights Act: Practice-Based Coverage on Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:30PM.
The testimony will be streamed live on the Judicial Watch website.
The hearing is before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021
Location: Rayburn House Office Building Room 2141
Mr. Nobile’s testimony will focus on new legislative efforts by Democrats in Congress that would effectively result in a federal takeover of election management and empower the Justice Department to veto voter ID and other widely-used election integrity measures. From 2006 to 2012, he worked as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, which is responsible for enforcing all provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that Senior Attorney T. Russell Nobile will provide testimony tomorrow, July 14, before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, during a hearing titled “Restoring the Voting Rights Act after Brnovich and Shelby County.”
In Shelby, the court rejected forcing states to be under the thumb of the DOJ based upon voting/race data from the 1960s. The court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which provided the “coverage formula” that determines which states and local governments are subject to a preclearance requirement under Section 5. Section 4(b) required certain states and local governments to obtain a predetermination by the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia affirming that changes to their voting laws or practices do not “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group” before those changes could be enforced.
In Brnovich, the court considered two Arizona election policies, one outlawing ballot harvesting and the other banning out-of-precinct voting. The court ruled that neither of these election policies violated the Voting Rights Act nor had a racially discriminatory purpose. Judicial Watch joined with Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) to file an amici curia (friends of the court) brief in this case, arguing that the parties challenging Arizona’s clean election laws “utterly failed” to show that the challenged voting procedure caused minorities to have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The court agreed.
Reacting to the court’s ruling in Brnovich, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the court’s decision “a home run for cleaner elections, reaffirming that states may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within their own borders. This new decision rightly rejects the race baiting of the leftist partisans who pretend that neutral provisions to combat voter fraud (such as voter ID and bans on ballot harvesting) are presumptively racist. The decision also destroys the foundation of the Biden administration’s recent attack on Georgia’s election reform laws.”
For more than 25 years, Judicial Watch has been known for its aggressive, leading edge use of public records laws and lawsuits, as well as taxpayer, civil rights and whistleblower protection litigation to fight government corruption. Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of this effort, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who have fought gerrymandering in Maryland, stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.
In May testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties regarding Section 5 of the VRA, Nobile noted:
Section 5 of the VRA was a temporary, extraordinary remedy to address an extraordinary problem. Before its passage, the democratic process in much of the South was failing because of intentional state-sponsored … and/or state- supported efforts to disenfranchise Blacks.
At bottom, the central question is [whether] circumstances still necessitate Section 5’s extraordinary remedies to combat “widespread and persistent discrimination in voting.”
Data, not pop culture nor hyperbole from those that oppose race-neutral election integrity laws, tells the true story of ballot access in America. To objectively evaluate whether racial minorities have an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, you must look at racial registration and turnout data…. Current data show that black registration has completely rebounded and, in some instances, exceeds white registration rates. In fact, the data show that eight years after Shelby County, registration disparities in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi – all previously covered (in whole or part) by Section 5 – are all below the national average. In fact, Black registration in Mississippi is 4.3% higher than White registration.
Though it purports to remedy the problems highlighted by the Supreme Court in Shelby County, the truth is that H.R. 4 goes far beyond any civil rights law enacted during the height of the civil rights era. Rather, it is part of a grander plan to shift control of American elections away from individual state legislatures and into the hands of a single federal bureaucratic department. It accomplishes this by giving the Attorney General a previously unseen level of authority over elections. Even more troubling than this change to our constitutional tradition of leaving elections to the states, H.R. 4 will ultimately lead to lasting damage to the Department of Justice’s credibility.
T. Russell Nobile joined Judicial Watch’s legal team as a senior attorney in May 2019. Nobile has appeared before congressional committees and federal courts across the country. He has a wealth of experience developing, analyzing and presenting investigative findings involving difficult and sensitive questions of state and federal law. Nobile previously served for seven years as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice, where he brought complex enforcement actions involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Help America Vote Act, National Voter Registration Act, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and other federal laws.
What Russell Moore’s departure from Southern Baptist leadership means.
On May 18, Russell Moore announced his resignation as president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The ERLC is the SBC’s public-policy arm in Washington. Moore has been the subject of controversy among some in SBC leadership. Many Southern Baptists are Donald Trump supporters. Moore is not. The media, generally uninterested in religious Americans, have been satisfied to throw those bits of information together and report that support for Trump is causing tension in the SBC.
But a letter that Moore wrote in February 2020 has now been published online by Religion News Service, and Moore argues that Trump has nothing to do with his conflicts with SBC leadership.
Let’s fill in some background first by looking at each word in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Southern. The SBC is predominately southern and its membership is predominately white. Consequently, its membership predominately votes Republican. It’s important to note the levers of causation there. They don’t vote Republican because they are Baptist. There are many other Baptist denominations whose memberships look very different from Southern Baptists, and they vote very differently. Any organization formed from a broad sample of mostly white Southerners is going to have a lot of Republicans in it; such is life.
Baptist. Baptists use congregational polity, which means that there is no formal hierarchy beyond the local church. Baptists only recognize two church offices: pastor and deacon. There are no bishops or cardinals that give directives telling churches how to operate. Churches in the SBC don’t really have to abide by anything the SBC says if they don’t want to. The authority of the local church is the first priority.
Convention. The SBC is best understood as a membership organization, not a clerical body. The SBC has an annual meeting in the summer where elections are held and decisions are made within the denomination. Think of it as being similar to a shareholders’ meeting (it’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s good enough to get the point). Churches choose to join and pay the equivalent of membership dues to the Cooperative Program, which is then disbursed to various SBC organizations. Each member church gets a minimum of two delegates, called “messengers,” with voting rights at the annual meeting. Churches get more messengers if they contribute more money to the SBC’s work, up to a maximum of twelve messengers. In exchange for those financial contributions, the SBC provides many services. It runs seminaries, organizes missions work, and even has its own press. Among those services is the ERLC, which according to its website, “exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.”
Now, some background on this particular issue.
Moore’s February 2020 letter was addressed to the ERLC board of trustees. The setup of the ERLC is similar to a company where the CEO answers to a corporate board, and the ERLC has independence within the larger SBC organization to make its own decisions. The controversies Moore has faced are not from within the ERLC, and they aren’t even between the ERLC and the SBC as a whole. Moore has always been well received at SBC annual meetings. He is well known for a thunderous answer he gave to a question about defending the religious freedom of non-Christians at the 2016 meeting. A motion to defund the ERLC at the 2018 annual meeting was resoundingly defeated. Rather, the controversies are between Moore’s ERLC and some members of the SBC’s Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee is composed of 86 representatives who are elected by the Convention. Many of the representatives are not pastors (there’s a pharmacist, a retired insurance agent, and an elementary-school principal, among many other professions on the committee). The primary purpose of the committee is to oversee the SBC’s operations between annual meetings. The SBC website stresses that “the Executive Committee is not a board, but a committee. That is, while it can make recommendations to or about entities or issue reports on entities; no entity is directly accountable to it. Each entity is directly responsible to the Convention of church messengers in annual session.”
As you can imagine, an 86-person committee of people from different walks of life all over the country is not of one mind. A minority of the Executive Committee has been unhappy with Moore, and it created a task force to investigate the ERLC in February 2020. The premise of that investigation was that some churches were withholding money out of displeasure with the ERLC’s work.
It took almost a year for the task force’s report to come out. The report addresses the financial questions by basically admitting that it’s not about the money after all: “The decline in nationwide Cooperative Program giving began many years prior to the current leadership of the ERLC. The task force knew from its inception that the long-term downward trend in Cooperative Program giving could not be solely attributed to concerns over the current direction of the ERLC.” The task force expresses support for an organization-wide strategic plan to increase giving to the Cooperative Program.
The information in the Cooperative Program section of the report wound up as somewhat of a nothingburger. The task force sent a questionnaire to the leaders of all 41 state/regional conventions. Only 15 responded. Of the 15 that responded, “several . . . reported little to no negative effect from the ministry of the ERLC.” One state convention “verified that $1,147,000 has been withheld due to the ERLC.” That’s the biggest direct finding they got. The rest talk about the ERLC’s actions “potentially impacting” donations, or “issues including but not limited to the ERLC,” and things of that nature. For perspective, the report notes that state conventions gave $188 million to the SBC Executive Committee in 2020.
The task-force report doesn’t say which state/regional conventions responded or even which ones reported that giving to the Cooperative Program had been reduced because of the ERLC. That’s significant, because some states have chapters of the Conservative Baptist Network, an organization of Southern Baptists who believe the SBC is getting too liberal. That faction is generally anti-Moore. Mike Stone, chair of the task force, serves on the Conservative Baptist Network’s steering council. So it’s plausible that Stone got responses from people he knew in advance would give him anti-ERLC responses. But we can’t know because the report doesn’t say which states responded to the questionnaire.
The report goes on for a few pages about an erroneous amicus brief that the ERLC filed in a court case. All communications from that incident are dated in December. Recall that the task force was launched in February 2020, didn’t submit its final report until January 2021, and that the premise was the ERLC’s impact on giving. It seems the task force got lackluster results on the giving issue and turned the report into a fishing expedition.
All of which is to say that none of this is really about Donald Trump. Moore had been president of the ERLC since 2013. The first indication that his resignation has nothing to do with Trump is that he was president of the ERLC before Trump was in office and remained president after Trump left office. Moore’s February 2020 letter addresses Trump head-on and is unequivocal in denying that Trump is the primary reason for the conflicts between him and members of the SBC Executive Committee:
The lazy journalistic assessment would be that this is about the President of the United States. This has nothing to do with that. Y’all know my concerns about the perennial temptation toward political captivity of the gospel, and that will always and perhaps increasingly be a concern in this era. But this is not the issue here. Most Trump voters and supporters have been nothing but kind and encouraging to me — from Southern Baptist laypeople and pastors to Administration officials all the way up and down the ranks. Just as we did with President Obama, we express disagreement where warranted, but we do so respecting the office and doing so requesting a different viewpoint, not engaging in polemics or attack. And when we agree with what the Administration is doing, we say so and work to achieve good public policy as informed by a biblically-grounded ethic, again just as we did when we could under President Obama, and as I did, before I was in this role, with President Bush. The [Trump] Administration has asked us to take leadership on too many issues to list here — from working on opioid and mental health concerns in faith-based communities to ensuring religious liberty for adoption providers to working on the plight of persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in China and elsewhere.
This controversy in the SBC is not about Donald Trump. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Moore wrote in his letter that his discomfort with the SBC arose from incidents of sexual abuse and racism.
As you know, our last ERLC National Conference  was built around the issues of sexual abuse. We said from the beginning that we wanted a place for honest dialogue around these issues, and we would not police anyone from speaking what he or she had experienced or thought. At least one speaker harshly criticized us for not doing enough, or not handling things the way he thought we should. I welcomed that criticism. I learned from it, and was glad that the speaker felt the freedom to do so. At that conference, though, Rachael Denhollender [sic] participated with me in a conversation where, again, I refused to censor or stop anything that she had to say. In that conversation, she spoke about her thoughts about the disparagement and poor treatment of a sexual abuse survivor by Executive Committee staff. The story Rachael told is accurate, and Maria [Moore’s wife] and I know that because we were, even during that very meeting, ministering alongside others to that mistreated young woman.
This enraged some Executive Committee trustee leadership, who communicated that they were incensed that we would allow such a story to be told. . . . I came away from these conversations with the distinct feeling that I was being told (not from [SBC Executive Committee President and CEO] Ronnie Floyd, but from sectors of his trustees, mostly the very sector from which this latest action [the task force] has come), “You’ve got a nice little Commission there; would be a shame if something happened to it.” I told Maria that at the time. It was, and is, chilling — especially seeing what they had in mind to do under cover of darkness.
I am trying to say this as clearly as I can to you, brothers and sisters: These are the tactics that have been used to create a culture where countless children have been torn to shreds, where women have been raped and then “broken down.”
The bold italics are original. It’s clear that from Moore’s side of things, this controversy isn’t about electoral politics. He sees organizational patterns in the SBC that prevent sexual abusers from being held accountable.
He also recounts specific episodes of racism from SBC leaders. He doesn’t name which leaders in the letter. He likely presumed his audience, the ERLC board of trustees, would know to whom he was referring. That doesn’t do much to help us, though.
Reading Moore’s letter feels like reading accounts of the machinations within the Politburo of some failing Eastern Bloc state. He wrote that an SBC leader told him, “We know we can’t take you down. . . . This is psychological warfare, to make you think twice before you do or say something.” Moore wrote of “psychological and institutional terrorism that my wife and children and team and I have endured.” He wrote that his children asked him if he “had a moral failing.” Addressing the board of trustees, he wrote:
I wanted you to know, from me, what’s behind all of this, really. You deserve to know. And I wanted you to know that we will not keep living under these circumstances. I will not comply with another secret task force meant to silence me about issues I believe are issues of obedience to Christ. I will not sign another “unity” statement meant to “call off the dogs” of scrutiny so that the beatings may begin again in private.
The entire letter is a harrowing read, and it seems like Moore has been through a lot. His departure makes sense, if for no other reason than that he needs rest from a toxic work environment. Moore is not liberal theologically. He believes in biblical inerrancy. He is pro-life. He believes marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Accusations of “liberalism” from Moore’s critics really don’t stick. It was always clear that something else was going on, and Moore’s letter shines a light on what that something else could be.
It would be easy to say that Moore’s critics are just concerned about money, and that that is un-Christian. But if it were true that Moore’s work was costing the SBC donations, that would be important to consider. Jesus doesn’t teach us to shirk our financial obligations, and the SBC has a lot of obligations. The SBC Executive Committee had $389 million in expenses in 2019. Much of that money funds missions and charity work that spreads the Gospel.
The problem is that, according to Moore, the SBC Executive Committee was using financial concerns as a front to punish him for speaking out on sexual abuse and racism within the SBC. Sexual abuse and racism are sins. It’s entirely proper for a Christian leader to speak out against those things. As Moore wrote, “I believe that unrepentant sin, not brought to the light of Christ and cleansed by the blood of Christ, through the gospel, leads to hell. I really believe in hell. That’s why I’ve been clear for twenty-five years on abortion, on sexual chastity and morality, and on racism.” That’s what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists claim to believe. If the SBC Executive Committee was seeking to prevent Moore from teaching that as he saw fit, that’s a question of biblical interpretation and ministerial leadership.
The SBC’s organizational structure is a mixed blessing in this situation. On the one hand, it presents many more opportunities for conflict to arise than a more hierarchical structure, and resolving disputes is very difficult. There are a number of splinter groups from the SBC already, and perhaps this incident will lead to more. But on the other hand, rot at the top doesn’t do much to affect the experience of the average Southern Baptist churchgoer. Most Southern Baptists are oblivious to the details of this episode, and will remain so, because it doesn’t really affect them. The pastors and deacons in their local churches are serving the Lord, and that’s what matters.
At a national level, though, American Christians should want a healthier Southern Baptist Convention. It’s the largest Protestant denomination in America, and many Americans first hear the Gospel in its pews or from its members.
The problems it faces will not be solved, however, if we don’t all realize one thing: It’s not about Donald Trump.
According to Dick Weiss, the fan who dumped popcorn on Westbrook was later removed from the game. Hopefully, he was also arrested.
Sixers defeat Washington, 120-95, in Philly. Fan ejected after throwing popcorn on Wizards All Star guard Russell Westbrook (10 points, 11 assists, 6 rebounds), who had to be restrained from going after the fan by security guards and Wizards staff.
NBA players might not be NHL players when it comes to toughness, but I can promise you they’ll still mess up the average fan without much effort.
We’re talking about elite athletes who are giants compared to the average person. A fight between Westbrook and the idiot who threw popcorn on him would likely be over in a matter of seconds.
Again, if you’re tough enough to start a situation, then let the athlete have a go at it. That’ll bring this nonsense to an end.
This fan should never be permitted in a #Sixers game ever again after throwing popcorn on Russell Westbrook while leaving court with injury. And they can track his ass down. No class! pic.twitter.com/ra029MaBDF
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that Senior Attorney T. Russell Nobile will provide testimony tomorrow, May 27, before the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties during a hearing titled “Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: A Continuing Record of Discrimination.” The hearing concerns legislation that would dramatically increase the role of the federal government, specifically the Justice Department, in overseeing elections.
For more than 25 years, Judicial Watch has been known for its aggressive, leading edge use of public records laws and lawsuits, as well as taxpayer, civil rights, and whistleblower protection litigation to fight government corruption. Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of this effort, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who have fought gerrymandering in Maryland, stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.
T. Russell Nobile joined Judicial Watch’s legal team as a senior attorney in May 2019. Mr. Nobile has appeared before federal courts across the country and has a wealth of experience developing, analyzing, and presenting investigative findings involving difficult and sensitive questions of state and federal law. Mr. Nobile previously served for seven years as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice, where he brought complex enforcement actions involving disparate-treatment or disparate-impact claims of discrimination, as well as actions enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Help America Vote Act, National Voter Registration Act, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and other federal laws.
Comedian Russell Brand has blasted the Democratic Party, accusing it for colluding with Big Tech companies in order to influence the 2020 election and censor information.
Brand took aim at the relationship between the Democrats, the media, and social media on Sunday’s episode of Brand’s podcast, “Under The Skin,” during which he interviewed journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
“Did the media and social media conspire together to keep information about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s relationship with foreign energy companies out of the media?” Brand stated at the start of his podcast. “The answer is: yes, they did.”
Brand included the Democratic party into a list of powerful groups working to twist information. The comedian stated he believes the Democratic party is a corrupt conspirator against democracy. He went on to blast Big Tech giants Facebook and Twitter, and also legacy media for the suppression and censoring of reports on Hunter Biden’s connections to foreign businesses in China and elsewhere. Brand said:
Look, I’m not a pro-Republican person. I don’t see myself that way. I don’t see myself as a conservative, or that I’m in a Trump or Giuliani or media establishments that were reporting on these revelations, they are not my cultural, social, or political allies. That’s certainly not how I see myself. However, it seems to me that what reason is Hunter Biden [sitting] on the board of an energy company in the Ukraine? What reason is James Biden [sitting] on the board or receiving payments from an energy company in China?
At a time when we’re talking about sleaze, corruption, financial misdemeanors and relationships between corporations, big business, and politicians, let’s just face it: unless you’re bloody stupid, you know that’s going on all the time. So, either change that or let’s stop pretending that politicians are aspiring to anything other than the advance of their own interests. And if there is a byproduct, a few people get helped along the way, well, then, that’s great.
But for me, revelations that there are financial connections between energy companies in the Ukraine, energy companies in China, and the Biden family are troubling. That should be public knowledge. And it’s even more troubling that Twitter and Facebook and the media at large deliberately kept it out of the news because they didn’t want it to influence the election. What is democracy, then? It suggests to me that democracy is, ‘We want you to vote for this person. We don’t want you to vote for that person.’
As I’ve said, Donald Trump, you know, I don’t think Donald Trump’s the answer, but I’m sad to realize that I can no longer even claim to believe that Joe Biden or the Democratic Party might be the answer, because look at how they behave. And look at the relationships between media, social media, and that party. They conspired to keep information away from you because it was not convenient to their agenda.
In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Facebook and Twitter censored a story from the New York Post on Hunter’s shady business dealings.
Comedian, actor and commentator Russell Brand interviewed independent journalist Glenn Greenwald and raked Big Tech companies over the coals for interfering with the 2020 election.
“Did the media and social media conspire together to keep information about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s relationship with foreign energy companies out of the media?” Brand asked in a preview video for his podcast. “The answer is: yes, they did.” Brand shared clips from his interview with Greenwald about corruption in the media.
“[R]evelations that there are financial connections between energy companies in the Ukraine, energy companies in China, and the Biden family, are troubling,” Brand explained. “That should be public knowledge. And it’s even more troubling that Twitter and Facebook and the media at large deliberately kept it out of the news because they didn’t want it to influence the election.”
Brand warned that while he does not consider himself to be a supporter of former President Donald Trump, the alliance that Democrats have with Big Tech corporations is a dealbreaker:
As I’ve said, Donald Trump, you know, that’s, I don’t think Donald Trump’s the answer. But I’m sad to realize that I can no longer even claim to believe that Joe Biden or the Democratic Party might be the answer, because look at how they behave. And look at the relationships between media, social media and [the Democratic Party]. They conspired to keep information away from you because it was not convenient to their agenda.
He shared a clip from the interview where Greenwald recounted Big Tech’s election meddling to suppress the Hunter Biden story. The shocking revelation released by the New York Post on Oct. 14, 2020, cited purported emails from Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter and reportedly exposed the alleged scandalous dealings of both father and son in the Russia-bordering state of Ukraine. Greenwald explained that Twitter “banned any mention of this story.”
Twitter followed Facebook’s lead and disabled links to the story in October, mere weeks before the election. Greenwald recounted how the Hunter Biden scandal was restricted “not just for publicly tweeting but even if you wanted to have a private conversation using the chat function on Twitter, you couldn’t link to the [story]. It was just censored. It was banned, like you were in China.”
The media blackout on the Hunter Biden scandal was a political game changer with dire implications. A post-election poll from the Media Research Center, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, showed that 36 percent of Biden voters were NOT aware of the evidence linking Joe Biden to potential corrupt financial dealings with China through his son Hunter. Thirteen percent of these voters (or 4.6 percent of Biden’s total vote) said that had they known these facts, they would not have voted for him.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your local representative and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form and help us hold Big Tech accountable.