Tweet

Stephen L. Miller

21 Oct, 4 tweets, 2 min read

@SpectatorUSA

Facebook + Twitter censored the New York Post pending fact check review. That was 7 days ago. Neither have offered a follow up explanation as to what their fact checkers found or why the New York Post is still locked out. My latest for @SpectatorUSA
spectator.us/unanswered-que…

No news outlets have disputed any facts in the New York Post story. The Biden campaign has not refuted any of the facts in the New York Post story, which explains why they are all tweeting about Borat now instead.
spectator.us/unanswered-que…

The language used by Twitter and Facebook was very specific as to why they were blocking the story - pending fact check reviews. They have since refused to follow up on what is disputed in the story, by design.
spectator.us/unanswered-que…

I'm not on the section 230 bandwagon, but the outcome here is simple. If Twitter is going to put it's finger on the scale and act as fact checker without transparency or consistency, then someone is going to clarify these rules for them. It's not hard.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @redsteeze

Stephen L. Miller

@redsteeze

22 Oct

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1319090595814670336

Man what a bad quote.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1319090595814670336

Can you imagine the Lincoln dudes going “Yep we stand by this!”

Read 4 tweets

Stephen L. Miller

@redsteeze

22 Oct

https://twitter.com/tpm/status/1319077038456791040

https://twitter.com/tpm/status/1319077038456791040

Read 5 tweets

Stephen L. Miller

@redsteeze

21 Oct

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1318908907859881985

The NY Times in 2008 reported it was a concern with Obama’s team in picking him because of Hunters ties to a bank lobby which then Biden later supported legislatively.

Politico wrote a similar story in 2019.

Now emails show what looks to be shady dealing as well.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1318908907859881985

To say there’s no basis in this is completely false and I’ll wait for the ever dutiful fact checkers to chime in.

Here’s the NYT story, from a more simpler time I guess.

nytimes.com/2008/08/25/us/…

Read 4 tweets

Stephen L. Miller

@redsteeze

19 Oct

https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1317942587513278471

The central question no journalist is touching here still seems to be are the emails real or not? Why aren’t they attempting to answer this?

https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1317942587513278471

@benyt

There are lots of stories about the story. Those are neat. But not a lot of work checking to see if the story is accurate or not. Not a lot of journalists seem interested in confronting that one, which is itself a fascinating media story @benyt

I’m fully willing to believe and retweet any story from any outlet that pokes holes in the facts and the legitimacy of the emails. But no one has done that yet. That seems odd to me.

Read 9 tweets

Stephen L. Miller

@redsteeze

11 Oct

https://twitter.com/ThatElJefe/status/1314920193773178880

Because these are the same people who paved the way for him to get into office and I don't think they should just be made to wash their hands of it. Trump is very temporary. He'll be gone in either 4 months or 4 years. The people who enabled him will still all be there.

https://twitter.com/ThatElJefe/status/1314920193773178880

Wilson created ads attacking veterans, comparing them to Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Charlie Sykes made David Clarke a national name. Steve Schmidt chose McCain's running mate. Jeff Zucker - Period. And then they all just went "Hey, we have nothing to do with this" Sorry nope.

At each and every turn they played a role in steering the GOP toward Trump and then all walked away and straight into Jeff Zucker's arms or Morning Joe. Yeah sorry, doesn't work like that.

Read 4 tweets