THREAD: Huge development. FBI TOLD Twitter the Hunter Biden laptop was real shortly after story broke. LATER FBI refused to answer when Facebook asked same question. Implications are HUGE. 1/
2/ First, it means FBI members of the Foreign Influence Task Force knew about the laptop and that it was real. I had NO idea that was the case, just the FBI as an entity. That makes FBI hinting of Russia disinformation hack and release worse.
3/ Second, it means Twitter knew the laptop was real but censored it anyway and even froze the New York Post account. So why did James Baker say to err on side of caution? Did someone from FBI get ahold of Baker?
4/ So who was the FBI agent who said it was real? Who all was present when that statement was made? Who at Twitter was present and with whom did they share that info? How was there NOTHING in Twitter files that referenced FBI saying it was real?
5/5 This new info is most significant revelation in entire censorship of Hunter Biden story scandal.
I'm thinking I may have an idea who some of the State Department employees laid off are...remember those in the "Global Engagement Center" pushing censorship of American media outlets under guise of fighting foreign disinformation? Remember Biden Administration pretending . . .
2/ to shutter GEC after Congress cut off funding but instead moving them to a "Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub ('R/FIMI Hub')."
3/ Well, late last week, in a little noticed court filing, State Department stated this about the new disinformation Hub:
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: California judge enters TRO against ICE actions. OMgosh...I so called it...it is an "obey the law injunction" that is worthless!
2/ BUT this is different and it complete bullshit!
3/ Here's my earlier thread where I predicted this "follow the law" worthless injunction. (The training requirements/and documentation is entirely different).
🚨Trump is appealing district court's refusal to discharge Preliminary Injunction related to passport sex designations. Trump asked it to be discharged based on recent SCOTUS decision re bars on puberty blockers...stay with me, I'll explain. 1/
2/ In deciding if a law is constitutional, a court has to decide what standard to review the law with, i.e. how carefully to review it. The district court applied "intermediate scrutiny" in deciding if gov't had grounds to limit to sex M/F. SCOTUS then said no, you only use rational basis scrutiny which is easy to pass.
3/ Under correct standard, then Trump Administration has a rationale basis to require passports to designate a person's actual sex, and therefore the court should discharge the injunction. The court refused because . . . wait for it. . . the President hates transgenders.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge dissolves TRO granted Planned Parenthood to enter a new one that supposedly complies with the requirements. She's so full of bias, it's crazy! 1/
2/ This is the most blatantly ridiculous point: Even in the case of aliens possibly being deported, the court held a hearing. Even in the case of national guard on streets, court held a hearing. And 14 days later is not quickly setting a hearing.
3/ And it isn't a matter of DOJ objecting that no reasons were provided. THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIRED THOSE REASONS BE PROVIDED!
2/ ~2 weeks ago, Judge Breyer entered injunction against Trump Administration barring Trump from federalizing (i.e., taking over control) of National Guard from Gov. Newsom. Newsom had sued. A 3-judge panel of the 9th Cir. court of appeals immediately stayed injunction, meaning
3/ injunction had no effort & Trump remained in charge of National Guard. NOW, Newsom could have asked "full" 9th Cir. to rehear case in something called "en banc." (Note: Not really "full" b/c 9th Cir. is so large, it is just more judges ~11) OR could have appealed to SCOTUS.
4/ Newsom didn't and instead went back to Breyer and said we still get an injunction under Posse Comitatus Act--something not addressed in the original injunction & Breyer has entered several orders, i.e. ordering discovery, setting hearing on merits.