Ever since Donald Trump emerged as a presidential contender nine years ago, America’s most esteemed scholars and journalists have argued that he was violating democratic norms. Trump, they said, was ignoring the stabilizing, unwritten rules and values of American politics. This was evident in his vulgar language, vilification of immigrants, criticisms of the press, lack of cooperation with the intelligence community, and refusal to accept the 2020 election results.
But the Democrats’ relentless effort to imprison Trump has undermined the rule of law, faith in the criminal justice system, and democratic norms more than anything Trump has ever done.
According to multiple credible sources, President Barack Obama’s Director of the CIA, in the summer of 2016, illegally mobilized foreign spy agencies to target 26 Trump advisors to claim, falsely, that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin controlled Trump.
Then, in January 2017, after Trump had been elected but before he took office, the U.S. Intelligence Community falsely claimedthat Putin had favored the election of Trump when, in reality, the intelligence showed that Putin favored Hillary Clinton.
After taking office, current and former US government intelligence operatives and Democrats falsely claimed that Russian disinformation on social media had resulted in Trump’s election and worked with the Department of Homeland Security to censor social media platforms.
None of this is a defense of Trump. He uses extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, particularly about immigrants, that I strongly disagree with. He was wrong to deny and try to change the results of the 2020 elections. And I think people are right to fear that, if he were re-elected, he could weaponize the government to exact revenge on his political enemies.
But that fear is further proof of the danger of Democrats weaponizing the government. Democrats went far beyond anything Trump did when it came to abusing their political power. After the Supreme Court ruled that Biden could not legally forgive student loans, he did so anyway. By contrast, Trump did not violate any Supreme Court rulings.
It’s true that Trump has criticized judges, journalists, and intelligence agencies, but why is that a bad thing? We have a separation of powers for a reason.
As for the intelligence agencies, they broke the law multiple times in targeting Trump. As for the news media, they deserve criticism for losing the public’s trust after lying about everything from the origins of Covid to the efficacy of the Covid vaccine to the Russiagate hoax.
Or consider the prosecution of Trump for supposedly taking and holding onto classified documents. It’s not obvious that Trump put national security in greater danger than Biden. There is evidence that the Biden administration worked with the National Archives and Department of Justice to demand the confrontation. And there is the possibility that the raid was motivated in order to recover documents related to the Russiagate hoax.
And the abuse of the court system by Democrats in an effort to incarcerate Trump and keep him off the ballot is far more of a violation of norms than anything Trump ever dreamed of.
The recent felony conviction of Trump for falsifying business records relies on the idea that he misclassified campaign payments. Democrats say, “Nobody is above the law,” which is true. But Democrats are wrong to ignore the fact that prosecutors are constantly making choices about whether to pursue certain cases over others. Indeed, Hillary Clinton was found to have mislabeled payments related to the Steele dossier during her 2016 campaign, and she was never prosecuted. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) merely fined Clinton and the Democratic National Convention (DNC)) for this misconduct.
In fact, everything about New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent conviction of Trump is abnormal. For starters, Bragg campaigned on the promise to prosecute Trump. He turned the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony by tying it to election interference. The case was so weak that both the Department of Justice and the former DA refused to prosecute it.
The judge in the case donated to Biden and his daughter is the president of a Democratic Party fundraising firm whose clients include Rep. Adam Schiff, who led the Russiagate hoax. The judge told the jurors that they didn’t need to agree on what crime Trump intended to commit by falsifying records.
The case confused even legal experts. “At the start of closing arguments,” wrote legal scholar Jonathan Turley, “most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.”
Even CNN’s top legal scholar, Elie Honig, who is also a former colleague of Bragg, said the trial violated norms. “Prosecutors Got Trump But They Contorted the Law,” explained Honig in New York Magazine. “The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly entirely unprecedented,” he said. “In fact, no state prosecutor— in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone for anything. None. Ever.”
All of this is a radical change from the ideals of the Democratic Party just a few years ago. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats fought to restrict and reform the intelligence community so that it would stop spying on American citizens for their political activities. Democrats defended a high standard for free speech, including the right of Nazis to march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors. And since the 1990s, Democrats have raised the alarm about the abuse of prosecutorial power and elected progressive prosecutors, including Bragg, to reduce prosecutions of nonviolent crimes.
Today, Democrats are pioneering new ways to weaponize the government....
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
In the video above, I erroneously said, "New York Times Magazine" when referring to a New York magazine article by @eliehonig. (The text is correct). Here is the article:
The media said the case against Brazil's former President Bolsonaro for supposedly plotting a coup was a slam dunk. It wasn't. A Supreme Court Justice appointed by the ruling Left-wing Workers Party just annihilated the prosecution as fraudulent. Incredible to watch.
It was a kangaroo court. Bolsonaro wasn't allowed to properly defend himself. Here's Justice Fux (translated)
"And I say, Mr. President, because it is important, and only for this historical reason, that the guarantee of adversarial proceedings and a full defense, incorporated into Western law long ago, was already emphasized in the work of the Stoic philosopher Seneca, who stated that, 'Whoever decides anything... without hearing the other side, even if they decide fairly, is not truly just.'
"This has been reiterated over the years in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the UN General Assembly. Article 11: Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defense."
This is Pravda-style propaganda not journalism:
"How to Try, and Fail, to Carry Out a Coup... Evidence suggests this is how he tried to do it."
For decades, Democrats & @ACLU have opposed mandatory psychiatric care for the violently mentally ill. Charlotte shows it’s cruel *not* to mandate care. President Trump & Congress should require states to mandate care for the dangerously psychotic. Me @NewsNation w/ @EVargasTV
ACLU is to blame for preventing mandatory care of the violently insane.
The European Parliament has blocked access to Public.News, apparently in response to TWITTER FILES-FRANCE. @vonderleyen @DelphineColard are ignoring Members of Parliament. This is the censorship that @EmmanuelMacron & @vonderleyen seek to impose on the world. x.com/v_joron/status…
.@DelphineColard and @vonderleyen are obligated by the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to provide prompt and reasoned replies to requests for information from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Here is the right-of-reply email I sent.
@DelphineColard @vonderleyen Please read and share TWITTER FILES - FRANCE and see for yourself the censorship scheme pursued by @EmmanuelMacron:
L'administration Trump et l'UE conduisent d’âpres négociations commerciales. Leur principal point d’achoppement? La censure européenne des plateformes numériques. L'année dernière, Thierry Breton, alors commissaire européen au marché intérieur, avait menacé Elon Musk de sanctions après l'annonce d'une interview avec Donald Trump sur X. Nombreux sont ceux qui tablent sur “l’effet Bruxelles”, la taille importante du marché de l'UE qui lui permet d’imposer sa réglementation au monde entier, y compris aux entreprises américaines, afin de procéder à la censure du contenu publié sur les plateformes, y compris par des citoyens américains résidant aux USA et protégés par le premier amendement de leur Constitution.
Des nouvelles informations extraites des TWITTER FILES laissent penser à une alliance objective du pouvoir politique français, de gouvernements successifs, de parlementaires, d’ONG affiliées à l'État, de médias mainstream subventionnés par l’Etat et d'institutions universitaires, travaillant à inciter le plus influent des réseaux sociaux à censurer des discours pourtant licites et à influencer sa « modération de contenu » bien au delà des frontières françaises et européennes.
Les TWITTER FILES et le rapport “La France a inventé le complexe industriel de censure” révèlent les origines de cette stratégie de censure holistique, pour ne pas dire totale, dont les pièces maîtresses sont les ONG :
— Le président Macron a tenté avec insistance de contacter le PDG de Twitter de l’époque, Jack Dorsey ;
— Le timing de l’action de Macron suggère fortement une coordination avec des ONG afin d’obtenir davantage de censure et exiger la communication de données personnelles et sensibles des utilisateurs de Twitter ;
— L’enchaînement des événements indique des tentatives de contournement de la loi de la part de divers acteurs non étatiques.
L' enquête TWITTER FILES - FRANCE a été réalisée par @McmahonPascal et @battleforeurope, et éditée par @galexybrane et @shellenberger.
2. « Le président Macron veut envoyer un SMS à Jack »
Le 14 octobre 2020, la directrice des affaires publiques de Twitter pour la France et la Russie a écrit : « L'équipe du président Macron m'a demandé (encore !) le numéro de Jack parce que le président veut lui envoyer par SMS quelques mots de soutien concernant nos nouvelles politiques et fonctionnalités sur l'intégrité des élections. »
Problème : Dorsey ne communique pas ses coordonnées, même aux chefs d'État. « Je lui ai déjà indiqué qu'il pouvait lui envoyer un message privé. Je vais encore le réitérer, mais je voulais d'abord vérifier auprès de vous que Jack ne communique jamais son numéro », a poursuivi la cadre de Twitter.
Public News a demandé une réaction au président Macron. Cette demande est restée lettre morte.
3. « Macron n’envoie de SMS qu’à ses proches et à ses collègues… »
La première réponse au courriel de la directrice des affaires publiques France et Russie est venue de vice-présidente monde des affaires publiques, qui a mis en copie Vijaya Gadde,à l’époque directrice juridique de Twitter et l’un des principaux censeurs de la plateforme.
Cette cadre écrit : « Je sais que Macron n'envoie des SMS qu'à ses proches et qu'il collabore fréquemment avec ses collègues et ses homologues (comme Angela Merkel) par SMS. Pourriez-vous demander à Jack s'il accepterait un SMS de Macron ? Nous demanderons à son équipe de ne communiquer le numéro de Jack qu'à Macron. Merci. »
Le bureau de Dorsey a répondu : « Je vais contacter Jack. Y a-t-il une alternative ? Pour info : Jack n'a pas de numéro de téléphone (je le jure) et seule son équipe rapprochée sait où le joindre. »
« J'ai insisté pour un message privé, mais apparemment, Macron n'utilise pas Twitter lui-même et souhaite écrire un message personnel. Peut-être sur Telegram ou Signal? »
Suit un examen de divers canaux de communication possibles: courrier électronique, Signal, Telegram et iMessage.
Pourquoi donc Macron était-il si empressé d’entrer en contact avec Dorsey ?
At this moment, the Trump administration is negotiating with the EU over final obstacles to a trade deal, one of which is European censorship of US social media platforms.
Many analysts believe the massive size of the EU will lead US social media firms to impose European censorship, including on Americans. Last year, the EU’s then-top digital censor, Thierry Breton, threatened action against Elon Musk after he announced a conversation on X with Donald Trump.
Now, new TWITTER FILES show a coordinated effort by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, legislators, and state-affiliated NGOs working together to force the world’s most influential social media platform to censor users for legal speech and influence Twitter’s worldwide “content moderation” for narrative control.
What’s more, TWITTER FILES - FRANCE reveals the birth of the censorship-by-NGO proxy strategy at the heart of the Censorship Industrial Complex:
— President Macron personally reached out to then-CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey;
— The timing of Macron’s action strongly suggests coordination with NGOs on a pressure campaign to win more censorship and demand sensitive user data from Twitter;
— The pattern of events indicates potentially illegal activity by various actors.
The TWITTER FILES FRANCE investigation was led by @McmahonPascal and @battleforeurope, and edited by @galexybrane and @shellenberger.
We are releasing the Files here on X and simultaneously publishing a comprehensive report by Clerótte and Fazi on France’s invention of the Censorship Industrial Complex.
2. “President Macron wants to text Jack”
On October 14, 2020, Twitter’s Public Policy Director for France and Russia wrote, “President Macron's team has been asking me (again!) Jack's number because the President wants to text him some supporting words re our new policies and functionalities on Election integrity.”
There was one issue, though – Dorsey did not give out his contact information, even to heads of state. “I have already advised that he could send him a DM. I'll push back again, but wanted to double check with you first that indeed Jack never shares his number,” the policy director wrote.
Public requested a response from President Macron and did not hear back.
3. “Macron only sends texts to people he is close to and works frequently with…”
The first reply came from Twitter's Global Vice President of Public Affairs, who copied Vijaya Gadde, one of the platform's chief censors.
This Global Vice President of Public Affairs noted, “I know that Macron only sends texts to people he is close to and works frequently with colleagues and senior govt. leaders (like Angela Merkel) over text. [redacted] - could you pls. ask Jack if he would be willing to accept a text from Macron, and we will ask Macron's team only to share Jack's number with Macron? Thanks.”
Dorsey’s office replied, “Will circle w Jack. Is there an alternative? FYI: Jack doesn’t have a phone number (I swear) and only immediate team has his contact info to get a hold of him.”
“I am really pushing for DM but apparently Macron doesn’t use Twitter by himself and wants to do a personal note. Maybe a telegram or signal.”
This was followed by a review of various potential communication channels, including email, Signal, Telegram, and iMessage.
But why was Macron so desperate to get in contact with Dorsey?
Conservative populists lead the polls in Europe and so governments are censoring, banning, and prosecuting them. Chancellor @_FriedrichMerz & President @EmmanuelMacron are violating NATO’s charter. Americans should ask why we’re spending billions to defend such totalitarianism.