A witness at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Thursday taught Manhattan and Brooklyn Rep. And Goldman on Thursday about the government’s efforts to suppress The Post’s report on Hunter Biden’s laptop — saying the Democrat was promoting a “conspiracy theory” that his hard drive belonged to him. has been “manipulated.”
“You’ve talked about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and how the FBI knew it existed,” Goldman told Substack and “Twitter Files” reporter Michael Shellenberger during a Select Subcommittee on Federal Government Weapons meeting.
“You are aware, of course, that the laptop, so to speak, … published in the New York Post, is actually a hard drive that the New York Post admits here is not verified as real,” Goldman boldly — and incorrectly — demanded.
“It’s not a laptop that the FBI has. Are you aware?” asked Goldman.
“It’s the same content,” Shellenberger replied.
“Twitter Files” reporter Michael Shellenberger educates Rep. And Goldman on the government’s efforts to censor The Post’s report on Hunter Biden’s laptop. AP
“How do you know?” Goldman shot back. “You have to verify it to know it’s the same content.”
“Are you suggesting the New York Post participated in a conspiracy to build the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop?” Shellenberger responded.
“No, sir, the problem is that the hard drive can be manipulated by Rudy Giuliani or the Russians,” Goldman said.
“But what is the evidence that that happened?” Shellenberger asked.
“Well, there’s real evidence of that,” Goldman continued. “But the point is, it’s not the same thing.”
“You’ve talked about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and how the FBI knew it existed,” Goldman told Substack and “Twitter Files” reporter Michael Shellenberger. Reuters
“There’s no evidence of it, so you’re engaging in a conspiracy theory,” Shellenberger said, before being cut off.
“I’m glad you agree with me, Mr. Shellenberger, that transparency is the most important thing,” interrupted Goldman, moving quickly to the next question.
When asked what data might have been “manipulated,” a Goldman spokeswoman directed The Post to report on several files on the hard drive that had been created after Hunter dropped them off at a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del., in April 2019, according to a metadata analysis.
The owner of the store, John Paul Mac Isaac, also said in an April 2022 interview with “Voice of America” that there have been “multiple attempts over the past year and a half to put questionable materials into laptops as in, not. physically, but spreading this misinformation or misinformation as coming from a laptop.”
Federal investigators seized the laptop from the Delaware store in December 2019, but not before Mac Isaac made a copy and gave it to Giuliani’s then-personal attorney, Robert Costello.
Giuliani provided The Post with a hard drive copy in October 2020.
“There’s no evidence of it, so you’re engaging in a conspiracy theory,” Shellenberger said, before being cut off by Goldman. CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images
Independent analysis by the Washington Post, CBS News, the New York Times and other media outlets has consistently confirmed the authenticity of the content included in The Post’s bomb reports.
Eventually, Hunter Biden’s lawyer admitted in February that the laptop belonged to his client — all the while claiming that its data had been “unlawfully” accessed by Mac Isaac.
Emails obtained from the laptop revealed the first son had used the Biden surname to secure a lucrative business deal with a Chinese energy conglomerate.
The communications also show Hunter introduced his father, then serving as vice president, to Burisma Holdings executives months before the elder Biden pressured Kyiv officials to fire investigators probing the Ukrainian natural gas company.
Follow today’s most important news
Stay up to date with the Evening Update.
Hunter Biden served on Burisma Holdings’ board of directors from 2014 to 2019, earning an annual salary of approximately $1 million despite having no relevant energy industry experience.
The FBI told Twitter that the laptop was real on Oct. 14. 2020, the same day The Post published its first report — even as the social media platform continued to censor the story and locked America’s favorite tabloid from its account for allegedly violating its terms of service regarding the hacked material.
A former Twitter executive later admitted in congressional testimony that it had been a “mistake” to block access to the story about the so-called “laptop from hell.”
Goldman also sought to downplay the federal government’s efforts to censor Americans’ free speech online, arguing that the action was taken by the social media platform for violating its terms of service.
“You would agree that this flag, that systematic flag you’re seeing, has been flagged for violating the social media company’s terms of service, is that correct?” he asked “Twitter Files” reporter Matt Taibbi.
“Sometimes, but sometimes in cases like Congressmen [Thomas] Massie [R-Ky.]they are actually true information,” Taibbi refused.
“And then the social media companies have to determine whether or not … it actually violates their terms of service. And in 87% of those flags, they weren’t thrown away,” Goldman said.
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) interjected later to highlight the absolute clarity of First Amendment protections under the US Constitution.
“[T]he systematic flag you see, has been flagged for violating the social media company’s terms of service, correct?” Goldman asked reporter Matt Taibbi. WireImage
“Congress will not take action to abridge free speech,” Jordan said. “Mr. Shellenberger, is 13% censorship, still censorship?”
“Absolutely,” replied Shellenberger.
“And the other 87% is what we call the chilling effect that the courts have long recognized that they’re involved in,” Jordan added. “That’s the problem.”
“By the way, part of the operation, Congressman Goldman, is to change the terms of service,” Shellenberger said. “It’s 35% of URLs … have been labeled removed or soft blocked. That’s all forms of censorship.”
“But 65% don’t,” Goldman said. “So how can the government be so coercive?”
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) interjected later to highlight the absolute clarity of First Amendment protections under the US Constitution. AP
“Does the First Amendment say that the government can filter 35%?” Shellenberger asked.
“It’s not the First Amendment. It’s a terms of service, as you say, and they’re flagging it for social media companies to make their own decisions,” Goldman added.
“Congressman, you are a lawyer. You know that four federal judges have ruled that…” Taibbi began, referencing court decisions that have faulted federal agencies for violating Americans’ freedom of speech online.
“And I know that it’s on appeal before the Supreme Court right now,” Goldman jumped in, prompting laughter from the panel’s witnesses.
The high court has agreed to hear Missouri v. Biden next year, which will determine whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to remove protected speech deemed false or misleading.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
