It's time to talk censorship. It's time to talk Twitter Files, Donald Trump the FBI and Hunter Biden Note: My goal in this video is going to be to be as unbiased as possible. However, I will be introducing my own personal experience having run a campaign for governor, getting almost 1 million votes in California against a governor whom I think is terrible for California. So when it comes to bias, let me be clear about that: I ran against the governor of California whom I think is terrible for California and if he runs for president, I'll be making a lot of videos about how terrible he would be for America.

But in this video, we're going to remain as unbiased as possible about the Twitter files. So without further: Ado Let's start with the latest and greatest. the latest and greatest starts here. It has to do with actually a little bit more background information and that's why I want to start here.

It has to do with the New York Post alleging that the FBI repeatedly warned Twitter during weekly meeting things before the 2020 election to expect hack and leak operations. in other words, putting Twitter on notice to be aware that there could be some damning posts about politicians and that they should essentially potentially be prepared to remove those sorts of posts demonetize or Shadow ban those posts in accordance with hacked material policies. and lo and behold, when the Hunter Biden's story broke, sure enough, it was removed from Twitter accounts who talked about it were censored as will she see in the Twitter files in just a moment. and Twitter did so under the belief that they were following what they should be doing the hacked in Materials policy at Twitter.

Unfortunately, leadership around this policy was, let's just say, almost entirely absent. But what's also very interesting is the allegation by the New York Post that Not only was the FBI warning Twitter about potential hack and leak operations, but it also put Facebook on high alert for these sorts of Russian propaganda dumps that could come, which apparently may have never actually come, but the FBI was clearly involved or at least allegedly involved in telling social media platforms to be prepared to remove content that could be fake. And what's remarkable is according to the New York Post here, the FBI apparently had access to emails between Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post so potentially and conveniently had access to know when the New York Post would publish the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which they ended up doing. In fact, this was the cover of the post right here on October 14, 2020, just three weeks before the election.

There's the story: Biden Secret emails. The FBI would have conveniently happened to know when those posts were going to go public because of their access to Giuliani's emails which they had access to because of an investigation they were conducting against Giuliani which ended up getting dropped so that access to Giuliani's one away or emails went away, but they conveniently had access to his emails right before the post story dropped, which gave them the potential ability to warn Facebook and other news organizations and Twitter about this hack and leak operation. And a lot of folks of course have been concerned that the FBI has become politicized as of late. A lot of folks who are looking forward to the investigation of Donald Trump saying no, that's fake news, the FBI is not politicized of course.

Then there are the other half of Americans who say oh no, it's all politically driven. Okay, let's leave that there as we may. And let's get into the Twitter files because what we've just done is revealed that the New York Post is alleging the FBI warns social media platforms at the very least, and again, allegedly that hey, there could be some leaks coming. and conveniently, the FBI may have had access to know that there were some leaks coming.

and maybe conveniently that happened three weeks before an election where the FBI was potentially able to help contribute to molding the outcome of the election. Who knows? Some folks say the same thing is actually potentially what happened to Hillary Clinton when the story around not what was in Hillary's Clinton's emails, but the fact that Hillary Clinton used a private email server blew up to the point of potentially destroying her election chances? Who knows. Maybe it all goes both ways, but what we want to do is take a look at the Twitter files and then make some conclusions. And we'll also talk about what Donald Trump had to say about all of this.

We'll make some conclusions which I think would solve all of this because I don't think it's really a good idea to speculate on who's right or wrong in all of this. Although I think there are arguments that some of it is pretty dang obvious. I think my conclusions are conclusions that all of us can agree on. So let's briefly go through the most: Salient Arguments made and leaked or released I should say on Twitter about the Twitter files.

So first, Twitter has a hacked Materials rule where basically, if there's hacked materials, they say they will remove it and I'm speeding this up. Okay, However, in addition to having a hacked Materials rule, Twitter is also able to delete tweets routinely upon the requests of certain individuals. So for example, a political party could send an email to certain contacts at Twitter and say hey, we think these violate your terms of service. We think these tweets are either hateful or misinformation or disinformation or they're a lie or they're liable or or they're hacked or whatever.

They violate some form of policy and the Biden team in this example here sent on October 24th. The Biden team is asking you to potentially remove these five tweets. Here here are the links and the response is as simple as handled, which is kind of scary. Kind of scary that a political party could say hey, you know what we want these tweets removed and Twitter would just reply handled I would actually like to take a moment to just talk about my own post this this is a post that I made when I announced my candidacy for Governor running against Governor Gavin Newsom in California It was by far the most popular post that I have ever made and I wrote I'm not effing leaving I'm running instead and it's true I haven't left California I'm not leaving California But I talked about how we have to beat Gavin News Someone I have a full 20-part plan that includes emergency action to solve homelessness, housing Transportation schooling and more.

We need a non-weenie baby in office and this post was censored by Facebook and deleted by Facebook under their harassment policy. I'm like, seriously, my announcement post which was at that point essentially going viral just happened to get deleted even though I've never had a post deleted before and nothing I said here is really harassing for a public figure. I Mean come on folks, that's ridiculous and so now it makes me think aha. I Would love to know if there is a paper trail of an email from the Gavin Newsom team saying something like more from the Newsome team.

Please remove this post from Kevin Pavrath. Boy wouldn't that have been a potential Game Changer during my election Would it not have been possible that that would have been ammunition enough to show Tech Censorship controls elections and keeps dirty politicians in office when they should not remain in office and that they quell competition. Keep in mind and and this: this is anecdotal. but after the election I sat down with people who were on air on TV in California on California news stations I sat down with them for coffee privately and off the Record That's why I will mention no names or stations and I was privately told Kevin You have to understand we could be staring into a teleprompter and reading something that we know is untrue.

but we have to do it because that's what we're told to do. Otherwise, we're fired. The reality is, these news companies have to do what keeps the establishment politicians happy. Because guess what happens when you're the establishment? Politicians aren't happy.

Oh, you didn't happen to get an invite to come to our next event. Why didn't you get an invite? Because you didn't help censor the person we wanted you to censor. It's corrupt and it's sturdy. Now it's anecdotal and my Solutions in this video will address that potential problem.

Well, I should say more than potential problem. but let's be real here: I'm trying to be unbiased. This folks is exactly what I believe I dealt with and I was personally on the receiving end in my 2020 election campaign against the Governor of California. This gave me a lot of light when I saw this because it was an Aha moment.

This is probably exactly what happened to me, but let's move on. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party. Both parties had access to these tools. For example, in 2020, requests from both Trump and the Biden campaign were received and honored.

However, the system wasn't balanced. it was based on contacts. Because Twitter wasn't is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation of Democrats they were. there were more channels.

more ways to complain open to the left. Well, Democrats than the right and that's because of look at the contributions by political party recipient now. I Want to be clear my political orientation is very much in the middle. I ran as I actually ran in California as a JFK style Democrat which is much more conservative than today's style.

Democrat I Considered myself a 59 51-49 right? Like 51. Uh, percent? Dem 49 Republican Uh, maybe maybe today. That's slightly flip. but I'm really.

I Really consider myself in the middle of a bell curve and and I know that's like, you know that's going to piss some people off people. You go. well, you didn't know you had a damn. I was like chill out.

Okay, try I I Try to be in the Middle with everything, but this stuff is embarrassing, right? Like to be associated with this is disgusting. Look at this and I Remember I was the victim of this stuff. Contributions by party of recipient 99 Democrats zero to three percent Republicans it's terrible. This is absolutely disgusting and my Solutions will address this.

We do get a big jump uh from like 12 and it's we skip like 13, 14, 15. uh and and I'm gonna jump around because some of these aren't that important. We do have a uh, a New York Times article that I like to bring up because the New York Times was really active and also suppressing the story. They finally, nearly two years later referenced The Hunter Biden story and they linked to a story that they had actually buried in the newspaper back from October 2020.

but this piece right here was a 2022 I think it was March 2022 piece from The New York Times and they referenced The Hunter Biden laptop which they had previously refused to do and so a lot of folks saw this as tacit admission that the New York Times was complicit and also censoring the New York or the uh, newer post story on the Hunter Biden laptop. But there are comments here about how Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story Kaylee Mcineny was locked out. It sounds like there was a lot of dissension. Apparently a lot of this happened without the knowledge of the CEO Jack Dorsey And not only did it happen without the knowledge of the CEO but a lot of it was just freelanced.

And really what happened was once one person made the decision, a lot of the other more left-leaning individuals at Twitter just aligned with the previous decisions of other Freelancers and said you know what, we'll just stick with that decision and we'll just keep censoring the story. Unfortunately, the idea about there being Russian disinformation even according to the New York Times seemed to have not been an issue despite the fact that the FBI was warning about Russian disinformation happening. that was from the New York Times by the way, in 2020, suggesting no evidence of Russian disinformation. By this point, everyone knew this was all just messed up says one former employee and they were kind of just stuck into the cycle.

Rokana, who's a democrat in my opinion, actually did a phenomenal job. in arguing here that this seems to be a violation of the First Amendment If there is hacked and classified information or other information that could expose a serious War crime and the New York Times was to publish it I think the New York Times should have the right to do that. A journalist should not be held accountable for the illegal actions of the source unless they actively aided the Hacked. So to restrict the distribution of that material specifically regarding a presidential candidate seems not in keeping of the interest of the people.

Now, this is actually really important because there's something known as journalistic privilege. So for example, if you knew something Shady was going on and you sent it to me and then I reported on it as a journalist I can't be held legally accountable for disseminating that information because I didn't take part in collecting the information potentially illegally. But if it has damning effects, I'm allowed to share it as a journalist, right? That's journalists stick privilege. That's very, very important.

And that's really what Rokana is talking about here. and he also talks about issues regarding Section 230.. Okay, let's give you a brief rundown of Section 230 because this is a big deal and then it relates to some of the solutions that I have for all of this. So Section 230.

Just quick summary: It's part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Basically, it says that companies like YouTube Twitter Yelp Amazon are not responsible for the content their users post. They're just basically platforms that enable other people to post whatever they want. And as a platform, the platform should be immune from the actions of the users they host.

It's basically a liability protection for the platform saying: look, the users are the ones who should be liable. If they say bad things, wrong things, or if they do things that are illegal, the user should be liable. Not the platform. Now, this makes sense to some degree, but what differentiates this is when somebody has a control over what's said.

So for example, the New York Times has control over what articles get published at the Newyorktimes.com This Hunter Biden laptop story in the Twitter file story was not really covered by ABC NBC CNN briefly covered it right and Fox News covered it like crazy. That's a choice. That means those companies are not platforms. It means they're Publishers.

They're choosing not to cover these Twitter leaks and instead they're choosing to cover something else like the Donald Trump stuff, right? Just like Fox News might not cover. uh, you know, fraud allegations against? uh. Or let me clear that up just like Fox News might not cover certain fraud allegations against Trump and instead talk about the Twitter files, right? That Choice doesn't make you a platform. It actually makes you a publisher.

As soon as you have Choice over what is said or posted, you become a publisher. When you are a publisher, you are not immune from liability. Now you have liability for what you post. The problem with Section 230.

Here is what happens when companies like Twitter start going in and demonetizing posts or removing the ability for people to basically spread their message right? Well, then you start like, are you a platform or a publisher You kind of start blurring that line and that's the danger with Section 230. Donald Trump made a big uh' point about trying to fight against Section 230 and remove Section 230, suggesting That platforms like Twitter who are censoring his posts should be liable for their actions, right? This became such an issue that in 2020, we actually had a blow up of Google potentially removing the monetization ability of websites like Zerohedge and the Federalist, both which definitely lean right Zero Hedge at one point, was banned from Twitter and these companies had been essentially threatened to have their monetization stripped from their websites for not moderating the comments sections on their websites. Now, what's interesting now is it seems like much of this has blown over because if you go now to the Zero Hedge comments: the very first article I kid you not the first article I Clicked on to look at the comments section to see if they still had their comment section on they do the very first article and the very first comment is from somebody named Kyle Rittenhouse the Milf Hunter Okay, and there are plenty of ads. When you turn off Adblock there are plenty of ads.

In fact, here is a Scientology ad that plays on Zero Hedge and when you click on why am I getting this ad you get Google about the advertiser Church of Scientology International So clearly ads are back on. Okay, but but. but what has all of this led to this talk about Section 230 and these Twitter files? Well, it's led to calls from Donald Trump posting on Truth Social that basically these Revelations from the Twitter files. show that there has been clear and widespread election interference which before we go deeper into Donald Trump Look at this during a live Q A session on Twitter Saturday Afternoon Musk said if Twitter is doing one team's bidding before an election shutting down dissenting voices on a pivotal election, that is the very definition of election interference.

Frankly, Twitter was acting like an arm of the Democratic National Committee It was absurd. Yeah, no kidding. That is pretty much exactly what was happening. And this led Donald Trump to suggest that the last election was basically widespread fraud and deception and therefore the Constitution should be term terminated.

He basically called for overthrowing the Constitution. Now this, this did not go very far with Republicans uh in America This didn't go very far with anyone other than really hardcore Trump supporters. Uh, but they did something that Donald Trump called for. So what do I think? Well, here's what I think the solution to all of this is and I think I Have you know at least some personal impact on this or or I am impacted personally by it or had been or would have been because of my political past and I'm not a politician Iran is not a politician People here.

I ran for governor and they're like oh, you're a politician I'm like what? that doesn't really make sense but anyway, final thoughts and solution: I Think everybody should have the right to make a report. Everybody should equally have the right to make a report that hey, I Think this post is violating some kind of rule. but every filing of a report should be transparent and every moderation of a report should be public. There should be complete and utter accountability.

I should be able to go on Twitter.com reports right now and see a list of every single report filed. or I should be able to look at an individual post and see who's reporting my posts. I should also see a column action taken. So I should see all the reports and all the actions taken.

It should be complete Lee transparent I Think that would solve a lot Now of course I think that something should be moderated like some of the things Kanye West does shouldn't be on the platform. They should be removed Kanye probably doesn't need a mouthpiece. I'm gonna get a little bit of a loose cannon what he did to Taylor Swift wasn't cool. Okay I'm a Swifty well again I'm biased.

Uh, but uh, but uh, this should be full transparency see because if I could now go back and say Gavin Newsom you ruined by campaign by trying to censor me here here here here. Well that makes the case for running against him again I could Also, if I could show moderation, potentially hold platforms accountable for costing us money and that then makes platforms fearful and then what do they do? They're a little bit more careful about what kind of content they remove and when they infringe on people's free speech. My take on the Twitter files: Thank you so much for watching. If you like this content, consider sharing it.

Consider subscribing and we'll see in the next one. Good luck. And Godspeed.