Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

House Committee Pushes for FBI Testimony on Suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Published

4 minute read

From Reclaim The Net

By

Chairman Jordan penned a letter last Thursday, acquired by The New York Post, in which he requested a verbatim transcript from an anonymous FBI employee. The staff member of the FBI purportedly made significant contributions to the bureau’s initiatives to silence factual information linked to the Biden…

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has expressed keen interest in gathering testimony from an FBI analyst. This specific analyst previously affirmed the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s laptop – infamously referred to as the “laptop from hell” – to Twitter moderators, even as the social media platform was suppressing The New York Post’s explosive report concerning the device’s contents.
Chairman Jordan penned a letter last Thursday, acquired by The New York Post, in which he requested a verbatim transcript from an anonymous FBI employee. The staff member of the FBI purportedly made significant contributions to the bureau’s initiatives to silence factual information linked to the Biden family’s alleged wheelings and dealings, which emerged shortly ahead of the hard-fought 2020 presidential election.
A substantial part of the Chairman’s letter conveyed disappointment with the FBI’s decision to disregard direct queries from social media platforms regarding confirmation of the laptop’s authenticity, despite owning the laptop for close to a year and having confirmed its content. This action from the bureau allowed social networks to blunt The New York Post’s breaking news based on the inaccurately perceived notion that it was the byproduct of Russian disinformation.
On the road to the 2020 election, bureau officials held numerous meetings – over 30 in total – with Twitter and other key social media channels. Their primary narrative focused on possible Russian operations aimed at divulging damaging information about the Biden family, especially Hunter Biden’s alleged exploitation of his father’s high-ranking position within his lucrative board membership at the Ukrainian energy corporation, Burisma Holdings.
When an article exposing Hunter Biden’s introduction of a Burisma executive to his then-vice president father surfaced on Twitter on October 14, 2020, it was promptly stifled. This occurred despite an FBI analyst airing the laptop as “real” during a separate call with Facebook, before interruption by a member of the bureau’s General Counsel’s Office.
Other communications clarified that there was no evidence to imply Hunter Biden’s laptop was instigated by Russian misinformation. These disclosures, unfortunately, were left unmentioned in their dealings with Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Due to these strategic omissions, Chairman Jordan pointed out, social media platforms perpetuated stymieing the narrative, leaning on earlier cautions issued by the FBI.
The FBI, atypically reticent, validated the materials on Hunter Biden’s discarded laptop, according to testimony provided to the House. Despite these revelations, service members hailing from within the bureau professed unawareness about its origins.
Parallel to these events, 51 preceding intelligence officials distributed a letter disparaging The New York Post’s coverage of emails secured from Hunter Biden’s laptop; a move triggered by a call between then-advisor to the Biden campaign, Antony Blinken, and ex-CIA Director Michael Morell. They reasoned that the emails bore the hallmarks of a conventional Russian information operation which was used to push for online censorship.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Newly Released Documents Reveal Big Tech Limited Millions of Posts During EU Elections

Published on

From Reclaim The Net

By

Ah, elections—the pinnacle of democracy where the common folk cast their ballots and, ideally, choose their fate. But hold onto your hats, because behind the grandeur of the European Parliament elections this year lurked a very different sort of governance, one executed not in the open streets but in algorithmic backrooms. Welcome to the Age of Censorship-as-a-Service, brought to you by our ever-dependable friends at Meta, Google, and TikTok.
Meta’s Mission: Make the Truth More… Manageable
Let’s begin with Meta. In a move that feels like something out of a dystopian satire, Meta proudly announced they had reduced the reach of tens of millions of posts across Europe. They wielded over 150,000 Facebook fact-checking articles to de-escalate the virality of 30 million pieces of content.
According to Meta, this wasn’t censorship—no, it was a mere “scaling of the work of independent fact-checkers.” The way they tell it, this was all in the name of maintaining “informed and reliable discussions.” Ah, reliable discussions, where only pre-approved, EU-certified opinions are allowed to flow freely.
Of course, official government statements and the edicts from the holy temples of global health organizations were entirely exempt from Meta’s moderating fervor. After all, why impede the credibility of those who are never wrong—except, of course, when they are, but let’s not get hung up on inconvenient details like that.
On Instagram, another Meta product, this brave new moderation mission persisted. The platform used 39,000 fact-checking articles to put the brakes on nearly a million posts. That’s right—one million “potentially hazardous” thoughts and opinions that, for the good of humanity, needed a little algorithmic throttle. And if you were wondering, it wasn’t just the memes of conspiracy theorists—they made sure that you, your grandma, and that neighbor with too many political opinions got the message too: “Play nice, or we’ll see to it no one hears you.”
TikTok: Suppressing, But Make It Fashionable
Meta wasn’t the only digital nanny keeping Europeans in line. Over at TikTok, the playbook got even hazier. The platform took pride in admitting that it restricted misleading posts—though, unlike Meta, TikTok kept the numbers conveniently vague. You see, their strategy was more about “awareness,” guiding content creators with a gentle algorithmic shove away from the tempting edges of disinformation. How thoughtful.
As if to prove their dedication to curated reality, TikTok also pointed Irish users in the direction of fact-checks from TheJournal.ie, an outlet that coincidentally receives EU funding. No conflict of interest there, right? Just an honest effort to “raise awareness.” And while TikTok didn’t offer up the numbers, we can be assured that plenty of thumbs danced across phone screens only to find their intended messages conveniently dulled down or disappeared.
Google: Where Terms of Service Are Optional
And then we have Google, that beacon of a supposedly neutral search engine—except when it isn’t. Reports show that YouTube, under Google’s magnanimous ownership, automatically deboosted videos that complied with their very own terms of service. Yes, you read that right. Even when content passed muster by their own rulebook, some unseen hand deemed it “unworthy.” Google tells us this was to curb the spread of misinformation. A noble aim, except for that pesky issue of who gets to decide what counts as misinformation—and why.
Critics, like Tom Vandendriessche, an MEP for Patriots for Europe, have not been fooled by the big, earnest proclamations of “integrity protection.”
Vandendriessche—whose party has fought and won against Big Tech’s silencing efforts—paints a stark picture of unchecked power: tech companies with unprecedented influence, deciding who gets heard and who doesn’t.
“This could lead to an era of ‘techno-communism,'” Vandendriessche argued to Brussels Signal, where an unelected cabal decides what constitutes reality for the rest of us. A “techno-communism” where, if your thoughts don’t align with the given narrative, they might as well not exist.
It’s not like Vandendriessche is shouting into the void, either. His criticism comes backed by experience, his party having already tasted the bitter fruits of deplatforming. If a democratically elected official can’t even get his voice out there without tech giants intervening, what hope is there for the average citizen with an inconvenient truth?
The EU’s Seal of Approval: Trust Us, We’re Here to Help
But let’s not forget the EU brass, who are, predictably, patting Big Tech on the back. Věra Jourová seems to believe they’ve stumbled onto some grand new way to “protect the integrity of elections.” Their stance on Big Tech’s secretive influence campaign was remarkably sunny—because nothing says “protecting democracy” like a few ultra-rich corporations quietly deciding what can or cannot be said during election season.
What’s fascinating is the conviction with which the EU spins this story. They genuinely believe—or want us to believe—that this centralized control is for our benefit, a way to combat the terrifying specter of “disinformation.” Clearly, the best way to fight misinformation is to silence millions of voices, all while exempting the officials and organizations whose statements are apparently beyond reproach. Trust us, they say: We’re only limiting the information you receive for your own good.
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

The Silly Peak Oil Debate Rages On

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By David Blackmon

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact,” said OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais

Analysts and professionals in the global energy space have long debated the prospects for reaching peak demand for crude oil. It is an issue that has long sparked debate, some of which becomes emotional among highly invested stakeholders on one side or the other.

In recent years, such stakeholders risk developing cases of whiplash when considering the competing perspectives about this “peak oil” matter published by OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA).

IEA has spent the last 12 months predicting an earlier advent of the peak oil phenomenon than pretty much any other experts envision, saying it will come about sometime in this decade, no later than 2030. Not surprisingly, the agency’s analysts doubled down on that projection in its most recent monthly Oil Market Report.

In a section titled “When the Music Stops,” the IEA focused on short-term factors like slowing demand growth in China, where oil consumption has declined year-over-year for the past four months. Noting that Chinese demand growth has slowed to an estimated 180,000 barrels per day (bpd) across 2024, the agency leaned on that data point as a reason to lower its estimated global demand growth to 800,000 bpd.

The same section also pointed to the isolated slowing of U.S. gasoline-deliveries growth in June — a factoid that could simply be statistical noise — as support for its annual growth forecast. But a slowdown in crude demand growth is no surprise, given that economic growth has been slowing throughout 2024. This direct cause-and-effect phenomenon has been a consistent aspect of oil markets across history. It is also a short-term factor whose impact will ultimately be diminished by subsequent events.

In contrast, OPEC’s projections over the past year regarding near-term global demand growth and the anticipated peak in oil demand have reached diametrically opposite conclusions. Last summer, the cartel projected global growth in crude demand for 2024 would be a robust 2.25 million bpd. Slowing economic growth has led OPEC’s analysts to lower that initial prediction over the past two months, but only to 2.1 million bpd — more than double that of both IEA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Where the concept of peak oil demand is concerned, OPEC has held to an even more oil-bullish stance, stating its projections do not see that threshold being reached anytime during its projection timeframe through 2050. In its annual Global Outlook published last week, OPEC sees oil demand growing by that year to 120 million bpd, a rise of 18 million bpd from current levels.

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact,” said OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais in the forward to the report.

Al Ghais also pointed out the fact that: “Over the past year, there has been further recognition that the world can only phase in new energy sources at scale when they are genuinely ready, economically competitive, acceptable to consumers and with the right infrastructure in place.” This undeniable reality means that projections of oil demand in the transportation sector being crushed by alternatives like EVs and hydrogen cars are almost certainly overly optimistic. The rapidly faltering market demand for EVs strongly supports that likelihood.

Al Ghais also contends that a “realistic view of demand growth expectations necessitates adequate investments in oil and gas, today, tomorrow, and for many decades into the future.” That contention stands in contrast to the IEA report released in May, 2021, in which IEA Director Fatih Birol urged an immediate halt in all new investments in the finding and development of new oil resources in order to fight climate change. By August of that year, Biral was comically urging oil companies to increase their oil production in order to help re-balance an undersupplied global market.

Episodes like that have led many to question whether IEA bases its projections related to oil markets on data or on wishful thinking. The validity of such questions was only reinforced when Birol announced early this year that the agency’s mission was being expanded into outright advocacy for promoting the energy transition.

So, who is right? We’ll find out in 2030, but the smart money is on the group with billions riding on the answer.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X