Twitter censorship Biden

Twitter censorship of the Biden scandal merits questions in Parliament

There is something rather sinister going on at Twitter. Readers will recall the daily news being full of serious allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in order to influence (allegedly) the 2016 election. They may also recall the Steele dossier which was the foundation of the allegations, and how this led to an attempt to impeach President Trump, which failed.

Did anyone have any difficulty reading full details of the allegations on social media? The mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic were awash with material about it, and it only it petered out when US Attorney General Barr released his report which found that the foundation of the allegations were murkily enmeshed with Hillary Clinton’s election campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Steele dossier was discredited but it had served its purpose.

The boot is now on the other foot. For some time there has been discussion and speculation about the curious coincidence that the offspring of prominent US politicians have secured lucrative positions with oil companies in the Ukraine without any experience in the energy sector, and despite having no obvious skills or talents to justify such commercial involvement. Among the families thus favoured have been those of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Joe Biden.

That was a troubling coincidence, but the suspicions became more tangible when Hunter Biden, son of Joe, took his laptop computer for repair to a Mac store in Delaware and then, being very very rich or forgetful, or both, never went back to collect it, presumably buying a new one and downloading what he wanted from the Cloud. The shop owner repaired it, and when it went uncollected he had a look at who might do such a thing.

Hunter Biden’s laptop contained a treasure trove of emails describing how he became fabulously wealthy with no obvious talent, save for close family connections with one of the most influential men in the world. His father has amassed a $9m fortune on public service salaries, and the emails indicated some of the ways this appears to have been achieved.

The laptop was turned over to the FBI but not before its hard drive was copied. Its contents are now being pored over, examined and published on the internet.

Except they aren’t.

Trump is fair game for the media, but Joe Biden is not.

Last night, seeing interesting tweets and links, I began making comments and attempting to share what I was seeing. I was not being controversial, but simply remarking that these were matters of public interest that needed to be considered in the public square. This is how debate proceeds in this country, and, indeed, in “The land of the free and the home of the brave”.

My attempted re-tweets immediately failed. I was given a faux friendly message that there was a problem with the retweet, and invited to try again. It of course failed again. I tried a different tweet with the same outcome, and even an attempt to share an innocuous prayer request, but that too was blocked. I am currently un-Twittered and tweetless.

This is how the Chinese Communist Party operates. I am pleased to have noted that the fiercely independent Andrew Neil (with 1.1million followers) is on the case. Shamefully, the BBC and other mainstream UK media are silent on the supine behaviour of the American media in the face of actual interference in the US Presidential Election by Twitter and Facebook. This is far graver than anything alleged in the phony Steele dossier.

The allegation is that Joe Biden, then Vice President, was being indirectly funded by Ukrainian oligarchs, Chinese Communist Party officials, and even one of Vladimir Putin’s close associates, the former wife of a mayor of Moscow, who donated $3.5m dollars to the Bidens for which no explanation has been offered.

The Ukraine issue has been around for a while but attracted little interest, despite a video of Biden clearly explaining that he had secured the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had begun showing interest in the involvement of his son Hunter Biden with the Burisma company, which is owned by a corrupt oligarch. Extraordinary as it may seem, Joe Biden openly boasted that he had misused the power of his office and his influence with President Obama in order to have the prosecutor fired for nothing more than temerity. To spell it out plainly: a US Vice President admits that he used the threat of withholding US taxpayers’ money, which had been designated for aid, in order to intervene in a lawful investigation into allegations of his son’s corruption – and the media shows no outrage: it simply looks the other way.

We can only hope that some journalists can find the integrity to follow this story up now further evidence is emerging. If true, this is worse than Watergate, and following the financial trail ought not to be difficult for any investigator working with serious intent to set out the truth of these serious concerns.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has prosecuted many crime-ridden families. He knows how the corruption of politicians is best achieved and has already identified emails which he says show classic techniques of how to launder bribes via political families.

Happily the Spectator magazine has now taken up the story and begun explaining it, along with its significance. It will be interesting to see how quickly (or if) the rest of the media in the UK follows suit. We cannot help but contrast their reluctance to address this huge scandal compared to their considerable interest in Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Meanwhile, if you tweet something interesting on any subject, I cannot share it for now. I shall cope with that disappointment with as much fortitude as I can muster: the world can do without my opinion for a day or two. But this is hardly the point in democratic countries with a free press and media. Twitter censorship of the Biden scandal is a deeply disturbing development. I wonder if any MPs will raise this sinister abuse of Big Tech power with a question (or two) in the House of Commons?