Republicans Swing and Miss on Hunter Biden and Twitter

“The premise of this whole hearing is misleading.”

Mother Jones; Drew Angerer/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

House Republicans spent much of their first big oversight committee hearing Wednesday attacking Twitter for denying American voters the chance to look at Hunter Biden’s penis.

The lawmakers’ pro-dick-pic position was probably inadvertent. But that is where they landed. The hearing failed to produce any evidence to support the central allegation advanced by committee chair, Rep. Jim Comer (R-Ky.): That Twitter “colluded” with the Biden campaign in October 2020 to suppress a New York Post story on Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian gas company. Instead, the former Twitter executives who testified made the opposite point: Neither the Biden campaign nor the FBI had asked Twitter to suppress the Post’s story, they all testified. They said that it was simply Twitter’s decision—a decision the company has already conceded was a mistake. 

The hearing had a grandiose title: “Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story.” But as Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat, pointed out in his opening statement, Twitter, a private company, was exercising its own speech rights in curating its own content. “If Twitter wants to have nothing but tweets commenting on New York Post articles run all day, it can do that; and if it makes it so tweets mentioning the New York Post never see the light of day, it can do that too,” Raskin said. “That’s what the First Amendment means.” 

It quickly became clear that while GOP lawmakers had read the “Twitter Files” threads Elon Musk facilitated, they didn’t have much relevant information to add. Hours in, it fell to Rep. Becca Balint, a freshman Democrat from Vermont, to sum things up. “My Republican colleagues know that the premise of this whole hearing is misleading,” Balint said. “There is no evidence that the Biden campaign had anything to do with the Hunter Biden New York Post story.”

Without support for their primary contention, the GOP committee members were left attacking Twitter on other grounds – or struggling to insinuate that contacts Twitter did have with federal agents and the Biden campaign in 2020 related to the Hunter Biden story

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), for instance, pressed Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of Trust and Safety, on his regular contacts with FBI agents, who sometimes used a one-way communications tool they called a “Teleporter link” to share information. The FBI routinely talks to many social media companies about foreign influence efforts and other material on their sites. Roth said talking to law enforcement was part of his job. But Jordan wanted to know: Did the FBI ask Twitter to block the Post’s story? No, Roth said, they did not. Jordan nevertheless, offered his opinion: “I think you guys got played by the FBI…They send you documents on the super-secret James Bond teleporter. You get information on that. I think you guys wanted to take it down.”

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), minutes later, seemed to think he had a gotcha. How, Donalds asked, could Roth explain October 24, 2020, emails in which other Twitter officials talked about handling a Biden campaign request to take down certain tweets.

“My understanding is that these tweets contained nonconsensual nude photos of Hunter Biden, and they were removed by the company under our terms of service,” Roth replied. 

Here Donalds tried to pounce. “How could you know so much about the content of these tweets,” he asked. “As far as I’m concerned these are just web addresses. I don’t know what’s in these tweets. You have these things committed to memory?”

Roth responded: “There was extensive public reporting about tweets specifically that uncovered what they were.”

Indeed, when journalist Matt Taibbi published the installment of the “Twitter Files” that Donalds was relying on, Mother Jones, along with others, used the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, freely available to Rep. Donalds and GOP staff, to see what those specific tweets contained. I wrote then: “Three of them featured explicit images of Hunter Biden. One doesn’t work. Another is a video, which won’t play now, but probably showed sexual activity. All of those I was able to access violated Twitter’s rules.”

The explicit images from Biden’s laptop were not posted by random Twitter users. They were distributed at the behest of Steve Bannon by people working under the direction of Bannon’s ally, exiled Chinese mogul Guo Wengui. Guo, we have reported, oversaw an extensive, international effort to publicize explicit images of Hunter Biden and also to accompany them with lies about what other material on Biden’s laptop supposedly showed. That effort certainly violated Twitter’s terms of service, which prohibit posting “explicit sexual images or videos of someone online without their consent,” as well as “coordinated harmful activity” by “individuals associated with a group, movement, or campaign” aimed at damaging someone else.

Donalds and his colleagues may not have initially known it, but they were berating Twitter for taking down dick pics.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate