Memorializing the Twitter Files – XV: Russiagate Lies II – Defamation, Fraud, Twitter & Hamilton 68
Matt Taibbi documents how a former FBI official, supported by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, were at the heart of a vast criminal fraud perpetrated upon this nation through a willing media and the studied silence of Twitter.
An organization known by the online name, Hamilton 68, headed by a former FBI Counterintelligence Agent Clint Watts and supported by a rogue’s gallery of Democratic Partisans at the ASD, was at the heart of the Russian Disinformation craze that has so distorted our politics of the past near-decade. The Hamilton68 operation itself was a fraud that defamed numerous conservatives as being part of a Russian disinformation operation. Those assertions were accepted without question by the MSM and Congressional Democrats. Senior members of Twitter knew but opted to play along.
1.THREAD: Twitter Files #15
MOVE OVER, JAYSON BLAIR: TWITTER FILES EXPOSE NEXT GREAT MEDIA FRAUD pic.twitter.com/bLRpDpuWql— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 27, 2023
12. Twitter executives were in a unique position to recreate Hamilton’s list, reverse-engineering it from the site’s requests for Twitter data.
Concerned about the deluge of Hamilton-based news stories, they did so – and what they found shocked them.
13.“These accounts,” they concluded, “are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots.”
“No evidence to support the statement that the dashboard is a finger on the pulse of Russian information ops.”
16. Twitter immediately recognized these Hamilton-driven news stories posed a major ethical problem, potentially implicating them.
“Real people need to know they’ve been unilaterally labeled Russian stooges without evidence or recourse,” Roth wrote.
17.Some Twitter execs badly wanted to out Hamilton 68. After Russians were blamed for hyping the #ParklandShooting hashtag, one wrote:
“Why can’t we say we’ve investigated… and citing Hamilton 68 is being wrong, irresponsible, and biased?”
18.Yoel Roth wanted a confrontation. “My recommendation at this stage is an ultimatum: you release the list or we do,” he wrote.
However, there were internal concerns about taking on the politically connected Alliance for Securing Democracy.
36.At least two other research institutions that used similar methodologies – and were cited as sources in news stories – were also criticized in Twitter email correspondence.