Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Supreme Court Rules Bump Stock Ban Unlawful

What Spygate Tells Us About The Google, Facebook, And Twitter Files

A Big Tech lawsuit and ‘The Twitter Files’ are showing Democrats used the same process against Trump in 2020 that they falsely claimed he had used to win in 2016.


Cross-referencing new information from “The Twitter Files” and a state attorneys general lawsuit against Big Tech with what we know about Spygate from years of investigations reinforces and enlarges shocking conclusions about the corruption of American government. Those two illuminate further how the U.S. bureaucracy interferes in elections, in these cases by pushing communications monopolies to shut down discourse that undermines the administrative state.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s latest is evidence demonstrating the federal government’s use of Big Tech communications monopolies to censor its critics was not at all limited to Twitter. He posted an email showing the Biden White House asking Facebook to shut down Tucker Carlson’s speech on its platform, and a Facebook employee apparently complying within just a few hours.

Newly in office Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey posted screenshots of White House staffers demanding similar censorship from Google’s YouTube. The emails also showed Google employees confirming to the White House that they are algorithmically killing the reach of speech that displeases Democrats on YouTube.

There will be plenty of points of crossover between these developing investigations and the Crossfire Hurricane operation that began in 2015 among U.S. intelligence agencies to deny voters the fruits of electing Donald Trump. One immediately apparent is that the attorneys general Big Tech lawsuit and “Twitter Files” evidence are showing Democrats used the same process against Trump in 2020 that they falsely claimed he used to win in 2016.

Even before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and other Democrat operatives planted the media narrative that Trump was “colluding with Russia to steal the election.” When Trump upset everyone’s expectations by winning, the losers turned to the planted Russia narrative to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. They falsely claimed Trump was a traitor, a Manchurian candidate: that he had betrayed his country to get Russian help to win the U.S. presidency.

All the so-called evidence for this lie, laundered through U.S. intelligence agencies and media entities we now know function as intelligence agency propaganda megaphones, was completely fabricated. It was fake. The whole Russian collusion charge was a frame, a setup, a big lie.

But it took years and years to prove it. So even though the Trump-Russia collusion claims have been roundly disproven and the evidence shown to be fabricated, still a large number of Americans — the majority of Democrats — believe it is true.

One of the pieces of falsified evidence for that big lie was the Jan. 6, 2017 “intelligence community assessment” signed off publicly by the FBI, National Security Agency, and CIA concluding that Trump’s election was boosted by Russian social media content farms. That report claimed the Russian government ran content farms on social media that disproportionately favored Trump’s candidacy over Clinton.

This assessment came out a mere two weeks before Trump’s inauguration and was an initial part of the coordinated campaign between the minority party and the permanent unelected class of bureaucrats to undermine Trump’s presidency.

Pretending this conclusion was shocking was a total setup against Republicans. Democrats with intelligence clearances on, for example, congressional committees had been for years getting info about foreign governments doing exactly this. They knew basically every country, including the United States, does what they pinned on Russia — use sock puppet accounts to inject their preferred narratives into global public discourse. This is basic Internet Age information warfare.

Yet instead of responding that the information the Jan. 6, 2017 “intelligence community assessment” spotlighted was totally normal activity for all major governments and no smoking gun in any way, Democrats who knew better ran with the lies intelligence agencies had prepared for them to spew — all to overturn the results of an election that didn’t go Democrats’ way.

That “IC assessment” also tacitly made public U.S. intelligence agencies’ knowledge that controlling information spread on social media affects election outcomes. That’s why they help shut down communications infrastructure in countries where they’re participating in “regime change.”

As we now see coming out in “The Twitter Files” and the AGs’ Big Tech lawsuit, U.S. intelligence agencies don’t merely observe this process. They affect it. They don’t just do it in foreign countries, either. They do it in ours.

This is just one application of Spygate knowledge to the information from the AG lawsuit and “Twitter Files.” The obvious benefits of doing so make it a bit shocking that Elon Musk didn’t pick any of the top Spygate journalists to go through the “Twitter Files.”

Spygate investigators have the prime background knowledge and sources to know what to look for in these voluminous records caches from Twitter corporate. Two of the five given access, Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang, do have investigative histories in national security, and Taibbi may be the top leftist journalist on Russiagate, but that’s still a minority of the “Twitter Files” reporters.

What about people such as The Federalist’s own Mollie Hemingway and Margot Cleveland, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, RealClearInvestigations’ Paul Sperry (a direct target of White House censorship efforts, Twitter documents recently revealed), Spygate impresario Dan Bongino, John Solomon of Just The News, and Sharyl Attkisson? Perhaps Musk doesn’t know who the top Spygate journalists are as a consequence of the very censorship his ownership of Twitter is revealing. Perhaps he doesn’t read enough counter-regime news sources. Who knows.

This all sounds shocking, but it shouldn’t be. One thing Spygate taught me was that when Democrats launch a smear, you should immediately suspect they’re doing right now what they’re brightly projecting onto the current target. So, for example, when they all start chanting about “saving democracy,” you should immediately assume their top priority is in fact destroying self-rule.

That’s what’s really going on with the ongoing series of interconnected deep-state stories revealing the U.S. “national security” apparatus is bringing to the United States regime-change tactics they’ve practiced overseas now for decades. Yet another visible proof is that President Obama’s regime change specialist Susan Rice is now Joe Biden’s domestic policy adviser.

Did they do it again with Covid? You betcha. Is another deployment of these kinds of military-grade information operations coming in 2024? My guess would be it’s already in motion against the Republicans promising to finally engage in some oversight of these rogue agencies.

If they finally mean what they’ve been promising for four election cycles, elected Republicans had better be ready to withstand the same kind of treatment Joseph McCarthy, Michael Flynn, Jeff Fortenberry, and Trump have gotten. I think it’s called “six ways from Sunday.”

This article has been corrected to note Bailey was appointed, not elected.

Access Commentsx