There was something interesting revealed amongst this pantomime! Roth has actually clarified in this hearing what he meant in his statement given to the FEC.
From your other article: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/ I quote Roth:
“[F]ederal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected ‘hack-and-leak operations’ by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election . . . . I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”
When people read this, they assumed that the FBI ITSELF had warned of a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden. As you lay out in your article, Elvis Chan would dispute this.
From the committee hearing, Roth would clarify that people were misreading the statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSlqj7v1no&t=20636s Roth says:
"I want to be clear that my statement to the FEC does not suggest that the FBI told me it would involve Hunter Biden; that's a popular reading of that declaration but it was not my intent. I think there is a coincidence there and I really can't speak as to how that came about."
A "popular reading" that was not his "intent."
Here's two more moments that reinforce the same point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSlqj7v1no&t=3952s
Q: “it is you stated that during these meetings quote federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected hack and leak operations by state actors that might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election likely in October and that there were quote rumors that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden post quote is that your recollection today.”
Roth answers: “it is but I want to clarify that sentence slightly I think it actually should have been two separate sentences it is true that in meetings between industry and law enforcement law enforcement discussed the possibility of a hack and Leak campaign in the lead-up to the election and in one of those meetings it was discussed I Believe by another company that there was a possibility that that hack and leak could relate to Hunter Biden and Burisma I don't believe that perspective was shared by law enforcement they didn't endorse it they didn't provide that information in that.”
And also https://www.youtube.com/live/quSlqj7v1no?feature=share&t=21568
Q: “Mr Roth I want to go back to your statement in your declaration FEC: “I learned that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.” Who did you learn that from?” [12]
Roth answers: “From my recollection it was mentioned by another technology company in one of our joint meetings, but I don't recall specifically whom.”
So, at three different moments in the hearing, Roth highlights that the FBI did not bring up Hunter Biden. It might be worth adding these statements to your other piece: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
Mike, the rest of your pieces on Elon's shenanigans have been fantastic, but this title is a bit misleading. It implies that Musk himself was the one that pulled the trigger on pulling this documentary. In actuality, Musk was unaware of what had transpired: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1618319479662055426 It's his LACK of action (assuming nothing changes) that should be condemned.
Now, of course, what matters here is what actions Elon will take as a result? Is he going to continue to masquerade as a free-speech absolutist, or will he actually apply his principles and fight back against government censorship?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JimmyJimmy.
Might be worth updating your other article?
There was something interesting revealed amongst this pantomime! Roth has actually clarified in this hearing what he meant in his statement given to the FEC. From your other article: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/ I quote Roth: “[F]ederal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected ‘hack-and-leak operations’ by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election . . . . I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.” When people read this, they assumed that the FBI ITSELF had warned of a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden. As you lay out in your article, Elvis Chan would dispute this. From the committee hearing, Roth would clarify that people were misreading the statement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSlqj7v1no&t=20636s Roth says: "I want to be clear that my statement to the FEC does not suggest that the FBI told me it would involve Hunter Biden; that's a popular reading of that declaration but it was not my intent. I think there is a coincidence there and I really can't speak as to how that came about." A "popular reading" that was not his "intent." Here's two more moments that reinforce the same point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSlqj7v1no&t=3952s Q: “it is you stated that during these meetings quote federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected hack and leak operations by state actors that might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election likely in October and that there were quote rumors that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden post quote is that your recollection today.” Roth answers: “it is but I want to clarify that sentence slightly I think it actually should have been two separate sentences it is true that in meetings between industry and law enforcement law enforcement discussed the possibility of a hack and Leak campaign in the lead-up to the election and in one of those meetings it was discussed I Believe by another company that there was a possibility that that hack and leak could relate to Hunter Biden and Burisma I don't believe that perspective was shared by law enforcement they didn't endorse it they didn't provide that information in that.” And also https://www.youtube.com/live/quSlqj7v1no?feature=share&t=21568 Q: “Mr Roth I want to go back to your statement in your declaration FEC: “I learned that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.” Who did you learn that from?” [12] Roth answers: “From my recollection it was mentioned by another technology company in one of our joint meetings, but I don't recall specifically whom.” So, at three different moments in the hearing, Roth highlights that the FBI did not bring up Hunter Biden. It might be worth adding these statements to your other piece: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
Misleading
Mike, the rest of your pieces on Elon's shenanigans have been fantastic, but this title is a bit misleading. It implies that Musk himself was the one that pulled the trigger on pulling this documentary. In actuality, Musk was unaware of what had transpired: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1618319479662055426 It's his LACK of action (assuming nothing changes) that should be condemned. Now, of course, what matters here is what actions Elon will take as a result? Is he going to continue to masquerade as a free-speech absolutist, or will he actually apply his principles and fight back against government censorship?