The Twitter Files: Part 9 – CIA, State Department, other Agencies Coordinated

Twitter Files part 9: Vast web of coordination between tech giant and CIA, State Department, other agencies

Latest batch of documents claim that the FBI was simply the ‘doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship’ across multiple agencies

Twitter Files Supplemental • Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi)

By Scott Whitlock | Fox News

Substack writer Matt Taibbi released the latest installment of the “Twitter Files” on Christmas Eve, detailing that coordination between the tech giant and government agencies went way beyond the FBI. In a massive series of tweets, Taibbi insisted that the FBI was simply the “doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”

The journalist explained that Twitter had so many interactions with OGAs (or “other government agencies” as they are called in the tweets), the company couldn’t keep them all straight: He explained, “Twitter had so much contact with so many agencies that executives lost track. Is today the DOD, and tomorrow the FBI? Is it the weekly call, or the monthly meeting? It was dizzying.”

He explained how some of the coordination developed, specifically growing out of FBI connections: “On June 29th, 2020, San Francisco FBI agent Elvis Chan wrote to [a] pair of Twitter execs asking if he could invite an “OGA” to an upcoming conference:”

Taibbi noted that it was an “open secret at Twitter that one of its executives was ex-CIA, which is why Chan referred to that executive’s ‘former employer.’” He added that “one of the most common forums was a regular meeting of the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), attended by spates of executives, FBI personnel, and – nearly always – one or two attendees marked ‘OGA.’”

What was discussed in these meetings? Usually “foreign matters.”

But Taibbi added, “Despite its official remit being ‘Foreign Influence,’ the FITF and the SF FBI office became conduit for mountains of domestic moderation requests, from state governments, even local police:”

Just as Twitter was having so many meetings with governmental agencies that it couldn’t keep them straight, the company was also inundated with FBI requests on “problem accounts.”

Less than six weeks before the 2020 election, FBI agent Chan contacted Twitter exec Stacia Cardille about having identified more “Twitter handles which appear to provide misleading information” in them.

Noting how unusual it all seemed, Taibbi remarked of what the latest batch of Twitter files uncovered: “It seemed to strike no one as strange that a ‘Foreign Influence’ task force was forwarding thousands of mostly domestic reports, along with the DHS, about the fringiest material.”

Taibbi revealed an October 1, 2020, e-mail, just over a month before the presidential election, an unnamed Twitter exec described being left “waiting for more evidence” when it came to Russian influence claims from the State Department. This person admitted, “Our window on that is closing, given that government partners are becoming more aggressive on attribution.

Taibbi offered his own paraphrase of what this could mean: “Translation: ‘more aggressive’ ‘government partners’ had closed Twitter’s ‘window’ of independence.”

The journalist concluded the latest edition of the Twitter Files by noting, “The CIA has yet to comment on the nature of its relationship to tech companies like Twitter. Twitter had no input into anything I did or wrote. The searches were carried out by third parties, so what I saw could be limited.”

Part eight of the Twitter Files showed how the platform “directly assisted the U.S. military’s influence operations. Part seven showcased the FBI’s attempts to discredit information about Hunter Biden and his foreign business dealings.

FBI blasted for dismissing Twitter Files as misinformation: ‘Chilling’

‘If the FBI was smart they wouldn’t have said anything about the Twitter Files,’ one user wrote

By Jeffrey Clark | Fox News

The FBI’s claim that the Twitter Files were the work of “conspiracy theorists” set off a firestorm online this week.

The FBI issued its controversial response after an installment of the Twitter Files found the agency regularly contacted employees at Twitter to flag accounts that were deemed as spreading “misinformation.”

It wasn’t long before the agency labeled the Twitter Files themselves as “misinformation.”

A split image of an FBI agent in an official windbreaker and the Twitter logo on a blue screen. (iStock and AP Photo/Gregory Bull, respectively)

“It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency,” the FBI wrote.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the FBI’s response was “chilling.”

“It is not clear what is more chilling: the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role. This week saw another FBI ‘nothing-to-see-here’ statement to the Twitter files,” Turley wrote.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald summed up the FBI’s apparent position on the Twitter Files.

“Anyone who questions the FBI — or finds it disturbing that they’re ‘partnering’ with Big Tech on what should and should not be permitted to be said on the internet — is a hateful, crazy, unhinged anti-American conspiracy theorist,” he wrote.

“Un-freaking-real,” one user wrote in a mega-viral post with over 78,000 likes on Twitter.

“If the FBI was smart they wouldn’t have said anything about the Twitter Files,” human trafficking advocate Eliza Bleu wrote.

Another user reacted to the news: “When you thought the world couldn’t get any crazier, the FBI now claims that the words of its own agents in tons of emails revealed by #TwitterFiles are conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

Former Rolling Stone journalist and Substack writer Matt Taibbi shared hidden communications between Twitter and FBI employees in the days surrounding the contentious 2020 presidential election. The viral Twitter thread revealed several posts that the FBI flagged as concerning for Twitter employees.

Taibbi related a tweet from one of the accounts on Nov. 8: “I want to remind republicans to vote tomorrow, Wednesday November 9.”

Another tweet flagged by the FBI was an apparent joke about voting times: “Americans, Vote today. Democrats you vote Wednesday 9th.”

Taibbi argued that a third tweet, referenced in an email by an FBI employee, was satirical: “For every negative comment on this post, I’m adding another vote for the democrats” and “If you’re not wearing a mask, I’m not counting your vote.”

Three of the four accounts were suspended, according to the email chain, and the fourth account was subject to review by another Twitter employee, according to the email chain.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Adam Sabes contributed to this report.

FBI notified Twitter about users ‘potentially’ violating terms: Twitter Files

The FBI reportedly flagged accounts to Twitter that could ‘potentially’ violate the company’s terms

By Adam Sabes | Fox News

YOUR TAX DOLLARS PAID GOVERNMENT TO GO OVER YOUR POST ON TWITTER THEN CONTACT TWITTER FOR POSSIBLE TWITTER VIOLATIONS!

Employees at the Federal Bureau of Investigation regularly contacted workers at Twitter to notify them of accounts that “may” constitute violations of the company’s terms of service, new Twitter Files released Friday reveal.

Substack writer and journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted several internal emails between Twitter workers and FBI employees as part of the sixth installment of the Twitter Files.

“Hello Twitter contacts, FBI San Francisco is notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy,” one email FBI employee wrote in an email on Nov. 10, 2022.

The email would go on to list several Twitter accounts that might violate the social media company’s terms of service.

In response, a Twitter employee said that three of the four accounts were suspended.

“I’ve reviewed this already from the TD perspective and suspended three of the accounts for multi-account abuse and ban evasion violations,” the Twitter employee wrote.

The Twitter employee asked someone else at the company to review the fourth account flagged by the FBI for “possible civic misinformation.”

Taibbi said that one of the accounts tweeted on Nov. 8 “I want to remind republicans to vote tomorrow, Wednesday November 9.”

One tweet flagged by the FBI states “Americans, Vote today. Democrats you vote Wednesday 9th.”

Another tweet flagged by the FBI in the email states that one user “claimed in her posts that she is a ballot counter in her state and, in additional posts, states ‘For every negative comment on this post, I’m adding another vote for the democrats’ and ‘If you’re not wearing a mask, I’m not counting your vote.'”

Taibbi said that the tweet from the user claiming to be a ballot counter was satirical.

Additionally, Stacia Cardille, a former attorney for Twitter, appeared to suggest in a summary of her meeting with government law enforcement agencies to Twitter’s former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker on Sept. 16, 2021, that the FBI could share classified information with the social media giant.

“I participated in our monthly (soon to be weekly) 90-minute meeting with FBI, DOJ, DHS, ODNI, and industry peers on election threats. A few items to note:,” Cardille wrote. “I explicitly asked if there were any impediments with the ability of the government to share classified information or other relevant information with industry. FBI was adamant that no impediments to information sharing exist.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for the FBI said “The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.”

Download PDF Twitter Files Part 9 Summary PDF and here is the PDF source

Overcoming Qualified Immunity in Civil Rights Claims

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from lawsuits seeking money damages. The doctrine applies when officers are exercising discretion in their official capacity. The defense of qualified immunity, when invoked successfully, leads to dismissal of civil claims.

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects different classes of government officials, state officials, and public officials. Some of these include:

• State governors,¹
• School officials,²
• Prison officials,³ and
• Police officers.⁴

Under this doctrine, police officers can act without fear of being sued. It can protect them as long as their conduct does not:

• violate the victim’s constitutional rights, which
• were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known them.⁵

When government officials successfully raise this doctrine in a lawsuit, the court will generally dismiss the case.

Qualified immunity cases involve lawsuits that seek monetary damages in federal courts. If the lawsuit only demands a change in policy, this doctrine cannot be invoked.⁶

Questions of police reform have reached a fever pitch in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, and the police violence and police use of tear gas in the ensuing protests. Some members of the Senate in Congress suggest doing away with these police protections altogether. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently turned down several federal appeals court cases involving how this doctrine keeps police brutality victims from recovering settlements.⁷

1. How can victims of police misconduct overcome qualified immunity?

Overcoming qualified immunity is critical in a police misconduct lawsuit. Claiming this doctrine is one of the first things that police officers do when they are sued. If they convince the judge that they are immune from the lawsuit, the judge will likely dismiss the case. The victims will recover nothing for their losses if this happens.

Police officers accused of misconduct have the burden of proving they are immune from a lawsuit. Victims can argue that immunity does not apply. To do this, one would have to show two prongs:

1. their constitutional rights were violated, and
2. those rights were so clearly established that a reasonable officer / reasonable official would have known he/she committed the constitutional violation.

Only by overcoming the qualified immunity defense can a victim recover money damages.

A trial court’s / district court’s decision about these cases can be appealed right away. The case does not have to go to the end before it can be contested to an appeals court. Police officers can appeal lower courts’ decisions even if they prevailed on one of the steps.⁸

2. What is a constitutional right?

Constitutional rights are those that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

In the context of police misconduct, they include:

• protection from unlawful detentions, false arrest (no probable cause), and illegal searches, search warrants, or seizures,⁹
• freedom from cruel and unusual punishments (which can include excessive force, unnecessary use of force, and deadly force a.k.a. police brutality),¹⁰ and
• safety from sexual assault, harassment, or other crimes.¹¹

Rights guaranteed under state law cannot be used to overcome qualified immunity.¹² Only federal rights count.

3. When is a constitutional right clearly established?

Police cannot invoke the qualified immunity doctrine if they violated a right that was clearly established. It has to be clearly established at the time of the violation.

What makes a constitutional right “clearly established” is up for debate.¹³ The Supreme Court has made conflicting statements about it. At best, the court has provided a general rule of thumb. A right is clearly established if a police officer had fair notice of it.¹⁴

However, police officers often stress that there are no laws that prohibit exactly what they did. Victims often have to show that the officer’s conduct was prohibited by a more general rule.

Example: An FBI agent searches a home without a warrant. The victims of the search claim it was an unreasonable search that violated their Fourth Amendment civil liberties. Law enforcement claims that the case involves particular details involving a constitutional question that have never been decided, before.¹⁵

4. What remedies are there for a civil rights violation?

Overcoming the qualified immunity test means the officer can be held personally liable for their actions. They can be compelled to pay compensation to the victim.

It is rare for the police officer’s employer to be held vicariously liable.¹⁶ When police commit misconduct, they usually violate official police procedures. This means the department or town is not liable for the misconduct because it broke their rules.

There is one way for the department or town to be held responsible for civil damages. This is if the officer was acting according to a policy or custom.¹⁷

Punitive damages are also possible in civil rights cases. It requires overcoming qualified immunity, though. They are far more common in civil rights cases than in personal injury lawsuits.

5. What is the law in California?

California law says that police officers, government officials, and public officials can assert a qualified immunity defense in certain cases.

Note, though, that there is arguably no qualified immunity for California police officers accused of false arrest or imprisonment.¹⁹ And unlike federal law, California law places the burden on the police to justify a false arrest or imprisonment.²⁰

Further, under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, citizens can file civil lawsuits against government employees if they interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with that person’s constitutional rights. Government employees are barred from raising a qualified immunity defense in these cases.²¹

Under California Senate Bill 2, prison guards and their employers cannot use a qualified immunity defense in most cases where they injure prisoners or fail to provide medical care to them.²²

When California law enforcement officers get sued for misconduct, they can ask their police department to defend them going forward. Whether the case settles or the police officer is found liable at trial, the police department is responsible for paying all compensatory damages to the plaintiff. This includes expenses for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

California law does not make police departments liable for paying punitive damages in police misconduct lawsuits. However, the department can elect to pay punitive damages anyway if:

1. the trial judgment is based on an act or omission of an officer (or former officer) acting within the course and scope of his or her employment,
2. at the time of the misconduct, the officer acted in good faith, without actual malice, and in the apparent best interests of the department, and
3. payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the department.²⁰

(Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff. And punitive damages only come into play if the case goes to trial and the defendant loses.)

For cases in Nevada, please see our article on criminal justice cases against the government in Nevada.

Legal References:

Cited https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/civil-rights/qualified-immunity/

A NICE MANUAL EXPLAINING DIFFERENT IMMUNITIES with DIFFERENT GOVERNEMTN STATE_IMMUNITY_TORT_CAPS_NOV_2017