WATCH: House Dems Try To Bully Twitter Files Journos Into Revealing Sources, Fail Miserably | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Virginia Kruta.

    Democrats repeatedly attempted to bully independent journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger into giving up their #TwitterFiles sources - and the answer, every time, was a resounding and emphatic "NO."

    Taibbi and Shellenberger appeared before Congress for a Thursday morning hearing with the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government - and in addition to badgering them for information on their sources, the Democrats on the committee verbally attacked them, calling them Twitter owner Elon Musk's "personal scribes."

    The committee's ranking member, Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-USVI), began the attack in her opening statement, referring to Taibbi and Shellenberger as "so-called journalists" before they'd even been called on to answer the first question.

    Plaskett then claimed that "all the so-called 'Twitter Files' really showed was a discussion on content moderation," arguing that the two journalists were only there because their work on the Twitter Files was seen as politically advantageous to Republicans.

    "Ranking Member Plaskett, I'm not a so-called journalist," Taibbi objected, adding, "I've won the National Magazine Award, the I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written 10 books, including four New York Times bestsellers."

    Plaskett then repeatedly attempted to get the pair to reveal their sources.


    "Who was the individual that gave you permission to access the emails?" Plaskett asked.

    "The attribution for my story is 'sources at Twitter' and that's what I'm going to refer to," Taibbi replied.

    "Okay, did Mr. Musk contact you?" Plaskett tried a different tack.

    "Again, the attribution for my story is 'sources at Twitter,'" Taibbi repeated.

    Plaskett pivoted to Shellenberger with the same question: "Did Mr. Musk contact you?"

    Shellenberger said no, that he had been brought in to help with the story by his friend and fellow Twitter Files journalist Bari Weiss.

    "Mr. Taibbi, have you had conversations with Elon Musk?" Plaskett tried again, and when Taibbi conceded that he had, she pressed harder: "Did Mr. Musk place any conditions on the use of the emails -"

    At that point, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan interrupted, asking Plaskett directly whether she was attempting to get a journalist to reveal a source.

    "No, I'm not," she insisted, but Jordan shot back, "Well, it sure sounds like it."

    Later in the hearing, Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) tried a different approach to get to the source information.


    Garcia began by asking when Musk had approached Taibbi about writing the Twitter Files - and he refused to answer, saying it went to the issue of sourcing and that he was not going to divulge that information.

    "When was the first time that Mr. Musk approached you about writing the Twitter Files?" she asked. "I just need a date, Sir."

    "Again, Congresswoman, that would be - but I can't give it to you, unfortunately, because this is a question of sourcing, and I don't give up - I'm a journalist, I don't reveal my sources," he replied.

    Garcia insisted that it was not a question of sourcing so much as timing - but Taibbi remained firm in his position and did not answer. She then pivoted to ask him about Musk directly, prompting Jordan to interrupt again and chastise her for repeated attempts to force him to reveal his source.

    "What he has said is he is not going to reveal his source, and the fact that the Democrats are pressuring him to do so is such a violation of the First Amendment," Jordan said.

    Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) used her time to attempt to first discredit Taibbi himself - claiming that simply agreeing to be a witness before a Republican-led committee undermined his objectivity as a journalist - and then to discredit the story by suggesting the sources had "motives."

    "Every reported story that I've ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives," Taibbi shot back.

    Wasserman Schultz responded by asserting that Taibbi had leveraged his work on the Twitter Files for personal profit.

    His reply: "I think it's probably a wash, honestly."

Considering how abjectly corrupt and civilly abusive the Left has become regarding the corrosive effect of their elected leaders; their entrenched and ruling bureaucracy; employing their failed Education Industry as Indoctrinators; their collusive private sector operators, such as the terminally discredited Legacy Media and Big Tech censorship of Free Speech: What will be the best course forward for hardworking Middle Americans, including the Patriot Class?
  Withdraw from society, go underground and plan for a resurgence when it is feasible to do so.
  Work within the confines of better policy by the People's government, once good sense and sanity is restored in the electorate at large, to achieve such.
  Are you a crazy, nut-job Insurrectionist? Everything is perfect within our plan to achieve our intended goals for the Socialist Left.
  Secession to form a true Constitutional Republic.
274 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Since only about 20% of the News Media has any shred of Journalistic Integrity remaining: How does our Constitutional Republic continue without a "Free Press"?
  Demand real information, using real sources, backed up by facts.
  Promote real journalist entities only, and admonish those that prostitute their profession.
  We Democratic Socialists are doing just fine, thank-you, by promoting lies while having very little real knowledge about so much.
223 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Where do you stand on the wanton censorship by Big Tech Platforms, while retaining their Section 230 carveout indemnifying them for Slander /Defamation lawsuits and Copyright infringements?
  Big Tech Platforms have the right to Censor all speech providing they voluntarily relinquish their Section 230 Carveout.
  Big Tech Platforms DO NOT have the right to Censor any speech, while retaining multiple indemnifications by virtue of the Section 230 Carveout.
  I know nothing of this 230 talk, but "I do love me some social media".
442 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back

Back to Top