Yesterday, I reported that the Twitter account tracking the Ghislaine Maxwell trial had been nuked by Twitter, which claimed it had somehow manipulated engagement, a claim the account owner insisted was untrue. This tweet about summed up how many felt about the situation:
Maxwell trial tracker did not kill itself pic.twitter.com/lHj5e4jALU
— Greg Capital (@phoenixvalue) December 8, 2021
Then, following public outcry, the account was reinstated. Later in the day on the 8th, following a severe amount of public outcry, the account owner tweeted “I’m back again…. And then if I go down… I’ll be back again …”
Well, it’s down again. If you try to find the account, Twitter just says “this account was suspended.”
It appears that, after dabbling in being reasonable and not suspending accounts that follow its rules and provide valuable information, Twitter decided to go back to the path of censorship and slap the account with another ban.
It is not clear, however, why. The account owner insists that the account did not violate any Twitter policies and, if the account was briefly unsuspended, that’s likely true. So, the question is what’s really going on.
One article on ZeroHedge provides a bit outlandish, but still reasonable and possible, if not probable, answer: the account might have exposed the FBI. Here’s what that article claims:
During Special Agent Mcguire’s testimony [during the Ghislaine trial], she touched upon other contents of Epstein’s townhouse that were recovered by the FBI in 2019. These items included photographs, CDs, and hard drives that were found in the office of Epstein’s Manhattan residence. According to the TrialTracker account, Mcguire’s testimony verified that the hard drives seized in 2019 already had FBI evidence tags placed on them. This report suggests that the evidence seized from Epstein’s townhouse in 2019 had already been in possession of the FBI before being returned to the sexual predator.
[…]Though the inclusion of Mcguire’s testimony is essentially hearsay from the TrackerTrial account, it’s worth noting that Twitter did not publicly cite those tweets as the basis for its suspension. If those tweets could have been proven to be inaccurate, then it would have given the company a clear justification for the ban. Curiously, upon review of account that has been allowed to re-emerged under the username Trial_Tracker there is a notable omission. The tweets concerning evidence discussed by Special Agent Mcguire are not present in the new account, despite screen captures that show them on the original account which has stayed banned. Though the new Trial_Tracker account does still include an article from the owner conveying that same information via a Substack account, the tweets reporting that testimony have been deleted.
That theory is a bit out there, but could be possible. Few other reasons have been provided, especially given that Twitter’s claim the account was manipulating engagement probably isn’t true and that the account was reinstated. The account owner has this to say about it in a Substack post:
Today we aggregated all of our tweets from the past few days to try to understand why we were banned. We don’t understand which tweet caused us to get banned or what we did. This is the only thing we have heard from Twitter.
We will be sending these aggregated tweets directly to the Twitter support team in an attempt to understand what we did wrong. We urge all or our dedicated readers to do the same in an attempt to reinstate our profile and platform. You can contact Twitter here ([email protected]).
Another post adds this:
As an update to all dedicated followers. We are still banned from Twitter. I am guessing this is an indefinite ban. It is likely we never return. In the slim chance we return I am guessing it is after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
So, in short, it’s unclear why the account was resuspended and the only real theory, other than that Twitter is just censoring accounts that expose elite malfeasance, has to do with the FBI story.
This story syndicated with permission from Will – Trending Politics