Saturday, October 31, 2026Every claim sourced. Every source linked.
The record of what the American press got wrong, and who it helped
The Twitter Files
Confirmed

Taibbi and Shellenberger testify on the Twitter Files

Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testified to the House Judiciary weaponization subcommittee that the Twitter Files showed federal agencies pressing platforms to restrict speech under both Trump and Biden. Democrats questioned their credibility and their ties to Musk. Neither side's case was settled in court.

Mar 9, 2023
Screenshot of the source
Screenshot of the source page. Tap to open it.
Whose side it served: Neither party

The testimony described pressure from agencies under both the Trump and Biden administrations.

What the record shows

The hearing took place March 9, 2023, before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government; Rep. Jim Jordan invited the witnesses. The witnesses said the FBI, CDC, State Department and White House under both presidents pressed social media companies. Del. Stacey Plaskett called them 'so-called journalists.' Rep. Dan Goldman said the Files had produced no real example of the government censoring lawful speech. Rep. Stephen Lynch got Shellenberger to agree the 2016 Clinton emails were hacked; Taibbi replied that illicitly obtained information is not necessarily misinformation.

In their words

“so-called journalists”— Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), subcommittee ranking member · source
“The content of the emails was authentic.”— Matt Taibbi, journalist · source
The other side

Democrats argued the files showed contact rather than coercion, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz suggested the reporting had grown the witnesses' own audiences. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that plaintiffs alleging government coercion of platforms lacked standing, leaving the underlying question undecided.

Sources

Get the daily file.