Musk Fires Former FBI Attorney James Baker for Vetting Twitter Files

Elon Musk revealed on Tuesday that former FBI attorney James Baker, who joined Twitter as deputy general counsel, had been sacked after vetting newly published proof of Twitter’s election meddling without Musk’s knowledge.

In response to an article by Jonathan Turley revealing the incestuous relationship between Twitter, Biden scandals, and Baker, Musk wrote that they had removed Baker from Twitter based on concerns that he may suppress information important to public discourse.

Last Friday, journalist Matt Taibbi published ‘The Twitter Files,’ which details how Twitter executives conspired behind CEO Jack Dorsey’s back to influence the 2020 U.S. election by blocking the Hunter Biden laptop story.

According to Taibbi, Baker participated in the ‘vetting’ of information without management’s knowledge.

We can now explain a portion of the explanation behind this. Former FBI General Counsel, who became Twitter Deputy General Counsel, Jim Baker, was sacked on Tuesday. Among the many causes? Evaluate the initial “Twitter Files” batch without informing the new administration.

The “Twitter Files” were delivered to two journalists (Bari Weiss and Taibbi) by a lawyer with ties to the new administration. After the initial batch, however, the situation grew difficult. Over the weekend, as both journalists battled with impediments to fresh searches, Weiss learned that Jim was the individual responsible for releasing the data. When she contacted to inquire about “Jim’s” last name, she received the response “Jim Baker.”

Weiss declared that her jaw struck the ground upon hearing Jim Baker’s name. The revelation that Baker was analyzing the “Twitter files” was, to say the least, shocking to everyone concerned. Elon Musk, the new CEO of Twitter, responded swiftly to remove Baker on Tuesday.

Today, reporters resumed extensive searches of Twitter Files content. The next episode of “The Twitter Files” will be posted on @bariweiss.

Musk responded “Yes” if Baker had been asked to explain. According to Musk, his justification was “unconvincing.”

As hundreds of Twitter papers on the company’s controversial filtering program are published, much has been verified regarding Biden and Democratic leaders’ use of back routes to quiet opponents on social media. However, one recognizable name stood up instantly in the initial documents disclosed by writer Matt Taibbi: James Baker. In the eyes of many, James Baker has quickly become the Kevin Bacon of Russian collusion stories.

Baker has often appeared in Justice Department investigations concerning Russia, including the deception involving the Russian Alfa Bank. Baker was Michael Sussmann’s speed-dial contact for planting the odd false allegation of a covert channel between the Trump campaign and Russia. Baker would subsequently testify in the trial of Sussmann. Baker’s name was also heavily included in debates surrounding the FBI’s other Russian-related accusations against Trump. Due to his position, he was supposedly subjected to a criminal inquiry and driven out of office. He supported the Russian probes despite allegations of prejudice and perhaps criminal activity. He was also a regular target of Donald Trump on Twitter and other social media platforms. Baker had replied to Trump’s “false narratives” with public condemnation.

When he left the FBI, Twitter seemed ready to employ Baker as deputy general counsel. Ironically, Baker became involved in another purported back channel with a presidential campaign shortly after. Twitter preserved the Biden campaign’s non-public routes this time (and later the White House). Baker immediately chimed in with the same characteristic prejudice that marked the investigations into Russia.

The New York Post published a bombshell article,  a few weeks before the 2020 presidential election, about Hunter Biden’s laptop that included emails and documents showing the Biden family’s multimillion-dollar influence-peddling business. Hunter and James Biden were involved in transactions with a variety of questionable foreign personalities, but Joe Biden was also mentioned as a potential beneficiary of monies from these transactions.

Long ago, the Bidens were accused of influence peddling, favoritism, and other sorts of misconduct. In addition, the campaign did not dispute that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and other parties could corroborate critical emails. The “Biden team” and Democratic officials requested Twitter block the story. Even individuals who attempted to communicate the claims with others were suspended, including White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany for referring to the controversy.

Even within Twitter, substantial concerns were voiced about the corporation acting as a censor for the Biden campaign. Brandon Borrman of Global Communications inquired whether the corporation could claim this was part of its policy to prohibit posts and ban users.

Baker swiftly defended the restriction and stated that it was reasonable to infer because they may have been hacked, and vigilance is necessary.

Remember that there was never any proof that this information was hacked.

Baker claimed, though, that it was “logical” to assume that the Russians were behind another big controversy. When confronted with a huge scandal involving Joe Biden in the corrupt sale of access to foreign officials (including those with ties to foreign intelligence), Baker’s natural inclination was to bury the story and prevent others from spreading the charges.

The new records may reveal why Twitter was anxious to recruit Baker despite his involvement in the Russian collusion scandals. What would have certainly been a liability for most businesses that appeared to be an asset for Twitter? Baker certainly seemed to Twitter’s censors and political operatives as a “made guy” for a corporation devoted to systemic suppression. He would work alongside the company’s top legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, who also served as the company’s head censor. Free speech activists universally loathed Gadde for disregarding free speech principles and blatant political prejudice.

Gadde and Baker would take key roles in covering up the Hunter Biden controversy, as projected. When Musk took over the corporation, collecting “the typical suspects” in the suppression controversy was barely necessary. Both suppressed internal concerns to hide a story that may have decided the 2020 election.

It is remarkable how many individuals and institutions implicated in allegations of Russian involvement are within six degrees of James Baker. Baker worked closely with ousted FBI director James Comey and other important players at the Justice Department and was also acquainted with key Clinton figures, such as Sussmann, who promoted the phony collusion charges. In addition, he was employed by the Brookings Institution, which has a role in the genesis and growth of the phony Russian collusion charges.

None of these indicate that Baker was the impetus for the controversies. Baker built his reputation in Washington as a facilitator and a dependable ally in Beltway business. Baker’s adoption of Twitter, where “caution” was always “warranted” when dealing with potentially embarrassing reports for Democratic interests, is scarcely surprising.