Sputnik: What's you take on Elon Musk's Twitter dumps? Have they been truly "revealing" so far? What is the most damning among Twitter exposes, in your opinion?
Jason Goodman: Musk taking over Twitter is encouraging and has revealed evidence that corroborates what many of us have long suspected, but there are still many unanswered questions and of course no indication that Musk is near the end of his revelations.
Internal chat messages have helped us understand the process that led to the banning of Donald Trump and other major milestones, but we do not yet understand the full scope of malfeasance that took place at Twitter 1.0, prior to Musk's ownership, that created the environment and practical infrastructure that enabled this. Troubling as this information is, it really isn't yet telling us about too much we didn't already know. The most damning information likely has not yet come to the surface.
Sputnik: Some experts say that Musk's releases have not shed enough light on the FBI's role in censoring conservative netizens, banning Trump, suppressing the NY Post's Hunter Biden story. Could it be intentional? Or did the previous team get rid of all possible traces?
Jason Goodman: Musk is not a prosecutor, congressional representative, or the Department of Justice (DOJ). He is a private individual looking through the files of his new private property and revealing whatever he deems appropriate, in the timeframe he deems appropriate. He is on no particular schedule and we have no idea how long he might go on or how much he will ultimately release.
The fact that he has chosen to do this, particularly given the detrimental effect it could have on his public image and the stock price of his public companies, is laudable to say the least. We have not seen a private individual challenge the deep state in this manner prior to Trump. Critics who say Musk's efforts haven't gone far enough to expose FBI manipulation of Twitter and the election should ask themselves "who among us has done more and what more could be done?" A Republican-led Congress now needs to take the information provided by Musk and use it to hold accountable those in the US government who participated in this unprecedented, extra-constitutional power grab.
Questions have been raised about former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker or other past and current Twitter employees destroying evidence or otherwise working to undermine Musk. These are valid lines of inquiry that should be considered.
People seem to have already forgotten that Twitter's former major shareholders and board members initially bristled at Musk's takeover plans, even invoking the investor protection strategy known as the poison pill.
It remains unclear and even suspicious that Twitter went from such a strong defensive position to an immediate flip flop demanding Musk buy even bringing legal action to force the sale. Why the sudden change of heart? Doesn't Twitter's public behavior cause anyone to be even slightly suspicious of their motives? Shouldn't we expect some other form of "poison pill" lurking somewhere deep in the bowels of the dirty bird that is intended to explode in Musk's face and damage him in some unexpected way? Why would Twitter owners, including Jack Dorsey, willingly put all of this damning information about their own wrongdoing into the hands of an adversary?
Sputnik: What happened to Alexander Vindman, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, who emerged as a "star witness" during the 2019 impeachment hearings against then-President Donald Trump? Why is he having a meltdown over Musk's Twitter Files release, as if he could soon be busted for something bad?
Jason Goodman: Alexander Vindman has been having a very public Twitter meltdown. It could seem overly dramatic to those who do not understand what Twitter is. If you perceive it as a social media platform mostly intended for wasting time, having fun or arguing with strangers, Vindman's behavior seems over the top.
But if you see Twitter as what it actually is, it makes sense. Twitter may have begun as an innocent social media network, but as it has grown in popularity and use, it has been infiltrated by a vast network of criminals, including what many refer to as the "Deep State." In fact, by exposing the number of former US Intelligence Community ("IC") professionals who had careers at Twitter and elsewhere in social media, the deep state is being defined by their own resumes.
Elon Musk has revealed Twitter to be one of the tools of a frighteningly well established, previously hidden, neo-fascist arm of the US government that is enabled by a network of former IC professionals, think tank advisors, non-profit financiers, and foreign infiltrators, including Vindman. While Vindman has publicly admitted to declining an offer to take up the position of Ukrainian Defense Minister, he has recently appeared in an interview with Kyiv Post which was recorded in Ukraine.
He said things in the interview that could cause a reasonable observer to believe he is in fact involved in Ukraine’s defense in some substantial capacity. Americans should be asking themselves where Vindman's loyalties truly lie and if the Ukrainian military or any other would be beyond the capability of infiltrating the US Armed Forces with an individual like Vindman.
Sputnik: Given Vindman's apparent ties to Kiev, could his meltdown be connected with a potential exposure of the Ukrainian troll factory (aka "Ukraine IT Army") after Musk declared war on bots and scammers?
Jason Goodman: Senior Cyber Security Researcher Stefan Soesanto released a detailed report on Ukraine’s IT Army in June. Soesanto described a hybrid military and civilian unit unlike anything seen before that relies on “individuals located outside of Ukraine” as well as Ukrainians “working for Western companies,” among others, in its vast ranks.
Soesanto describes a tactic that fundamentally relies upon infiltration, and although he doesn’t specifically identify Vindman, the lieutenant colonel's prior public behavior certainly makes him a suspect in any investigation of Ukraine’s IT Army as described by Soesanto.
I personally believe Vindman is an active participant in the Ukraine IT Army and his social media posts include operational instructions for other members of the organization who openly communicate via steganographic messages in plain sight on Twitter and elsewhere. If Musk is allowed to continue revealing evidence, perhaps we will soon know more about Vindman and other traitors utilizing the platform as a venue for conducting cyber warfare against US civilians.
Sputnik: What's your take on Musk's recent hint about "prosecuting" Anthony Fauci? The new Twitter owner also said that Fauci had "lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people." What damning information about Fauci could the Twitter Files contain?
Jason Goodman: Musk has made careless, legally actionable statements in the past that have gotten him into trouble. He was famously sued for calling a British diver "pedo guy" in or around 2019. Although Musk was vindicated by a victory in that suit, he clearly speaks his mind at will, leaving potential consequences as a secondary consideration. He's recently revealed that his maverick milestone interview with Joe Rogan in which he smoked marijuana live in studio with the podcast host resulted in mandatory drug testing for all SpaceX employees. His comments on the subject seemed to indicate regret.
Perhaps now that he is over 50, Musk has greater consideration of the possible unintended side effects of his actions, but we can't necessarily assume any statement he makes is based on conclusive evidence so much as it may be based on Musk's own unique opinions. That being said, there is a lot of evidence that is likely to prove that Fauci lied and pushed a predetermined narrative rather than actually following any legitimate scientific method.
Additional attention has been paid to the fact that Fauci's daughter Alison remains employed at Twitter and active on the platform. Since the moment I revealed her account about two years ago, Alison Fauci has locked the account and has protected her tweets, which now can only be seen by her followers as she remains hidden on the platform.
Sputnik: Musk's Neuralink has already come in the federal crosshairs. Do you think the Biden administration and liberals will unleash an all-out war against Musk?
Jason Goodman: It is clear to see "World War Musk" has already been unleashed. We have not seen the press turn on a formerly beloved celebrity billionaire executive like this since Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy.
As an immigrant to the United States from South Africa, Musk is ineligible to run for president, but still, he occupies pop culture consciousness like few others before him. What he has done with Twitter is the single largest effort to expose the deep state since Trump's departure from the main public stage.
Sputnik: Is Musk acting alone or does he have some influential "backers" behind him (given that he has long been rumored to have supporters in the Defense Department/Washington)?
Jason Goodman: Musk is a difficult mystery to unravel. We know he has numerous direct ties to various departments of the US government as a result of his involvement in space exploration, motor vehicle and medical device manufacturing. These areas are heavily regulated, subsidized, and even utilized by numerous government agencies. Much of the "evidence" presented by independent researchers into Musk's background does not hold up to strict scrutiny.
Like any controversial figure, Musk has long been maligned with innuendo and partial truths. He clearly had financial backing in his Twitter takeover, but by all measures, those institutions and individuals bet on Musk and his unique style rather than the financial viability of Twitter as evaluated through traditional means. It is reasonable to assume those backers take a "give him the money and get out of his way" approach based on implicit trust in the unique genius and undeniable track record of Elon Musk. As far as any elements in the US government supporting Musk's current Twitter related efforts, I see no signs of that.
Musk needs to start looking into the Brookings Institution and other think tanks meddling in US policy, social media policy and the Department of Homeland Security oversight. I have important questions about Twitter's former head of news, government and elections Adam Sharp, who left abruptly in December 2016 after being widely recognized as the single most important executive in the politicization of Twitter.
We need to go back to the beginning to truly understand how Twitter was turned into a political weapon, who did it, and for what purpose. I think I know, but we need more evidence from Elon Musk to prove it.