News

#Twitter’s continued ban on The Post has no rhyme or reason — only bias

“#Twitter’s continued ban on The Post has no rhyme or reason — only bias”

Other outlets continue to verify The Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s efforts to monetize his family connections overseas. Yet Twitter, which sought to suppress our story, continues to bar The Post from the platform — two weeks later.

The Post obtained a copy of Hunter Biden’s hard-drive, from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019.

Reporters found an e-mail in which an executive at Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that paid Hunter $50,000 a month, thanked Hunter for setting up a Washington meeting with his father, then-Veep Joe Biden. Other e-mails show Hunter negotiating a $10 million-a-year deal with a Chinese firm for “introductions alone.” And he’d hold, besides his own share, a 10 percent stake for “the big guy” in a company set up to do business with the Chinese.

The country’s two social-media giants acted immediately after our stories went online, with Twitter locking The Post’s account and a Facebook exec bragging about suppressing the story.

Then Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s former business partner, confirmed not only the e-mails about China, but told The Post that Joe was “the big guy.”

Meanwhile, neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden has argued the validity of the laptop nor the e-mails; the vice president simply claims the China deal never came to fruition. Receipts show the computer repair shop took in the laptop. Elected officials confirm the laptop was handed over to the FBI.

It isn’t a hack. It isn’t Russian disinformation. It’s all true.

So the only reason for social media to continue to punish The Post is not because of any “fake news” concerns — it’s because they’re mad about any story that hurts Joe Biden.

Twitter is still demanding The Post delete six posts linking to our reporting (tweets that don’t violate their rules!) before restoring our account — even though any user can now freely share those stories.

There’s no rhyme or reason to this, just vindictive partisanship from outlets that claim to be “neutral platforms.”