[rwoodley]

Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal.

But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it.

Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They weren't expecting that.

[dsaavy]

All I'm doing is providing a quote from a government employee who is directly involved in the investigation. I don't know how else one can judge the incident other than from people directly involved in the investigation and by the contents of what has been released.

I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to?

Stating that the NY Post story "is very suspect" isn't an evidence-based reason to lock their account permanently. In fact, there's a fine number of controversies around the NYT over the years, but I wouldn't support them being blocked from Twitter for any of those reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...

[rwoodley]

Well if you actually read the article and didn't find cause for concern, then I doubt a link will help, but here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(American_polit...

Here is a nice detailed account on why/how the WSJ decided not to run with the Biden narrative that Trump/Giuliani/Bannon were peddling: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...

[rat87]

A quote from a partisan hack willing to undermine US national security to back up Trump

> Ratcliffe is well known for criticizing the FBI and the special counsel investigation as being biased against Trump. Ratcliffe has also alleged that Russian interference may have benefited Trump's 2016 rival candidate Hillary Clinton more than it benefited Trump. American intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller have maintained that Russia interfered to help Trump. A week before Trump's announcement, Ratcliffe had argued that the special counsel investigation put Trump "below the law" because it declined to exonerate Trump. Later, Ratcliffe claimed on Fox News that the special counsel investigation's report was not written by special counsel Robert Mueller, but by "Hillary Clinton’s de facto legal team".[63][8]

Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, which is historically considered relatively nonpartisan.[64] Some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[65] However, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[66][67] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Ratcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be "blind loyalty" to Trump, noting that he has promoted some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and has called for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[68][63] Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe's appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[5][69] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would in effect be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would then be expected to tell him only what he wants to hear.[70] They stressed the need for intelligence to be "candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president".[8]