> What I have read is that a lot of the moderation requests at the behest of the FBI were favorable to biden and democrats in general
> That was a coverup of pretty clear cut corruption and it seems that the FBI ordered
I just re-read files 7 and don't see them claim either of those things, let alone offer proof. There is a lot of insinuation - shared documents (content unknown), and an internal conversation with a guy who USED to be FBI. But no request from the FBI to suppress the story.
In other circumstances the fact pattern might count for something. But when you have an owner with full access to company records trying desperately to make this a Thing, the absence of direct evidence is deafening. Why do multiple days of the dumps keep referencing public campaign contributions, when it would be easy for Twitter to demonstrate a bias in moderation requests quantitatively if it existed? Why focus on Baker if there were any direct requests from the FBI?
The answer is obvious: the truth was boring enough that they had to rely on insinuation to spice it up. All of the leaked info before today is consistent with the public story: Twitter had policies for dealing with the confirmed threat of hack-and-plant interference, including channels for the government to share specific concerns. When a real situation came up, they had trouble figuring out what to do and discussed it.
With all that said, I think this latest dump is newsworthy if not surprising. Everyone expects that tech companies have special policies for the government of the country they are based in, and that governments play psy-ops while decrying each others'. But it's still important to call them on it periodically.