Can we say once again how the rules are not applied equally?

There is example after example, and here comes another one today.

Yesterday, Twitter axed Project Veritas, suspending them permanently for supposedly showing the house number on a video of a Facebook official who they were questioning. They didn’t identify the city, the town, or the zip code but somehow Twitter found that “revealing private information.”

Meanwhile, fast forward to last night. News breaks that the Lincoln Project account was tweeting screenshots of the DMs of its co-founder, Jen Horn, talking with a reporter about information she might have on the Lincoln Project. Horn is one of the co-founders but left the organization over allegations against another co-founder, John Weaver, involving inappropriate messages with young men. Horn reported that she had not given her consent for those DMs to be released and it’s not clear how the Lincoln Project came into possession of them. Another co-founder who is also no longer with the group, George Conway — a lawyer — indicated that the posts might be a violation of federal law, and then the posts were deleted.

As my colleague Jen Van Laar reported, Rick Wilson brag tweeted this about the Twitter thread before it was deleted, apparently not realizing how stupid it was to tweet it.

Just incredible content here.

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 12, 2021

Yeah, no, the last thing that you weasels have anything to do with is Honest Abe. Imagine anyone thinking they’re being Lincoln-like when doing that to a co-founder?

So what was Twitter’s verdict about publishing DMs that clearly was not with the permission of the person who made them?

According to Yashar Ali, Twitter responded to his inquiry and said that publishing the private DMs were not a violation either of its private info rules or its hacked materials rule.

NEWS

Twitter spox tells me that the Lincoln Project tweet thread containing DM's from @NHJennifer's account (which she says were obtained without consent) do NOT violate Twitter rules

I'm also told by Twitter that the tweets are NOT a violation of their hacked materials policy https://t.co/667wnn4TaM

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) February 12, 2021

How is publishing DMs not a violation? Particularly if a random number on a house that identifies nothing is?

But, of course, remember this is the same Twitter that suspended the account of the New York Post, one of the oldest papers in the country, for daring to publish news that showed that Joe Biden might have met with one of Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business partners for supposedly being “hacked materials” which they later admitted was wrong. But hey, it stopped the URL of the story from being shared during a critical time in the election, right?

People had some thoughts. We note that we don’t know yet how the Lincoln Project came by the DMs.

Fun new standard!

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 12, 2021

Honestly — it’s like they just careen wildly from “rule” to “rule” with selective enforcement and baffling standards. This one is wild.

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 12, 2021

Seems inconsistent with the Hunter Biden standard…

— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) February 12, 2021

Shh, no logical thinking like that allowed! Not allowed to see or point out the inconsistencies!