Allow me. The tweets violated Twitter's hacked items policy and they removed them. The internal staff had a debate as to whether it fell under the policy and they came to the agreement that it did. They later agreed to update the policy and not remove tweets that referenced it. I don't understand what is so problematic here.

That policy was never used to remove content published by NY Times, WaPo etc. that had originated from hacks or stolen material. In fact, this was the only time they used this policy in that manner to restrict content published by legitimate investigative journalists.

That's the entire crux of their argument, selective enforcement when it fit their political desires.

> tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post.

This is not quite accurate. The FBI did take the laptop, but Isaac (the repairman) made a copy and sent it to Rudy Giuliani as some sort so assurance because he feared the laptop would be black holed by the FBI.

“Hacked” nowadays could include impersonations like deep fakes. The modifications made between Isaac and Giuliani need to be explained before we can use the word legitimate.