During a public hearing this July, the nation heard Navaroli’s testimony for the first time. His voice changed, but the intensity of his convictions about what he witnessed shone through.
“For months, I had been begging and anticipating and trying to bring up the reality that if nothing, [if there] there was no intervention in what I saw happening, people were going to die,” he said. “And on January 5, I realized that no intervention was coming. Even as much as I tried to create one or implement one, there was nothing. We were at the whims and mercy of a violent mob that was locked up and loaded.”
An investigator asked him to clarify his testimony: “And for that record, was that content echoing the President, the Proud Boys, and other known violent extremist groups?”
His answer was concise.
“Yes,” she said.
According to a webpage from the independent nonprofit research team Data & Society, navaroli she is an alumna of that organization and her research there specialized in “laws governing technology and First Amendment jurisprudence.”
It also investigated how “traditional constitutional principles” apply to the ever-expanding ecosystem of online civil rights protests. She has several degrees, including a master’s degree from Columbia University School of Journalism and a JD from the University of North Carolina School of Law.
Navaroli and the select committee’s requests for comment were not immediately returned Thursday.
Prior to January 6, social media platforms were awash with talk of then-outgoing President Donald Trump’s “wild” rally in Washington. Right-wing and pro-Trump YouTube influencers and commentators like Alex Jones were brimming with excitement.
A pro-Trump YouTuber who calls himself “Salty Cracker” told his audience on January 6 that he would feature “over a million gun-toting, geeky Americans.”
It was going to be a “red wedding,” he said, referencing the fictional bloody massacre portrayed on the fantasy TV show Game of Thrones.
On Reddit, Facebook, and sites like 4kun and 8chan, the same language proliferated.
And on Twitter, where QAnon conspiracy theorists and far-right activists like Jack Posobiec, among many others, shared Trump’s late gospel about widespread voter fraud at a rapid pace, momentum was building toward the attack. to the Capitol.
It had been weeks in the making.
on Dec January 19, 2020, when Trump tweeted “Major protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, be wild,” was like catnip to domestic extremists and far-right militia groups who were hanging on his every word.
In a separate part of his undercover sworn testimony that aired this summer, Navaroli said he felt Twitter went easy on Trump because it gave the social media platform more cache.
Navaroli testified that Twitter considered implementing a stricter content moderation policy in September 2020, right after the presidential debates.
During the debate between Trump and now President Joe Biden, Trump did not disavow or condemn extremists or white supremacists.
Asked if he would say whether the groups should pull out, Trump responded by telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and wait.”
Reflecting on that moment under oath, Navaroli told the select committee: “My concern was that the former president, apparently for the first time, was talking directly to extremist organizations and giving them direction. We hadn’t seen that kind of direct communication before and that worried me.”
If Trump had been “any other user,” he said, “he would have been permanently suspended a long time ago.”
Twitter did not kick Trump off the platform permanently until one day after the insurrection.
When Raskin counted Trump’s December 1. In a tweet on the 19th, he said online messages from his followers and hangers-on had become “blatantly homicidal.”