With the release of the "Twitter Files" on Friday evening, our ongoing coverage of the Missouri v. Biden case is all the more prescient. Many of the "new" revelations we are learning through various other means were released first via discovery in this groundbreaking lawsuit, which I have said on multiple occasions is one of the most important civil liberties cases in American history. It all wraps in together. If you are disgusted by what you learned in a short thread by distinguished journalist Matt Taibbi on Friday, you will be absolutely gobsmacked by what I have been covering in this lawsuit. It makes the Hunter Biden conversation look like child's play.
We have meticulously documented each filing, as each has been ripe with evidence of government collusion with social media companies. So far, each time the government has attempted to weasel out of accountability for their actions, they have been rebuffed, in part or in sum.
What follows below is detailed reporting covering a brief filed in the case last week. In keeping with how I typically share breaking information, it has been adapted from a thread I did on the alternative social platform Truth Social. Ironically, my reporting on this case which covers social media censorship, can not be found on Twitter. I am still banned for the crime of sharing truthful information. I implore you to please follow us on alternative social platforms so you can be up to speed on everything in this case. It should be mandatory to understand what we are dealing with, and I will be providing all of that to you. Enjoy the latest!
________________________________________________________________________
Quick Recap: The judge in the Missouri v. Biden case had ordered that ten high-ranking government officials sit for expedited depositions after early and expedited discovery revealed stunning abuses of the first amendment as government agencies partner with social media companies to censor the speech of Americans; in the case of CISA, designating YOUR THOUGHTS "Cognitive Infrastructure."
Granting expedited discovery, in any case, is rare. Granting expedited depositions, in any case, is rarer. Granting expedited depositions of high-ranking government officials is nearly unheard of.
Of course, the Biden administration freaked out and went around to a gazillion different courts filing motions to dismiss, mandamus petitions, etc.
So far, every time, they have been rebuked.
The latest one was in the 5th circuit, where they asked a panel of 3 judges to rule that the LA court erred in granting a motion to depose Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty, CISA Director Jen Easterly, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
Rather than rule in the Biden admins FAVOR, they kicked it back to the judge in LA, asking him to revisit whether some lower-level officials could sit instead or they could get more written discovery.
The judge asked them to brief him on responses.
What I am about to thread for you is the filing by Missouri and Louisiana that answers the judge's question, "Can you bring someone lower level in, or do exceptional circumstances exist that make it so NO ONE but these people can answer these questions?"
They also lumped Psaki in here, too, because the Biden Admin lawyers petitioned the judge, saying that what the 5th circuit said about the three above should apply to her too.
If you have followed my timeline, you would have seen my breakdown of the maneuvers Psaki and company tried and my reading of the transcript out of a VA court where the judge smacked down long-time Obama fixer and deep state extraordinaire Jeannie Rhee.
The reason why I am threading this particular filing is because we learn a HELL of a lot of information in here, and we get to see some of the discovery in the case in the form of exhibits. I shared some of them a few nights ago here: @tracybeanz's post | Truth Social
We will begin with an introduction where we learn WHY this filing is being made. Read it. It's very concise, and you'll get up to speed quickly.
Missouri v. Biden
As we move on, you will note that the Biden Admin (here forth BA) will likely not be happy they did this, as the "lower" ranking folks are probably not much better for them than the department heads. This is going to be something. Off we go.
As I was reading this, I briefly started saying, "oh, here we go... the cave begins, where Missouri decides to back off and not hold them to the fire," and that happened to me a few times. Within a paragraph or so, I was back to cheering. I have loved every second of covering this case.
Rob Flaherty could respond using written interrogatories. You may think that's an out for him because lawyers could write it, or he could weasel his way out of questions...
Evil Beanz :)
Missouri v. Biden
Pay close attention to what I underlined in red. The "...so-called Election Integrity Partnership." Wendi Mahoney has done an absolutely STELLAR job of reporting on all things MDM/CISA/Oreweillan censorship since early last YEAR, so if you are a regular reader, this is familiar to you, but if you missed it, READ THIS NOW.
Missouri v. Biden
Vivek Murthy: They don't want to budge on him. In order to take these depositions at all, the judge needs to rule that there are EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES that make it so NO OTHER PERSON could sit and answer questions. The bar to exceptional circumstances is exceedingly high. Judges don't typically find there are exceptional circumstances at all.
It is important to note that this judge already found there WERE exceptional circumstances but needed to revisit because of the 5th circuit.
Missouri v. Biden
They are really standing firm that Murthy is the only one who can successfully answer these questions.
Missouri v. Biden
Jen Psaki: Here is where they really take it to the Biden admin. They discuss how the BA has continuously said they won't release the names of the people who have the information they seek from Psaki while also saying that she shouldn't have to testify.
Missouri v. Biden
"While insisting that Psaki is not the only source for the information that Plaintiffs seek from her, Defendants have steadfastly refused to reveal the identity (ies) of the other officials who have the information. The Court should put an end to Defendants' gamesmanship by ordering Defendants to identify and produce lower-ranking official(s) who have the information that Plaintiffs seek from Psaki if such official(s) exist(s)."
Missouri v. Biden
The Biden admin is playing both sides of the fiddle here when it comes to "Circle Back" "Peppermint Commie" Psaki.
They say that no one else can testify to what she knows but also says she can not testify. They don't give the Plaintiffs any choice, really.
Missouri v. Biden
The Biden admin had asked the court to pause discovery in this case while their motion to dismiss is considered. Now the Plaintiffs explain why that is nonsense. Delays, more delays, obfuscations, court hopping, and more by the Biden team. Plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana et al.) argue that they are being irreparably harmed by the delays already. I agree
They go into detail here:
Missouri v. Biden
Now the brief moves from the "summary" phase to the "argument" phase, where we get much more detail and meat and potatoes.
We will detail Rob Flaherty, Deputy Assistant to the President. Their first point discusses how the 5th circuit said they hadn't yet obtained any WRITTEN discovery from Flaherty, so a deposition is premature. The plaintiffs told the court WHY they hadn't gotten anything written. We have a series of shots here. Read them.
[gallery type="slideshow" size="large" td_select_gallery_slide="slide" ids="46093,46094"]
"Having successfully opposed written discovery against Flaherty in this Court, Defendants, in a dizzying reversal, complained to the Fifth Circuit that this Court erred by ordering Flaherty's deposition without first authorizing written discovery against Flaherty—i.e., the very written discovery that they stridently urged this Court not to order in August."
In short, Defendants argued to the judge (successfully) that the Plaintiffs SHOULD NOT be able to take written discovery from Flaherty, and then argued to the appeals court that Plaintiffs HAD NOT taken written discovery from Flaherty. The appeals court then outlines WHY THAT DISCOVERY WOULD BE IMPORTANT. It's just political maneuvering.
"As the Fifth Circuit noted, Doc. 121, at 3, written discovery against Flaherty may illuminate whether it is necessary to depose Flaherty—e.g., it may reveal the content of Flaherty's oral communications with social-media platforms, or it may identify a lower-level subordinate who participated in the same meetings and thus may serve as an adequate substitute for Flaherty.
Flaherty has been meeting with reps from social media companies that involve pressure to censor speech about COVID-19. Now the brief gives examples of these meetings. He scolds them and pressures them that their rules for removal policies aren't catching what he deems "misinformation" and works with them to go "into more detail" in a meeting rather than in writing, likely to avoid discovery such as this.
Missouri v. Biden
He also held a meeting with Twitter employees about the same. He also met with Google and Youtube to discuss how the White House could "Partner" in product work.....
Not OK.
Missouri v. Biden
Flaherty was the only one who attended all meetings. There wasn't a single social media rep they could get information from about all of them, or any lower level staffer that has been identified who knows about all of them. Still, the Plaintiffs don't know if one exists because the Biden Admin has refused to let them ask. Therefore, they are asking the judge to order written discovery of Flaherty so that he can inform them of other people.
They are going to have to rat on their friends.
They then go into the reasons why Slavitt isn't a suitable replacement because he was gone for much of the time, and these issues continue to this day. Slavitt was responsible for the de-platforming of Alex Berenson and was independently deeply involved in the censorship enterprise, which is why the Plaintiffs sought to question him IN ADDITION to Flaherty.
And here is where I smiled. Because if Flaherty doesn't adequately respond to discovery, it will warrant his deposition. So either he ponies up written responses of value, or plaintiffs will have no source for the information they seek WITHOUT in-person deposition.
Now we move on to detail on Easterly from CISA. The plaintiffs want to depose TWO people in her place if they can't depose her, and CISA won't be too happy about that, but they asked for it. First, they want Brian Scully, who heads up CISA's "so-called team."
Missouri v. Biden
"Plaintiffs sought Easterly's deposition because (among other reasons) she participates in and oversees at least five series of recurring meetings about content modulation with social-media companies and because she plays a key role as the coordinator of joint censorship efforts between government entities and social-media companies."
It looks like Scully may be better than Easterly, IMO.
"To fill this censorship void, a group of federal officials—CISA interns—approached the Stanford Internet Observatory, 'and, in consultation with CISA and other stakeholders, a coalition was assembled with like-minded partner institutions.'"
A familiar cast of Deep State characters, The Atlantic Council, State Department, Marine Corps, and U.S. Mission to NATO.
Understand, these are the people sitting on a "help desk" watching what you say.
Missouri v. Biden
"According to Alex Stamos, the Director of the Stanford Internet Observatory who oversees EIP activities, there are "two steps" in EIP's approach to "effectively pushing platforms to do stuff": "get good [censorship] policies, and then say 'this is how [given content] is violating [those policies].'"
Understand, in the Defendants' motion to dismiss this case, they argue that the government isn't FORCING or PRESSURING these companies to censor, only merely making SUGGESTIONS. The problem is that these people were so brazen in their public discussion of what they were doing it belies credulity. These few short paragraphs debunk their argument, and this is nothing.
He also discusses how successful they've been in logging tickets etc. This is an abhorrent practice that shouldn't be tolerated.
"Between September 3 and November 19, 2020, EIP "processed 639 in-scope tickets,".... Thirty-five percent "of the URLs [EIP] shared with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube were either labeled, removed, or soft blocked." A screenshot of an example ticket shows an online chat-style discussion among an "EIP member," a "Government partner," and a "Platform partner" about claims that had been assessed and tagged "for action."
This next part is just the crux of this entire case, and certainly as it pertains to CISA.
Summing up, the EIP was originated by the federal government (CISA), is partially funded by the Federal Government, and holds itself out as a joint federal-private enterprise with a twofold purpose: (1) to pressure social-media platforms to adopt more restrictive content-modulation policies, and (2) to pressure the platforms to enforce those policies against speech that the EIP's constituents (including federal officials) disfavor.
"Federal officials at CISA and the State Department directly participate in EIP's operations by submitting "tickets" to demand censorship of speakers and content on social media. EIP boasts that it procured the censorship of nearly 22 million Tweets during the 2020 election cycle alone, id. at 183, to say nothing of other social media platforms like Facebook. And EIP boasts that it is continuing its operations today."
They mention Plaintiff Gateway Pundit 49 times—when bragging, they censored.
They really need Easterly because only she attended every weekly meeting in these VERY IMPORTANT FIVE CATEGORIES.
1. "Election Security and Resilience" ("ESR") subdivision
2. CISA and Facebook planning and setting the agenda for the ESR subdivision meetings
3. CISA's "Cybersecurity Advisory Committee" ("CSAC")
4. CSAC's Subcommittee for "Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation and Disinformation" ("MDM Subcommittee")
5. Election Infrastructure Subsector Government CoordinatingCouncil (EIS-GCC) and Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council (EI-SCC) Joint MDM Working Group.
DYSTOPIA
This is your government, folks. Transparent to no one but themselves, ruling over thee from their ivory towers...
Until now, it seems.
Remember the "Disinformation Governance Board?" It grew out of this. Easterly was having difficulty managing all of the censorship requests flooding in from everywhere. The social media companies were having a hard time with it too. So, they wanted this board so they could better administer what they were ALREADY DOING and also make it "acceptable" to do it.
That board was nothing more than a cover for more funding and better censorship organization.
Almost there, folks. We are on to Murthy, who they really want to depose. Strong language here:
"Exceptional circumstances exist to justify Murthy's deposition because he has firsthand knowledge of information that is crucial to Plaintiffs' claims and that is not reasonably available through alternative means. The Court should enter an order articulating the sound factual basis for its conclusion that Murthy's deposition is justified given the circumstances."
"Plaintiffs do not know and have no way of ascertaining the identities of any of the meetings' participants other than Murthy. Thus, Plaintiffs cannot access the crucial information they seek from an alternative source or in an alternative form. This alone is a sufficient justification for deposing Murthy notwithstanding his high-ranking status."
[gallery type="slideshow" size="large" td_select_gallery_slide="slide" ids="46115,46116"]
Murthy had accused Facebook of "killing people" by not more stringently censoring what they consider "coronavirus misinformation." (Beanz note: I like to call that LIFESAVING TRUTH, but I digress)
"President Biden had (also) accused Facebook of exactly that "by allowing disinformation about the coronavirus vaccine to spread online," Kanno-Youngs, "They're Killing People."
Facebook didn't like the tone and scolded them.
And, of course, Facebook acquiesced. "The Disinfo dozen" were a group of journalists and doctors singled out for trying to save lives. Terrible the way they were targeted by name. Justice for the brave doctors and media who did something to save people when our Surgeon General was doing the opposite.
"The Virality Project's retrospective report indicates that it "built strong ties with several federal government agencies, most notably the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) and the CDC," and the only official that it mentions in connection with its ties to the OSG is Murthy himself. The Virality Project employs substantially the same "ticketing" process as the EIP to identify perceived misinformation, ...loop in "external stakeholders" including government officials, and "refer]" the disfavored content to social-media companies for "action," that is, censorship."
Take a moment to be angry. I am with you.
[gallery type="slideshow" size="large" td_select_gallery_slide="slide" ids="46120,46121"]
"Needless to say, the direct involvement of the U.S. Surgeon General in this federal-private censorship project to suppress dissenting views about COVID-19 on social media raises questions of grave First Amendment concern. Uncovering the extent of Murthy's involvement in the Virality Project is crucial to the Plaintiffs' claims. But Murthy's responses to Plaintiffs' written discovery requests do not shed any light on this involvement."
And now, moving on to Psaki, who has been the subject of a lot of my coverage on this case lately. Believe it or not, this is one of the more frustrating ones, in my opinion.
As Plaintiffs say, Defendants are playing a game of "heads I win; tails you lose." When the Plaintiffs tried to get information from elsewhere, the government claimed it didn't know because she didn't work there anymore, and now they are trying to say SHE can't answer either.
Just some of her nonsense (we have discussed this previously)
[gallery type="slideshow" size="large" td_select_gallery_slide="slide" ids="46124,46126"]
And here are the threats they won't be able to get past in their motion to dismiss. They REALLY DO NOT want her to testify.
And here they detail the threat—this is KEY.
If they are threatening social media companies, it isn't just "guidance" and "suggestion"; it's coercion using government threat of an action, and that makes this case wholly actionable.
The media also took that from the statement, as they followed up with a question, and Psaki gave her typical "Peppermint Commie" answer.
The government is trying to weasel its way out of things. Plaintiffs have already inquired with the government for other sources of information and have gotten literally nothing. The reason, IMO, is because this is one of the major lynchpins of this case. By trying to skirt the question and say they are "unaware," they are making the deposition of Psaki literally critical. They've shot themselves in the foot here.
[gallery type="slideshow" size="large" td_select_gallery_slide="slide" ids="46131,46132"]
One last part here on pausing the discovery while the motion to dismiss is considered, and it's really a super strong argument. Defendants delayed filing and have participated so far without trying to stop anything. When they petitioned the 5th circuit, they only challenged the decision on the depositions, not any expedited discovery, etc.
Every single day this goes on, we suffer irreparable harm. They give examples of recent actions platforms have taken, including childhood vaccination.
"To make matters worse, events since the close of written discovery suggest that, unless and until the district court provides Plaintiffs with injunctive relief, Defendants' censorship is likely to increase and expand to include new topics. "
"On October 31, 2022, The Intercept reported that it had obtained a leaked "draft copy of DHS's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS's capstone report outlining the department's strategy and priorities in the coming years," which indicated that "[DHS] plans to target 'inaccurate information' on a wide range of topics, inc. 'the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine."
It's a government gone rogue, kids, with no sign of stopping and an ever-broadening range of "disfavored" thoughts to censor. When will it end?
I think it will end with this judge in this case. But only time will tell. Of course, I will continue to follow and report on this, which may be the most important free speech case in history, for you every time something new hits.
Missouri v. Biden
As always, ALL of our content is freely available to the public. After all, if we are to make informed decisions, we need access to information.
If you consider this reporting valuable and want to keep Actual Journalism going at @UncoverDC, please consider a monthly donation or joining our Locals community. We could really use your help, and it's much appreciated.
One-time or Monthly: UncoverDC.com/Donate
LOCALS: UncoverDC.Locals.com
