EDITOR'S NOTE: To get caught up to speed on the Missouri v. Biden case, read the following:
- Bombshell Court Order Outlines Proven Government/Big Tech Censorship - UncoverDC
- Missouri v. Biden: Judge Smacks Down Government Attempt to Avoid Deposition - UncoverDC
- The “Twitter Files” Are Peanuts: New Filing in Missouri v. Biden - UncoverDC
The Missouri v. Biden case is the most important civil liberties case we have seen in years and may be the most important ever. The case is brought by Missouri and Louisiana, along with other individual plaintiffs. It asks the court to bar the government from colluding with social media companies to limit free speech.
Yesterday the judge entered a ruling on the motions that were before him. The Biden Administration had appealed to a three-judge panel at the 5th circuit to either bar the lower court from forcing the depositions or make them depose less senior officials. The 5th circuit declined to bar the judge from doing anything, instead asking him to revisit the potential of less obstructive means of obtaining the information needed. (Side note: the transcripts of Elvis Chan and Anthony Fauci come from this case.)
The judge in LA asked the Plaintiffs to brief him again on whether there were other people who could answer the Plaintiffs' questions to prove their case for a temporary injunction and asked the defendants to respond. The Plaintiff's response is in the article above. The Defendants told the judge he should pause all of this while their motion to dismiss the case in total was on the table.
The Defendants want all of this discovery and deposition to stop and don't want to have to answer to anyone. This judge isn't having it. What follows now is a breakdown of his order, filed yesterday.
As an aside, I broke out the Jen Psaki piece of this, even going so far as to read the transcript from HER judge shopping expedition in Virginia court. They really don't want her deposed. But we are about to learn what will happen.
As usual, in any filing or order, you get a brief summary of "what is this about, and why are we here." It makes it easy to understand what the parties are arguing at that particular time and why.
Missouri v. Biden
The judge discusses the criteria he is using to make his decision. The higher court has asked for the lower court to analyze whether the Plaintiffs can get the information from "less intrusive, alternative means" and evaluate again whether all should be stopped as they wait for a ruling on the motion to dismiss the case.
The last brief by the Plaintiffs offered up some alternatives for the people they initially sought. Keep in mind Psaki is no longer the head of anything.
This is the judge saying, "I already ruled on this, but we have to do this again because the higher court said so."
Missouri v. Biden
One of the criteria you need to meet to be able to depose high-level government officials is "exceptional circumstances." Flaherty was recently added to the case after expedited discovery revealed his involvement.
In their brief, the Plaintiffs argued that the replacement being offered up in place of Flaherty wouldn't be sufficient because Slavitt (the replacement) didn't attend all of the meetings Flaherty did. In their brief, the Defendants argued "exceptional circumstances" didn't exist—bad move.
Missouri v. Biden
The judge orders that no suitable replacement is available for Flaherty but that they will start with written interrogatory and discovery in the form of document requests. The judge lays out a timeline for this. Understand, this is a very big deal. The next Truth will be very informative as well, as it addresses what will happen if the defendants pull some nonsense in written response, something the Plaintiffs also addressed. This judge ain't having it.
Missouri v. Biden
This is the warning, "if you don't respond correctly, dude will be sitting down for a deposition under oath."
The judge asserts there is reason to depose Easterly, and he has gone through why but also decides that Scully is a suitable replacement. I actually agree, FWIW. They will go to her for anything that they can't get from him, and he was involved EVERYWHERE.
Also, please note that the judge REAFFIRMS "cognitive infrastructure," something I have been pounding on since Day 1. Unbelievable
Murthy was one the Plaintiffs REALLY harped on, but the judge went with his underling; again, if they don't get anything from the underling, Waldo, they will go back for Murthy. But Waldo is the biggest fish in his office with involvement here. Note- Defendants don't think any discovery is required at all because what he wrote was good enough.
That's nonsense, and we discussed why. Clearly, the judge thinks so too.
I consider this one a loss for now. They really needed Murthy.
I also need to add here this judge is basically under the watchful eye of the 5th circuit right now, a higher court. As we have seen in many cases, it would've been easy for him to just side with the Defendant arguments, in this case, not granting any further discovery because of the alleged harm it caused the government.
Even with a gazillion other courts breathing down his back, he is doing the right thing.
This is the most important civil liberties case in modern history.
In analyzing the judge's decision, I suppose he is thinking that by allowing the deposition of a lower official, with options for more later, he is circumventing the 5th circuit stepping in and ruling over him on the pending mandamus (it originates on these deposition appeals.) He is throwing the higher court a bone while also allowing Plaintiffs all the leverage and leeway they need to make the depositions they want. HOWEVER, I do have a concern.
There was some hotly contested back and forth on the deposition video and transcripts. Of course, the defendants didn't want them released, arguing harm would come to the officials being deposed.
The Plaintiffs have been releasing the deposition transcripts as they get them, and while I am all for transparency, this is a teeny bit concerning to me.
A little voice in the back of my head is hoping they aren't doing this to get info out in anticipation of the suit being dismissed.
Now, to be clear, I don't have anything tangible to back this up. There's been no action by the judge that insinuates it. There hasn't been anything concrete at all. It's just a little instinctual hunch that crept its way in, and I would be remiss if I didn't share it.
If I were they, I would keep the depositions close hold but publicly available and not parade them around like a trophy. Maybe an attorney can debate that with me.
Onward with the case. Jen Psaki: Now, this is something. Psaki was originally a defendant but left the government. Then, the White House said they knew nothing about anything Psaki said and couldn't return any responsive documents. The judge ordered her deposed.
Psaki didn't like that, so she started fighting it, with the government helping her. However, the government has maintained there is no replacement for Psaki. If you recall, I covered this one extensively.
Jen Psaki will be deposed. And it's the Biden Administrations fault.
Here is why I say there is nothing this judge is doing that leads me to believe he will dismiss the case. He basically tells the defendants here that their motion to dismiss is bunk while scolding them about the time they took to file it and the fact that they asked a higher court to force him to halt discovery for a motion to dismiss that hadn't even been filed yet! See next.
He also reminds everyone that this discovery is ONLY so he can rule on the temporary injunction and that since the plaintiffs do have standing (a central argument of the motion to dismiss), they may move to trial, where MORE deposition and discovery will be necessary.
The seriousness of this can't be overstated. The judge just basically ruled on their motion to dismiss and told the government their argument is moot, as he has already ruled on it.
Mark your calendars; the absolute SMACKDOWN of an out-of-control government continues…