Docs Reveal More Gov’t Lies About Censorship, Ask For Probe
The ongoing legal case of *Missouri v. Biden* highlights allegations of government censorship that began during Barack Obama’s presidency and have continued under the Biden administration.A recent filing suggests that federal authorities pressured social media platforms to suppress dissent regarding government policies, particularly around COVID-19. Documents disclosed during litigation indicate that censorship practices were in effect as early as February 2020—contradicting claims from the Department of Homeland Security that such measures started later.
The plaintiffs, including various states and medical professionals, accuse government officials of violating transparency laws and manipulating communications to hinder public discourse. they have raised concerns about government employees deliberately obscuring evidence and misusing public office communications, including the revelation that high-level officials, such as Biden advisor Andy Slavitt, continued using government email addresses after leaving office to influence social media control.
The plaintiffs seek further discovery to investigate these allegations, claiming this situation is unprecedented in U.S. history, with allegations of a coordinated censorship regime at high levels of government. This case also sheds light on broader concerns regarding the integrity and accountability of federal agencies, including suggestions that systemic deception and obfuscation of evidence have occurred regarding COVID-19 origins and response strategies.
The documents further reveal attempts to discredit dissenting views on COVID-19 through censorship and to redirect public mistrust of government transparency onto foreign disinformation campaigns. This situation has fueled a narrative that critiques of government policies could be labeled as domestic terrorism, as evidenced by specific targeting of scientists who presented data counteracting federal claims.
*Missouri v. Biden* is a significant legal challenge raising critical questions about government overreach, the suppression of free speech, and the integrity of federal communications, especially concerning public health narratives.
Government pressure on national communications monopolies to mute Americans’ critiques of government began in Barack Obama’s presidency and continues today, say court documents filed Dec. 23.
Federal documents uncovered by separate litigation on Dec. 19 also show censorship of public discussion about prudent Covid policies began at least by February 18, 2020, a month before unprecedented citizen lockdowns. That contradicts Department of Homeland Security claims its censorship efforts began months later.
These documents also highlight that government employees deliberately violated transparency laws such as the Freedom of Information Act to hide their use of public offices. The Dec. 23 filing from Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs cites a May New York Times article showing “some Defendants, particularly at NIH and NIAID, have intentionally misspelled words in order to avoid production pursuant to FOIA requests; deleted emails; and used private emails.” Given this, the plaintiffs asked the federal district court to expand discovery to include intentionally misspelled keywords.
The filing also says President Biden senior advisor Andy Slavitt, a former Obama official, “continued using his White House email address even after he left government employment, presumably in an attempt to wield the authority of an office that he no longer held.” Slavitt personally “bullied” Twitter into deplatforming journalist Alex Berenson over his skepticism of mRNA injections, the filing notes.
The Missouri plaintiffs are petitioning for greater discovery and depositions in a case the U.S. Supreme Court returned to the district level after declining a preliminary injunction against vast censorship efforts that use taxpayer-funded cutout organizations to mask federal demands. “[T]his case is exceptional,” the plaintiffs argue. “Never before in this country’s history has a government censorship regime coordinated at the highest levels been exposed through litigation.”
Missouri plaintiffs include the states of Missouri and Louisiana, Health Freedom Louisiana co-director Jill Hines and Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft, and internationally recognized research scientists and medical doctors Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University medical professor who is now President Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health. The individual plaintiffs are represented by Burns Law Firm and the New Civil Liberties Alliance. This publication’s senior legal correspondent is of counsel at NCLA in a separate censorship case, representing The Federalist, the state of Texas, and The Daily Wire.
Repeated Pattern of Lies and Hiding Evidence
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers claim federal agencies have already disclosed enough information in the case, so further discovery is “duplicative” and unnecessary. The DOJ has a decades-long record of hiding and even tampering with evidence and has never been held fully accountable for it.
Censorship litigation has also revealed federal agency employees have lied to courts and Americans and illegally hidden public information. The Missouri plaintiffs argue in their Dec. 23 filing, “in light of the unsavory conduct in which NIH and NIAID employees already engaged, including covering up evidence of participation in gain-of-function research, lying to the public about the evidence for Covid’s origins, and silencing opposing views on the appropriate response to Covid-19, Plaintiffs have every reason to believe such an operation continues.”
During initial discovery in Missouri v. Biden, the plaintiffs note on Dec. 23, Twitter claimed it had communicated with just 11 federal officials about online censorship efforts. Yet after tycoon Elon Musk bought Twitter months later, the company then revised that number upward to 84 federal officials.
During his deposition in this case, lockdown enforcer Anthony Fauci claimed “I don’t recall” 174 times, “almost certainly an evasion tactic,” the filing says. Given “that Dr. Fauci has almost certainly lied,” the plaintiffs write, “Defendants’ claim that further depositions of NIAID officials are unwarranted is disingenuous.” Without further discovery, the plaintiffs argue, it is impossible to know what else government officials who display a pattern of corruption are hiding.
Disagree With Us and You’re a Terrorist
America First Legal litigation against the State Department and a DHS subagency called Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) uncovered documents released Dec. 19. They show government employees pumped public communications channels with false information while claiming to do the opposite.
The documents show federal agencies pressuring communications monopolies to hide arguments with substantial backing, such as that fabric masks do not stop viruses and Covid-19 bears marks of human engineering. The Federalist traffic was throttled for publishing accurate discussions of mask research and for objecting immediately to nationwide lockdowns.
The documents also show that in the name of combatting “foreign disinformation,” the federally activated censorship apparatus spread foreign misinformation — such as that Covid-19 certainly didn’t originate in a lab. The documents also claim that a “core narrative[] used by the pro-Kremlin disinformation network” is the concept of “The Elites vs. The People.” This archetype has, in fact, existed for thousands of years (see: The 30 Tyrants, Coriolanus, and the Gracchi). The documents also show federal agencies relying on a known purveyor of fake data, a government manipulation operation known as Hamilton 2.0 or Hamilton 68.
The documents reveal DHS personally targeted Bhattacharya for censorship because he conducted an early study that contradicted government claims about Covid’s fatality rate. Kheriaty notes that Bhattacharya’s data was later replicated “dozens of times.” The direct targeting validates Bhattacharya’s standing to pursue the lawsuit, his lawyers say, a question the Supreme Court failed to resolve.
The federal documents also claim concerns about internet censorship in the United States emanate from the “Russian disinformation ecosystem” and “undermine the very notion of objective truth.” Narratives they label “foreign propaganda” include observing that Covid-19 panic could “financially benefit ‘big pharma.’”
The documents note: “Only 17 percent of Americans trust their government to do the right thing either always or most of the time,” while also blaming Russian propaganda for this instead of, for example, well-documented evidence of federal corruption.
Other “reporting and analysis” in the America First-uncovered federal “anti-terrorism” documents include claims Covid-19 could provoke a “racial civil war” and efforts towards an “all-white ‘ethnostate.’” The federally funded censorship strategy documents also praise Joe Biden as a “leader [who] would rather set the record straight than spend his day warping it [sic] on Twitter.”
“The new CISA documents fill out the picture of the Censorship Industrial Complex as a creation of the Obama administration and the Intelligence Community (IC),” say Public journalists Alex Gutentag and Michael Shellenberger, who first reported on the documents. “During his time in office, Obama was instrumental in transforming the IC, including DHS, into highly political institutions. This process married progressive political ideology to one of the core imperatives of the U.S. national security state, which is to maintain public support for the military-industrial complex in general, and to manufacture consent for various foreign interventions in particular.”
Laundering Censorship Through Shell Corps
These investigations are revealing how government officials have edited media monopolies’ content moderation policies to enable censorship. This is why, the Missouri plaintiffs argue, “It would be valuable to know how Twitter came to adopt the policy that tweets contradicting CDC policies would be censored, who made such determinations, and whether or not such operations were halted during Dr. Walensky’s tenure. If they were not, there are reasonable grounds to suppose that CDC’s activities have not ceased.”
The Missouri plaintiffs seek depositions with officials who can testify to how federal agencies blackhole speech Democrats dislike and who was involved. That includes National Security Council member Lauren Protentis. She was previously director of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (a key funder of censorship algorithms) and a member of CISA’s “Mis, Dis, and Mal-Information Team.” Protentis has a “unique role at the confluence of so many of the federal government’s misinformation programs, which outweighs any interest Defendants have in shielding her,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers note.
Litigation, investigative reporting, Big Tech disclosures, and House investigations show federal agencies outsource censorship operations because their leaders know it’s unconstitutional for the government to silence Americans.
For a century, the federal government has paid states and ostensibly private organizations to do things that would be unconstitutional for it to do directly. This is the purpose of the administrative state swallowing up what’s left of constitutional government.
Laundering unconstitutional actions through shell nonprofits, state and local governments, and private corporations now comprises the majority of federal action. The resulting federal intrusion into every aspect of American life allows the government to erase Americans’ constitutional rights via “purchasing submission,” as Columbia Law School professor and NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has explained.
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist. Her latest book with Regnery is “False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America.” A happy wife and the mother of six children, her ebooks include “Classic Books For Young Children,” and “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media including Tucker Carlson, CNN, Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, Ben Shapiro, and Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Joy is also the cofounder of a high-performing Christian classical school and the author and coauthor of classical curricula. Her traditionally published books also include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...