I’ve posted before upon our Missouri sixth is v. Biden legal action, in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana — together with four private plaintiffs (Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, the advocacy organization Health Freedom Louisiana, and yours truly) represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance — are suing the Biden Management for alleged free talk violations.
We now have strong evidence which the executive branch of the federal government has been colluding with social media marketing to censor content on social media platforms — which includes Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram — that questions, challenges, or contradicts the government’s covid plans.
This week, the federal judge in the case granted our request to obtain depositing testimony, under oath, through the following current or previous government officials:
- NIAID Director and White House Chief Healthcare Advisor Dr . Anthony Fauci
- Deputy Assistant towards the President and Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty ORformer White House Senior COVID-19 Advisory Toby Slavitt
- Former White House Push Secretary Jennifer Psak i
- FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan
- CISA Director Jen Easterly OR CISA official Lauren Protentis
- Surgeon General Vivek Murthy
- CDC Main of the Digital Media Branch Carol Crawford
- Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center Daniel Kimmage .
It’s worth noting that Fauci (maybe? ) responded to his interrogatory composed questions, denying that he experienced any communications with social networking platforms. But he also responded in a potentially slick manner— specifically, he permitted underling Jill Harper in order to sign off on the NAIAD responses, even though the written questions were addressed by the attorneys to him. The judge refused to take his written-word-by-proxy as sufficient, since the court order describes:
Government Defendants have submitted to Plaintiffs interrogatory responses on behalf of Doctor Fauci, asserting that he has already established no direct communications with any social-media platforms concerning censorship. Plaintiffs argue consequently that they should not be required to simply accept those blanket statements as they were submitted, and they also argue three reasons why Doctor Fauci should be questioned below oath.
Initial, Plaintiffs assert that Dr . Fauci has refused to verify under oath his own interrogatory responses in infringement of this Court’s Order. The NIAID’s responses were instead verified by Dr . Jill Harper, who was not called in the Complaint. Accordingly, Doctor Fauci has made no claims under oath regarding their communications with social-media systems, which violates this Court’s Order regarding the discovery that instructed Dr . Fauci to give interrogatory responses. The Court sees the importance of having Dr . Fauci create statements under oath as it relates to the issues of this matter.
Following, Plaintiffs argue that even if Doctor Fauci can prove he certainly not communicated with social media platforms about censorship, there are compelling reasons that will suggest Dr . Fauci has acted through intermediaries, plus acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions . Plaintiffs argue that even though Dr . Fauci acted not directly or as an intermediary on behalf of others, it is still highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Courtroom agrees.
Lastly, Injured parties argue that Dr . Fauci’s trustworthiness has been in question on issues related to supposed COVID-19 “ misinformation” since 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs suggest that Dr . Fauci has made open public statements on the efficacy associated with masks, the percentage from the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of “ gain-of-function” virus research within Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more. Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are highly relevant to the matter at hand and are more reasons why Dr . Fauci must be deposed. Injured parties assert that they should not be needed to simply accept Dr . Fauci’s “ self-serving blanket denials” that were issued from somebody other than himself at encounter value. The Court agrees.
The Court concluded that Fauci’s composed word was not sufficient provided other evidence in the record, some of which was presented within our complaint and summarized in the judge’s order:
After reviewing the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ fights, the Court finds that will Plaintiffs have proven that Dr . Fauci has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media because it related to COVID-19 and additional issues of COVID-19. The Court has considered that Dr . Fauci is a high-ranking official, especially as he is the Director from the National Institute of Allergic reaction and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor towards the President. The Court views the only potential burden enforced on Dr . Fauci due to him being deposed is that of his time.
However , the Court acknowledges that any person who will be being deposed must give up their time, and it does not see any burden imposed on Dr . Fauci that outweighs the Court’s requirement for the information in order to make the most helpful decision on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. Finally, the Court is aware of a number of substantive reasons why Dr . Fauci’s depositing should be taken.
The first is the publicly available emails that will prove that Dr . Fauci was communicating and acting as an intermediary for others to be able to censor information from being shared across multiple social-media outlets. The second is that Dr . Fauci has yet to provide any statements under oath in this matter. The third would be that the Court has no doubt that will Dr . Fauci was engaging in communications with high-ranking social-media officials, which is extremely related in the matter at hand.
In addition , the crux of this situation is the fundamental right of totally free speech. Any burden that may be imposed on Dr . Fauci is wholly outweighed with the importance of Plaintiffs’ allegations of suppression of free speech. Appropriately, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their particular burden of proving precisely why a deposition of Doctor Anthony Fauci is necessary in cases like this, and exceptional circumstance are present. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Dr . Anthony Fauci cooperate in the Plaintiffs’ request to depose your pet for purposes of their first injunction discovery.
There’s been several commentary in the press recently on this latest development in case. Miranda Devine at the New York Posting , for example , referred to the suit as already “ uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship system cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist The far east proud. ” Her New York Write-up article then describes how that syndication was under the thumb of this censorship regime leading up to the presidential election:
Victims of the Biden-Big Tech “ censorship enterprise” include The Post, whose Hunter Biden laptop exposé was suppressed by Facebook and then Twitter within October 2020 after the FBI went to Facebook, warning this with great specificity to watch out for a “ dump” of Russian disinformation, pertaining to Joe Biden , with an uncanny resemblance to the stories.
“ We allege that top-ranking Biden administration officials colluded with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop tale, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of face masks, and election integrity, ” is how the lawsuit was summarized by intrepid Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is leading the actions.
The censorship related to alleged “ misinformation” about pandemic lockdowns, vaccines and COVID-19, and incorporated material from the esteemed contagious disease epidemiologists and community health scientists associated with the Excellent Barrington Declaration, which demonstrated over time to be correct and finally much of which was adopted as official policy by the CDC.
Likewise, commenting on our lawsuit recently, the intrepid Tyler Durden over at ZeroHedge defined how his publication had likewise been subjected to censorship by this regime for commentary on the origins of the virus:
A look at the timeline shows that in February of 2020, Fauci, former NIH Movie director Francis Collins, and several various other advisers were discussing a ZeroHedge article on a pre-print document out of India suggesting that Covid-19 had similar features to HIV . Within a day time, Twitter hanging us for publishing proof that the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which was performing NIH-funded experiments to make softball bat Covid more transmissible to people — might have something to do with the particular exotic new Covid-19 stress that broke out anywhere at a wet market.
Twitter’s excuse? That will we ‘ doxxed’ a Chinese scientist , using widely available information (i. e. not doxxing), who created a job posting related to his research upon bat Covid.
The plaintiffs contended that Fauci allegedly insisted on the censorship of “ speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” that contradicted Fauci’s views.
Fauci, for example , disseminated in a long-shielded phone call with some scientists to discredit any theory that COVID-19 was the result of a “ lab leak” in Wuhan, Tiongkok. The scientists went on to write a paper seriously reprimanding others who were open to the theory.
When the lab leak theory were true, in turn, it would mean Fauci could be potentially suggested as a factor in funding the research on viruses that caused the particular pandemic which killed large numbers worldwide, plaintiffs argued. This is because Fauci funded risky “ gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance.
In late January 2020 and early Feb 2020, Fauci was also in touch with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in oral communications about the government’s COVID-19 response. Facebook then allegedly went on censor the lab leak concept, plaintiffs argued.
The Epoch Times also published a detailed article this week, which included the following summary of three of the other authorities that Judge Doughty ordered to be deposed:
The court also available that Flaherty, Psaki, Andy Slavitt, and other officials also provide personal knowledge about the claimed censorship issues and purchased them to be deposed. Doughty said there’s an “ overwhelming” need for Flaherty to be deposed to determine whether fundamental rights to free presentation were “ abridged” because of alleged collusion between senior Biden administration officials and Big Tech. The injured parties argued that Flaherty got “ extensive” oral meetings with Twitter, Meta, plus YouTube on vaccine hesitancy and combatting misinformation related to COVID-19.
The judge said you will find a “ substantive need” for your deposition of Slavitt , who served since the White House’s senior COVID-19 adviser. Doughty noted that Slavitt’s remarks on a podcast “ showed he has specific knowledge as it relates” towards the issues in the lawsuit.
The court purchase cited a series of public comments made by Psaki when the girl served as White House press secretary, including calling on social media platforms for consistency in banning disfavored speakers.
“ Psaki has made a number of statements which are relevant to the Government’s involvement in a number of social-media platforms’ initiatives to censor its users over the board for sharing info related to COVID-19, ” Doughty said in his ruling.
So it appears to be this case may still get more interesting. Stay tuned here for more updates. And in the particular meantime, don’t be afraid to express what you actually think on-line — with decency plus civility, of course , but without suppressing what you know or even believe to be true.
Reposted through the author’s Substack
Learn more about Dr . Fauci by watching the new documentary film “ The Real Anthony Fauci. ”