➡ Elon Musk’s release of the ‘Twitter Files’ has revealed a network of government agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in censoring information and restricting free speech. This network, labelled as the ‘censorship industrial complex’, uses advanced tools and methods to control and manipulate information, particularly targeting those who contradict the mainstream narrative or share inconvenient truths. Journalists associated with Musk have been seen as ‘traitors’ by those in power and have faced intense scrutiny and potential intimidation.
➡ The text discusses a conspiracy involving a coordinated effort between the federal agencies, big tech, and select news outlets leading up to the 2020 presidential election to spread misinformation. They allegedly used the Hunter Biden laptop story as a decoy, and worked together to ‘prep the battlefield’ by censoring content, conducting mock exercises, and planning responses in advance. The text claims this systematic suppression of truth obstructed the public’s right to free speech and their ability to make an informed vote.
➡ Former Intel officials, including some who worked with the Biden campaign, allegedly manipulated information regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop story in order to favor Joe Biden in the 2020 election. They employed their security clearances and media influence to propagate this narrative, an act resembling long-standing psychological operations in the military. Revelations highlight the power of government contractors and Big Tech to censor content with political bias, endangering liberties and democratic processes. This issue of Big Technology’s potential misuse of power for censoring content and influencing public opinion is contributing to growing concern for the infringement of First Amendment rights.
➡ In August 2020, Stanford Internet Observatory students discovered a significant gap in the ability of government at all levels to address misinformation affecting the 2020 election. Doubts were raised about the credibility of those leading efforts against disinformation. Amid concerns of censorship and election interference, questions were also raised regarding Anthony Fauci’s role in the alleged funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, which some argue may have contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Others argue that misinformation leads to vaccine hesitancy and increased COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. A lawsuit claimed a conspiracy of censorship between the government and big tech.
➡ The text raises concerns about perceived governmental censorship in the United States, asserting that officials and agencies are suppressing speech and curtailment of First Amendment rights. It comprises citizens and public figures who hold unfavored viewpoints, suggesting a shift from combating external threats like ISIS and Russian bots to controlling internal voices. The text argues that this dystopian narrative facilitates the manipulation of information, limiting public access to a certain perspective or narrative, and potentially infringing on civil liberties. There is a hope expressed, nonetheless, through efforts like lawsuits to hold the involved parties accountable.

You thanks to elon Musk’s release of the twitter file. Twitter file twitter Files on October 14, 2020, twitter blocks the New York post store of Hunter biden and suspends their account. The potential power of big tech. Twitter has deampplified, shadow, banned, got, censored, censoring information. That was true. I’m here today because of a series of events that begin late last year when I received a note from a source online.

It read, are you interested in doing a deep dive into what censorship and manipulation is going on at twitter? Clear that republicans were targeted kinds of statements. Today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship industrial complex. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. The twitter files, state attorneys general lawsuits, and investigative reporters have revealed a large and growing network of government agencies, academic institutions, and non governmental organizations that are actively censoring American citizens, often without their knowledge, on a range of issues.

Twitter worked overtime to suppress accurate COVID information. We learned twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS, DoD, the global engagement center at state, even the CAA. Moreover, we know that the US. Government has funded organizations that pressure advertisers to boycott news media organizations and social media platforms that refuse to censor and or spread disinformation, including alleged conspiracy theories.

Another troubling aspect is the role of the press, which should be the people’s last line of defense in such cases. But instead of investigating these groups, journalists partnered with them. The censorship industrial complex combines established methods of psychological manipulation, some developed by the US. Military during the global war on terror, with highly sophisticated tools from computer science, including artificial intelligence. A focus of this fast growing network is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations, or sympathies are deemed misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation.

That last term is just a euphemism for true, but inconvenient. Would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you’re about to give is true, but it was unusual and a little intimidating? You get up there, they intentionally design the hearing hall so that the members are looking down on you, and it’s designed to put you ill at ease.

And it works. You’re kind of off guard, and you don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. My understanding I didn’t ask a question. I didn’t ask you a question, sir, and you can’t have it both ways. But let’s move on. Before you became elon Musk’s handpicked journalist and pardon the oxymoron in your answer, you also said that you were invited by a friend, Barry Weiss. And the republicans have brought in two of elon Musk’s public scribes.

She’s a journalist, sir. I didn’t ask you a question. So you’re in this as a threesome? The FBI had nothing to do with Twitter’s decision to pause the New York Post story? I am not aware of that. I think the members saw Michael and me as people who were traitors to the blue side. Mr. Schellenberger, are you a Republican? No, I’m not. You got any pro Trump bumper stickers on your car? I voted for Biden.

Voted for biden. You know how many MAGA hats laying around your house, right? I do not. Yeah, but you said earlier, both you and Mr. Tybee said this is the most chilling thing you have ever seen as journalists, Mr. Taibebee. The same thing. You’re not a Republican either, are you? No, I’m not. And so there was a special ferocity in their approach to us. There was so much hostility and it was so open and they were so aggressive in not letting us answer it.

Well, folks like Taibi are considered to be and schallenberger class traitors, right? Traitors to their left. They were creatures of the left, journalists that have been seen to be of the left. And they’ve betrayed the left’s goals, which is to abandon the First Amendment and cast any support for free speech aside in suppressing countless Americans to achieve their political aims. Who gave you access to these emails? Who was the individual that gave you permission to access the emails? Did Mr.

Musk place any conditions on the general lady yield for a second, as long as my time is not used. Are you trying to get journalists? No, I’m not trying to get no. Well, if you will let me finish. Have you given all of the access to what you were given by your source to this committee? No, I would never do that. I just think this is interesting. First the FTC is asking for your background, and now the ranking member of the Committee on the Weaponization of Government is asking for your sources.

And then what really struck me is, in the hearing, democrat members of the committee asking two journalists to divulge their sources. I mean, just further attack on the First Amendment, which was troubling. And then the final piece was, first, these guys get named by the FTC in a letter they send to Elon Musk or they send to Twitter. In these letters that the FTC is sending, they name four journalists personally.

Two of them are Taibi and Schellenberger. We just happened that same week, we learned that we just happened to be calling them, having them in for a hearing. They come in and testify. Democrats ask them while they’re testifying, who are your sources? Another attack on the First Amendment. And of course, while they’re getting asked those kind of questions, the IRS was knocking on Matt Tayabi’s door in New Jersey at his home.

So when I first came home that night after testifying, and my wife showed me the note that had been left on the door by the IRS agent saying, the IRS came by our house today while you were testifying. My immediate thought was, that had to be a coincidence. It was too ridiculous to imagine that there could be any connection whatsoever between the testimony and the IRS visiting. Then subsequently, a couple of things I learned convinced me that it may actually not be innocent.

If that’s not intimidation, I don’t know what is. I found out that they opened the case on December 24 of 2022, which was Christmas Eve, Saturday, and it was the day that I dropped probably the biggest twitter files report about the DHS, the FBI office of the Director of National Intelligence. You had the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, DHS and HHS. All the President’s men targeting Americans for censorship.

And the broad nature of it is to this day, astonishing. And what’s really troublesome is that despite the twitter files coming out, there’s no reason to believe it stopped that we’ve never seen anything like it in modern American history. You really have to go back to the first part of the last century under Woodrow Wilson, where he was jailing his political opponents and censoring speech, and of course, the alien its edition acts back in the beginning of our nation’s founding.

But this is the worst censorship scandal, and I would say the worst censorship scandal in terms of scope, given the sheer volume of individuals who have been caught up in it. I hate to bring up this comparison because it sounds over the top but there’s a great scene in all the President’s Men where Bob Woodward is sitting in the courtroom for the arraignment of the Watergate burglars and he’s kind of just following through, taking notes.

And then finally when the judge asks, you know, where he works and he kind of mumbles Central Intelligence Agency. And you see Woodward’s eyes light up and he goes, Holy shit. We had a lot of those moments. Do you almost feel mean? Did you have the out of body experience where you were hearing yourself talk? But that’s what people used to say when they were conspiracy theorists. Oh, absolutely.

I think that was a constant experience of the twitter files, was this inner voice always tells you when you’re reporting to be distrustful of any narrative or any story that sounds too conspiratorial. But I would be looking at these emails where it would be FBI, DHS, ODNI, and then Oga, which is other government agencies, which is CIA, meeting with Wikimedia and Twitter and Facebook. Everyone had their roles to play, and you don’t needed a lot of coordination once you know what your role is.

The role of the FBI to suppress and censor material about Hunter, Biden, these groups to act as a way station for censorship requests to big tech, and for the media to report all of it. It’s the left, it’s the power of the left. It’s the power of groupthink. It’s the power of the cancel culture mob. If you disagree with them, they rally around and come after you. And again, we’ve seen it time and time again.

It was wrong what happened, and I think now that people get the facts and understand it. In the run up to the 2020 presidential election, FBI special agent Elvis Chan, in his deposition in Missouri versus biden, said that he repeatedly, repeatedly informed twitter and other social media platforms of the likelihood of a hack and leak operation in the run up to that presidential election. He did it even though there was no evidence.

In fact, he said in his deposition that we hadn’t seen anything, no intrusions, no hack. Yet he repeatedly told him something was coming. Everyone to the second hearing of the Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. It’s terrifying, first of all and second of all, it’s consistent with our deposition of a FBI agent named Elvis Chan, who was working in the northern area of California northern California who had monthly and then weekly meetings with big tech executives about what he was referring to as a potential Russian hack and leak operation.

And in the sworn affidavit, an FEC affidavit from a senior twitter person indicated that the hunter Biden laptop was specifically mentioned as a hack and leak operation by the Russians. Knowing, by the way, in the fall and winter of 2019, the FBI had possession of the Hunter Biden laptop. Now stop and think about it. So the government was telling big tech that there’s going to be a hack and dump operation.

When it’s going to happen in October? Who it’s going to involve? Hunter Biden. So what’s going to happen? When it’s going to happen? Who it’s going to involve? And you step back and you say, how did they know? These guys are prophetic. How could they see the know? I figured that pressure would be brought to bear. As soon as I started seeing the names FBI DHS on some of these documents, I knew this wasn’t going to last very long.

But once I saw that, once I started to see emails and slack chats where there were recommendations from state agencies and federal law enforcement and even intelligence agencies about content moderation, I decided that that was the area that I wanted to focus on. And as a result, we were able to really to determine sort of one important thing, which was the line of communication that existed between the federal agencies and companies like twitter.

Along with the internisign communications that were going on, they had set up a private portal to communicate with the government, which included DoD, the FBI, and included HHS, just included a lot of agencies to include what you hear them refer to as other government agency, which we all know is the CIA. There was a lot more going on than just a strategic relationship. The FBI and a number of other agencies were actually censoring Americans.

On August 6, 2020, the FBI briefed senators grassley and Johnson. And according to the Senator’s testimony last month in front of this committee, the briefing was bogus and done so someone could go leak that the briefing had happened and undermine the Senator’s investigation. Not only were they working with big tech to try to prep the battlefield and make sure it be censored, but folks in the Senate were figuring out what Hunter was up to.

And it looked like the FBI went up and gave a briefing whose sole purpose was to leak to the media to say this could be disinformation in September of 2020. Government funded think tank gets involved. They do a tabletop exercise. The participants include the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets. Facebook is there. Mr. Roth of Twitter is there. The organizer was the former CEO of NPR and the former head of news at Twitter.

The mock exercise is hosted by the Aspen Institute. We are not here merely for a pleasant stay in the mountains to hear a few speeches and then go back to the mess that we are in. The Aspen Institute is a very, very influential think tank. It’s sort of the American counterpart to the World Economic Forum. I mean, it’s obviously not on that scale, but it’s very extravagantly funded.

It gets money from lots of different sources, including from the US. Military. But it’s where sort of establishment neoliberal intellectuals gather to decide policy mostly out of the eyes of the public. These agencies or these groups served as cutouts for the government to censor Americans. This is a coordinated collusive effort backed by billions of dollars to censor everyone in the world, practically speaking. And Americans have special rights under our first amendment, so the government’s paying someone else, and they’re trying to influence these other organizations to censor Americans first Amendment free speech in 2020.

The Aspen Institute held what they called a hack and leak tabletop exercise to prepare for the possibility that a story would come out about Hunter Biden and Burisma. It was that specific. In July and August of 2020, this institute was inviting prominent journalists, academics, and people from civil society organizations to get together and war game. It’s just a bunch of people in the room. Wargaming a particular scenario that they think may occur, and then in the end, I guess they’re kind of fixing the narrative of how they will respond to that certain scenario.

They were they were preparing for a story to come out. FBI knows it’s legit, knows it’s real, and then is telling sort of pre bunking this Hunter Biden laptop story and the contents of it ahead of time. And they also, according to Miranda Devine, had access to her emails and knew exactly when the story was going to be published. I mean, again, this is out of some sort of orwellian novel, but it was happening in the United States of America leading up to the 2020 election.

They had the laptop in their possession for a year. And Schellenberger writes about this in, I think it’s Twitter files number seven, where he spells it all out. And he used, I thought, an appropriate term. He said it was like the government was pre bunking a story that they knew was likely to come out. And the reason they could prebunk it is because they had had the laptop in their possession for ten months prior to that.

So here you have people from The New York Times, like David Sanger from The Washington Post, like Ellen Nakashima. She’s a big national security reporter. Garrett Graff, who is both at the Aspen Institute but also writing for Wired at the same time. There were reporters from CNN, other organizations. They’re all coming to this thing where they are planning in advance how to deal with a true story about Hunter Biden and his connections to Burisma.

A lot of these so called journalists have just simply become advocates and journalism. I mean, when you know the investigative journalist that’s exposing corruption, that’s a very important role to play in our society. And I think it’s shocking the number of so called journalists that are perfectly willing to go along to parrot the talking points of the current administration. Basically, what they do, they are preparing for how to discount and non report and non cover the story.

The thing that’s remarkable for me is that when the actual Burisma story broke in The New York Post, when Hunter Biden’s laptop was reported on by The Post in October, the existence of this tabletop exercise instantly became newsworthy. So that tabletop exercise is interesting. So what the left is they have this narrative about 2016 where you had a series of leaks of emails allegedly taken by the Russians.

No one disputed the authenticity of the emails, but they were politically problematic. So 2020 comes around and they say, okay, well, are there going to be leaks of other information that is true that’s going to be politically problematic? How do we handle the release of true information that hurts our candidate? And the plan was to just censor it, attribute it to Russian misinformation and censor it. All the people who were there and reporting on this, even if it was off the record, they should have been deeply nervous because, oh my God, we participated in this thing, preparing to non cover a huge story involving a presidential candidate.

This is going to come out. I either have to report on this or admit it or something. None of them did. They all quietly non reported the existence of this thing with the exception of Wired. Wired did a little notation saying that the exercise had happened. They all kind of stuck together. And it’s remarkable, right? Because I was raised as a journalist. You’re on the side of the public.

The public wants to know this stuff. This story should have been out there. The American people should have been able to make their own determination of how that affected their vote. And the idea that government was working with the press and with big tech to suppress that ought to scare the bejesus out of everybody. How could that know? And then we see stuff like, again, like the Aspen Institute business, where it’s a whole bunch of journalists agreeing sort of tacitly to do something that’s totally unethical.

And how does that happen? How do you trust another person in the room isn’t going to fink on you to the rest of the world? I thought that was remarkable. When I saw those documents, I thought, man, this must be a deeply entrenched system if they’re so comfortable doing this kind of thing and not worrying that this is going to come out. Finally, as if on queue, five days later, on October 1951, former intel officials sign a letter with the now famous sentence, the Biden laptop story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

Look, they all knew adverse information about Hunter and Joe Biden was going to come out, and they all knew what to do when it happened. And I don’t think you needed to make a lot of phone calls once it came out for them to start pushing their narratives. I mean, how many phone calls did it take to get that 51 person letter to be signed lying to the American people about Hunter laptop being disinformation? Well, by the documents we’re seeing not that many phone calls, all of which were originating from the Biden campaign.

The guy who put the whole letter together, Mike Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA, he said, we did it because we wanted Joe Biden to have something to use against President Trump in the final debate. And we wanted and we wanted that because we wanted Joe Biden to win with their title. All 51 had their title on there, giving it the weight that, oh, this has got to be accurate, when in fact it wasn’t.

Well, it gave a talking point to Joe Biden that the media could also echo and latch onto, that this story was to be ignored and cast aside. And it was an abuse of these individual security clearances because we trust them, because they have national security clearances, they have access to information the rest of us don’t have. And they put out a political talking point that was based on political expediency rather than a truthful analysis of what the laptop was and what its implications were.

It reminds you a lot of psychological operations. I mean, the military has been doing psychological operations for a long time, and you had a concerted effort by multiple government agencies, which kind of meddled in our election. It meddled in the COVID affairs and other things as far as trying to influence Americans or sway their opinions in a different way or even censor Americans who spoke out against the narrative that was being pushed in the councils of government.

We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

In his 1961 farewell address, president Dwight Eisenhower warned of, quote, the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. Eisenhower feared that the size and power of the complex or cluster of government contractors and the Defense Department would, quote, endanger our liberties or democratic processes through, quote, domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money. He feared public policy would become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Eisenhower’s fears were well founded. Today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy. We’ve never had a situation where the major distribution networks for the country, for news, were told to step on a story or voluntarily stepped on a story of that consequence heading into a presidential election. I mean, you’d have to go back to the Pentagon Papers to see even an attempt in that direction.

And again, it was remarkable to me to see the non response from journalists who ought to care about this, because that could be your story next. Shutting down the ability of the New York Post to post content was an extraordinary escalation, and it was done at the behest of the government. There’s no doubt that deep state actors and Twitter files is pretty explicit here. Had prepped the battlefield not only for Twitter to take action, but Zuckerberg admitted that, yeah, they were warning us something like this was going to come.

The FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that, so just be vigilant. We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

So it’s big government, big tech, big media, but also the in between many times is NGOs, these not for profits, these organizations out there, in some cases universities or think tanks, on university or whatever you want to call them, money gets funneled there. That gets put into place at big tech trying to influence them or somewhere else. Civil society organizations are supposed to watch the government. The news media is supposed to watch both the tech platforms are supposed to have different interests from the government.

But what we see in the censorship industrial complex is they’re all working together in what they call the shared endeavor. And so it’s a consolidation of power. That’s the model that they’re looking for. Well, I think we just have to come to terms with the fact that the big tech companies or social media companies are partisan leftist ideologues, and they’ve been lying about the reasons. They’ve been, quote, moderating content.

They’ve been censoring content, not following a set of rules, but following government dictates and their own ideological predilections and political biases. But you can’t trust these big tech companies. They aren’t moderating content in any honest way. They’re either acting on behalf of the government, which is arguably illegal, at least on the government side, and to the degree they’re doing it without government input, it’s dishonestly being done. That’s why we’ve sent letters to these folks trying to get information from some of these organizations like the Stanford Institute, but that’s this censorship industrial complex, or as I think even Jonathan Turley said he is a similar term.

He said censorship by surrogate. So the government’s paying someone else, and they’re trying to influence these other organizations to censor Americans First Amendment free speech. One of the things that motivated me to run for the United States Senate to get here, to pull this back, to fundamentally dismantle the administrative state, what’s happened is Congress has willingly ceded this authority of these spaceless agencies who’ve gotten more and more power.

I had heard from a source who had worked with Renee that Renee had talked about being in the CIA. But I didn’t report that because I didn’t have a second source until Schellenberger and I met up with Mike Benz of the foundation for Freedom Online, and he found a video of Alex Damos introducing her as having worked for the CIA. I’m really happy to announce for the first time that Renee de Resta will be joining us as our research.

Renee, can you wave? Renee? Yeah, let’s give her a hand. Yes. You may know Renee from such reports as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligences report on Russian interference. Renee has done a lot of writing and analytics. She has a computer science background like me. She is part of the Academic Unwashed with a computer science degree from a public university, but has gone out and worked for the CIA.

Now, when we did that report, she says that her only link to the CIA is that she was a fellow in her student years. So okay. I mean, that’s where things stand as we are. I mean, the three pieces of information are those, right? But there are a lot of people in this world who move freely back and forth between intelligence agencies, the so called civil society organizations, the federal law enforcement tech companies, and even media.

You’ll see people from the CIA all over Twitter, people from the NSA, the National Security Council, some of the key people who are actually characters in the Twitter files. We don’t identify them that way, but some of them are CIA veterans right, in the same and we now see openly on channels like MSNBC and CNN every day. They’ve got contributors who were former FBI or CIA or NSC officials.

Sometimes they’re even anchors. Yeah, what’s interesting is that a lot of these so called non governmental organizations who are opposed to disinformation have been implicated in actually putting out false information to smear those the left doesn’t like, whether it be Roy Moore and Alabama or Trump and Republicans generally. This came out. They got busted doing it. And there was a story in The New York Times, they admitted it, and yet it somehow doesn’t cause anybody to reassess, for instance, new knowledge’s testimony about Russian bots in the Trump Russia investigation.

So here you have a company that’s been caught manufacturing a Russian bot scandal, and they have also given a report to the Senate on Russian bots in the 2016 election. And nobody makes that connection. Like, do we reassess any of that information? So in August 2020, students from the Stanford Internet Observatory were doing an internship with CISA, and they identified a massive gap in the capability of federal, state, and local governments to become aware of, to analyze, and to rapidly respond to myths and disinformation, both foreign and domestic, targeting the 2020 election.

Renee she was the research director of the company at the time this was going on, and yet she’s running the Election Integrity Partnership, and nobody thinks that’s weird. So, yeah, it’s stuff like that over and over again. One of the people who writes for my site, Racket, Andrew Lowenthal, he made the point. These people who are professing to be the leading experts on combating disinformation, in many cases, they have records of being agents of disinformation themselves, which should cause people to do a double take, but it doesn’t.

I don’t think people understood the extent of the election interference until the Twitter files. And to be clear, if you censor information about one candidate negative information while censoring another candidate who’s trying to get his message out, that is election rigging as surely as stuffing ballot boxes. Well, I’m just going to say, well, even look, more recently, maybe it’d be nice if the government would just let we the people decide who we want to get elected, who we want in office, who we want representing us.

Because if you think about it, in 2016, the FBI got involved with it was the whole Dossier Russia thing that they were doing to President Trump in 2018. It was the Mueller investigation. The Special Counsel investigation. In 2020, it was the suppression of the laptop story that we were just talking about in 2022. It was 91 days before the. Midterm election, the FBI raged President Trump’s poem and here we are in 2024.

We’re still talking about just stay out of it. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. The number of people who are dying around the country because they’re getting misinformation, that is leading them to not take a vaccine. Young people, old people, kids, children, this is all being a lot of them are being impacted by misinformation.

Virtually all of the COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated. I think there’s a lot of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies about that and that’s really unfortunate. My job is to do what I can as a scientist to preserve and protect the health of the American public and indirectly, in many respects, the health of the world. Dr. Anthony Fauci anthony Fauci COVID-19 Case Coronavirus the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute.

Well, I think that what we had seen during COVID in the lead up to the 2020 election, we saw this just massive effort by the federal government to work with big tech to suppress dissenting views and that’s an unamerican thing to do. And so we filed the lawsuit. It was a landmark lawsuit. And what we uncovered in that lawsuit was a vast censorship enterprise, broader and bigger than anybody could have ever imagined.

And so I think once we got into it, we were even more emboldened to continue to push forward. Because whether it was when Anthony Fauci spoke big tech Censored or the Hunter Biden laptop or just these special channels that had been established between big tech and big government, it needed to be exposed. And we got to make sure it never happens. Know, this material might be the most important material we found about the potential origins of COVID and certainly the big lies put out there by the Fauci agency that it had nothing to do with gain of function research in Wuhan.

When you say you’re creating mutant coronaviruses in order to figure out how they can affect infect humanized mice, that’s gain of function 101. And we’ve got proof positive here with these documents. This paper that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. Let me finish. Take an animal virus and you increase this transmitty to humans. You’re saying that’s not gain of function? Yeah, that is correct.

Understand, we now know that Dr. Fauci gave our tax dollars to a lab in Wuhan, China, that wasn’t up to code, that was doing gain of function research. And that’s where the leak came from. That is almost, I believe that just assures. I’m sitting here talking to you, but I think most people who have common sense and who follow this now understand that I think Fauci knew that from the get go, and he couldn’t have that out.

He couldn’t have Dr. Fauci, in his fiefdom, handing out billions of dollars over the years. Highest paid guy in the government. Mr knowital. Dr. He couldn’t he couldn’t let that get out, that he had been using our money to fund gain of function research, and he knew it from the very get go. We also, in that deposition, confronted him with an email very early on in 2020 where a friend said, hey, Anthony Fauci, I’m getting on a plane.

Should I be wearing a mask? And he responds, no. Masks are ineffective. Then, of course, our school kids are subjected five year olds are subjected to wearing masks all day long, and we know the negative outcomes now. And so anybody that objected to this, anybody who stood up to this sort of COVID authoritarianism, this biomedical authoritarianism that existed, they were deplatformed. You had government officials debating whether it was a lab leak, but God forbid Americans wanted to debate it.

They got censored because these government officials decided that the debate was too dangerous to have. January 31, 2020, dr. Fauci gets an email from Dr. Christian Anderson. One of these virologists he’s given our money to. That email said, now, remember, this is right at the start. January 31, 2020. He gets this email and says, virus looks engineered. Virus is not consistent with evolutionary theory. That is a fancy way of saying this thing came from a lab.

And Fauci goes into he starts emailing people, his top assistant. At midnight, he’s doing another email two in the morning, organizes a conference call. The next day, he gets on this conference call with ten virologists from around the country who’ve all got our money, by the way. One of the guys on the call, Dr. Gary, also says that, I don’t know how this happens in nature. Be easy to do in a lab on February 1 on this call, and then three days later, everybody changes their story.

Anderson and Gary, who said it came from a lab, did 180 degree shift and say, you’re crazy. You’re a conspiracy theorist if you think it came from a lab. Why did they change? The only intervening event is Fauci’s phone call with these guys. And I’m convinced fauci said, we got to get our story straight. We can’t let it get out that it was gain of function research happening at a lab in China where this thing came from.

So I think it was all about covering his backside. That’s why they called us all crazy. If we even questioned that, this idea that it came from a bat to a pangolin to a hippopotamus to Joe Rogan, and then we all know the virus, like, give me a break. I’m just a country boy, but I can kind of suspect probably came from the lab in wuhan, China, where they were doing this kind of experiments.

Well, I mean, early on, it was easy to see why they were sensitive about it, because judicial watch obtained documents, I think it was last year, that showed almost immediately they were worried about what they were doing at that Wuhan Institute. They wanted to know what projects that were being funded and reporting to Fauci and other top officials at National Institutes of health and elsewhere about what these projects were.

And we uncovered that they were engaged in gain of function research. So one of the reasons, in my view, especially now, given the recent revelation that they were funding what they called the creation of mutant coronaviruses, that if indeed it was a lab leak, they were partly responsible for the virus that got out, because unless it was a natural virus, it would have had to have been engineered.

And if it was engineered, it was almost certainly as a result of the gain of function research either directly funded or the techniques that we taught the Chinese that resulted in COVID-19. Now, all those are big ifs, but it certainly helps explain why that part of the debate they didn’t want the talk talking about, and this is talk about arrogance. Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It’s when a huxer takes them, lies, and makes them sound precocious by saying them in congress or a mainstream outlet.

So just information’s origin seems slightly less atrocious. Around the same time we filed a lawsuit, they were actually the Biden administration was actually talking about a ministry of truth, a disinformation governance board in the United States of America. So this sort of orwellian view that this administration has about censoring Americans and let’s be clear, it’s illegal for the government to censor points of view they don’t like to the point about the disinformation governance board.

That’s how brazen it’s become that they were literally going to have some federal agency, a person in charge of some board, determine what Americans are allowed to say, what they’re not allowed to say. Federal government officials, agencies, and contractors have gone from fighting ISIS recruiters and Russian bots to censoring and deplatforming ordinary Americans and disfavored public figures. Yes, we will be under the watchful eye of people who are intellectually dishonest, shallow, mendacious, manipulative, because why? Because you can’t believe in this system of information delivery and control unless there’s something wrong with you.

I mean, unless, unless you have a deeply pessimistic and I would say even sociopathic view of the human race, you can’t view the information landscape and say, we need to keep all of this stuff secret from people and only give them information that allows them to think in a certain direction. Only a certain kind of person thinks that way, and they’re all in this space. A lot of the value of the Twitter files was just people seeing the unredacted version of reality before news organizations could get counterstory together, and people have memories of that.

And that’s going to delay. Whatever this political consolidation process is, it’s going to at least delay it. So I’m not giving up hope yet. But with the Internet and with the kind of general political climate where there’s so much cooperation between Western NATO bloc countries, you could have a consensus about what people see all over the world, and that could happen very quickly. And I’m worried about that.

No one has done more to uncover the falsehoods about the vaccine and COVID propaganda we’ve been force fed, and we’re also trying to hold them directly accountable by suing over the violations of our civil rights as a result of the censorship. And hopefully that will have a national impact too. Right now, American civil rights are being violated. Their First Amendment freedoms are being curtailed in a way we’ve never seen before.

Judicial Watch thinks this is urgent, so we’ve deployed a lot of resources, both in terms of investigation and litigation and obviously educating Americans about what’s at stake here. .