"While insisting that Psaki is not the only source for the information that Plaintiffs seek from her, Defendants have steadfastly refused to reveal the identit(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)."

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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:

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Now the brief moves from the "summary" phase to the "argument" phase, where we get a lot 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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"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."

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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."

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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 deplatforming of Alex Berenson and was independently deeply involved in the censorship enterprise, which is why Plaintiffs sought to question him IN ADDITION to Flaherty.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Now we move on to detail on Easterly from CISA. Plaintiffs want to depose TWO people in her place if they can't depose her, and CISA wont be too happy about that, but they asked for it. First they want Brian Scully, who heads up CISA's "so called Mis-Dis-Malinformation team.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"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"

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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 US Mission to NATO.

Understand, these are the people sitting on a "help desk" watching what you say.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"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].’”

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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 abhorrent practice that shouldn't be tolerated.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"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.”

@TracyBeanzOfficial

From the filing:

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"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

@TracyBeanzOfficial

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.

@TracyBeanzOfficial