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

This is your government, folks. Transparent to no one but themselves, ruling over thee from their ivory towers.....

Until now, it seems.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Remember the "Disinformation Governance Board?" It grew out of this. Easterly was having a hard time managing all of the censorship requests flooding in from everywhere. The social media companies were having a hard time with it too. So, they wanted this board so they could better administer what they were ALREADY DOING, and also make it "acceptable" to do it.

That board was nothing more than a cover for more funding and better censorship organization.

This is abhorrent and un-American. It needs to stop yesterday, Good God.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Almost there, folks. We are on to Murthy, who they really want to depose. Strong language here:

"Exceptional circumstances exist to justify Murthy’s deposition because he has firsthand knowledge of information that is crucial to Plaintiffs’ claims and that is not reasonably available through alternative means. The Court should enter an order articulating the sound factual basis for its conclusion that Murthy’s deposition is justified given the circumstances"

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Murthy had accused Facebook of "killing people" by not more stringently censoring what they consider "coronavirus misinformation"

(Beanz note: I like to call that LIFESAVING TRUTH, but I digress)

"President Biden had (also) accused Facebook of exactly that “by allowing disinformation about the coronavirus vaccine to spread online,” Kanno-Youngs, “They’re Killing People”.

Facebook didn't like the tone, and scolded them.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

And, of course, Facebook acquiesced.

A subsequent email from Clegg began, “Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today.” Doc. 86-5, at 15. Clegg proceeded to summarize the steps Facebook was taking “to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation,” including deplatforming the “disinfo dozen” and “expand[ing] the group of false claims that we remove.”


"The Disinfo dozen" were a group of journalists and doctors singled out for trying to save lives. Terrible the way they were targeted by name. Justice for the brave doctors and media who did something to save people when our Surgeon General was doing the opposite.

Clegg continued: “We hear your call for us to do more and, as I said on the call, we’re committed to working together . . . . You have identified 4 specific recommendations for improvement and we want to make sure to keep you informed of our work on each.”

@TracyBeanzOfficial

"Needless to say, the direct involvement of the U.S. Surgeon General in this federal-private censorship project to suppress dissenting views about COVID-19 on social media raises questions of grave First Amendment concern. Uncovering the extent of Murthy’s involvement in the Virality Project is crucial to Plaintiffs’ claims. But Murthy’s responses to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests do not shed any light on this involvement"

@TracyBeanzOfficial

And now moving on to Psaki, who has been the subject of a lot of my coverage on this case lately. Believe it or not, this is one of the more frustrating ones in my opinion.

As Plaintiffs say, Defendants are playing a game of "heads I win; tails you lose". When Plaintiffs tried to get information from elsewhere the government claimed it didn't know because she didn't work there anymore, and now are trying to say SHE can't answer either.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Just some of her nonsense (we have discussed this previously)

@TracyBeanzOfficial

And here are the threats they wont be able to get past in their motion to dismiss. They REALLY DO NOT want her to testify.

@TracyBeanzOfficial.