Missouri v. Biden: Massive “Whole-Of-Government” Illegal Censorship Conspiracy Exposed: Largest Conspiracy Exposed

Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files1 released by Elon Musk, we now know that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, has been involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

In May 2022, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry, along with the New Civil Liberties Alliance and a few individual plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden (Missouri v. Biden2), arguing the White House is engaged in illegal suppression of protected speech.

Two months earlier, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had also filed a class action lawsuit (Kennedy v. Biden et.al.3), but due to their similarities and overlap, Kennedy’s case has since been consolidated into Missouri v. Biden.4

This Was No Free Speech Victory

Gregory Hood

American Renaissance

September 14, 2023

“The Ruling Only Affects the Government’s ‘First Amendment Right’ to Menace Social Media into Doing Its Bidding”

The single most important cultural change of the last 10 years is not transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, or even social media. It’s the end of free speech. Just a few years ago, it was almost beyond imagination that American companies would restrict free speech, with Amazon taking a principled stand in defense of even the vilest content. Today, books are regularly deplatformed, including Jared Taylor’s White Identity. Social media censorship is even worse and financial deplatforming has reached unknown depths.

Still, some might say that’s alright because these are actions by private companies. Many would expect Americans to rise in defiance if the government were telling people what they can and cannot say. Yet this line too was crossed. It was under the Trump Administration that the federal government — specifically the Department of Homeland Security — began working with social media to censor dissidents. President Donald Trump himself did nothing about the problem except for a nonsensical “Social Media Summit” featuring no one who was actually deplatformed. He is still doing nothing except posting on his echo chamber on Truth Social, despite regaining access to his Twitter/X account.

Some Republicans have begun fighting back now that the Democrats are in charge, especially after the government excesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. This too was too little, too late; conservatives ignored or even quietly welcomed the arbitrary decisions by Big Tech to wipe out entire groups, subcultures, and movements from platforms. That said, some are now moved to action.

It paid off when a federal judge ruled that the federal government could no longer work with tech companies to censor Americans. The decision baffled and outraged journalists, our country’s most dangerous free speech opponents. The Biden Administration appealed and got the injunction lifted, but appears to have lost the appeal in Missouri v. Biden.

The key word is “appears.” Reason, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all suggested this was a defeat for the Administration. The WSJ called it a “landmark” and said the decision “protects free speech from the government’s current method of laundering its censorship through private platforms.” The Washington Examiner flatly says the previous ruling was “upheld.” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey declared victory and said “the first brick was laid in the wall of separation between tech and state.” Hardly.

The new ruling rolls back the restrictions imposed by the initial ruling, which banned the government even from communicating with tech companies about content. The Appeals Court argued that the injunction had banned the government from engaging in legal conduct, pointing out that the state sometimes needs to work with private companies. Not in this case. The government should be able to issue a statement on social media and have it be recognized as “official,” but it crosses the line when it tells social media what it should censor. What’s more, solid restrictions are necessary because private companies have abandoned their commitments to free speech. They seem to want an excuse to censor..

Here is the appearance of a victory:

“A group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of ‘misinformation’ on their platforms,” the court said. “In their concern, those officials — hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies — urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And, the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.”

The court listed many examples of careful coordination between the FBI, CDC, and other agencies with social media, noting that “the platforms were apparently eager to stay in the officials’ good graces.”

The court also explained why we have free speech. Censorship prevents the government from listening to its own citizens and thus harms states. “A government cannot abridge free speech,” the court says plainly, though it also says “a private party” bears “no such burden.” According to the “close nexus” test, there is a problem when the government uses “coercion and significant encouragement” to urge restricting speech. In fact, either satisfies the test. The court says, accurately, that “it is rare that coercion is so black and white” and the issues are often “complex and sprawling.”

Yet the court applies a relatively strict standard. It defined “encouragement” as a government actor exercising “active, meaningful control over the private party’s decision” and coercion as using “threats or otherwise, intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply.”

The court found some clear examples of this: “[O]fficials threw out the prospect of legal reforms and enforcement actions while subtly insinuating it would be in the platforms’ best interests to comply.” Censorship, said one bureaucrat, is “one of the easy, low-bar things you guys [can] do to make people like me [White House officials] think you’re taking action.”

The court was scathing about the Biden Administration’s conduct. “Officials made explicit threats and, at the very least, leaned into the inherent authority of the President’s office,” and made “inflammatory accusations,” charging that platforms were “killing people.” The court ruled that this was not just persuasion, but coercion. The FBI was “coercive.” The White House and what has become the nation’s de facto political police threatened and intimidated private actors into censorship.

However, it wasn’t so “black and white” for other groups. The CDC evidently was not “coercive,” though it did “significantly encourage” changes in moderation. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and State Department didn’t coerce or significantly encourage, according to the court. Director Anthony Fauci’s statements were simply “quintessential examples of government speech that do not run afoul of the First Amendment.” Thus, even though the court defended the previous ruling that government officials “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” it restricted the larger injunction in the interests of protecting the government’s right to free speech.

On the surface, this makes sense. The government can’t simply not communicate with social media companies. It would be like saying the government can’t ask the networks for airtime for the president to brief the nation on a crisis. Nonetheless, the court seemed blind to the importance of its own finding that the government really had inflicted an “irreparable injury on plaintiffs.” The court said that people should be skeptical that the government had stopped its abusive behavior, but its measures to prevent further abuses were tame.

The appeals court actually vacated nine of the 10 parts of the previous injunction; it removed the solid barriers preventing the government from complaining to social media about content. The remaining one was modified so that the government can’t “coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s content-moderation decisions.” This means no “threats of adverse consequences,” including unstated threats that remain obvious because of context. There must be no direct supervision of content moderation. That’s all very well, but it abolishes only the most direct and obvious threats. Any halfway competent bureaucrat will get around that.

What has been gained? The White House, FBI, Surgeon General, and CDC were found culpable, but they got away with it and will go unpunished. There are new restrictions on the government hectoring, but unless officials threaten like gangsters, they will still be able to get their way. The government can regulate social media, award contracts, and use power to reward or punish any of these businesses and their leaders (such as Elon Musk). They can still once again directly communicate with these companies, so long as they do it cleverly. The government gave censors a yawning escape clause.

It’s like what happened with affirmative action. The government ended it in theory, but in practice it left a way for colleges to continue to discriminate against whites by scrapping objective admissions criteria and highlighting ideological, political, and unstated racial tests. Universities want to discriminate against whites, and the Supreme Court didn’t stop them.

Here too, the court found that the government violated our most fundamental rights, but did little to stop it. Instead, it warned the government not to leave such obvious fingerprints at the crime scene. And, of course, it did nothing to keep social media themselves from imposing their views on the nation and wiping out all dissent. It’s a miserable failure. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that conservatives are busy congratulating themselves.

He is not the only one who questioned the 9-11 incident. Amongst it is a professor of structural engendering by the name of Judy Wood B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Who thoroughly documented this incident in her voluminous and well detailed book with plenty of illustrations as well as technical diagrams to dispel the myth that the impact of these airplanes could have turned these buildings literally into dust, not to mention that the third tower without it even being hit perfectly collapsed onto its base. Along with it various incidents that objects nearby not even exposed to any fire or apparent heat like for example some cars had melted windshields or engine blocks. An indication that there may have been other things in play which by some are referred to as Directed Energy Weapon, brushed aside by many as fantasy..but rest assured behind the scenes the US is already in possession of such technologies and then some. A hint of what the US may have and is desperately is concealing from the public may be seen by watching the following https://youtu.be/p2hk8Qp8dd0

What Really Happened on 9/11?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

September 21, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

According to the official narrative, on September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda carried out four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks against the United States, killing 2,750 civilians in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon and 40 airline passengers whose plane crashed in Pennsylvania

The 9/11 Commission Report was published July 22, 2004, but 28 pages of the report detailing the role of Saudi Arabia remain classified.Evidence suggests the Saudi government may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, but the U.S. government, FBI and CIA covered up the connection

Two of the 9/11 hijackers — Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar — were Saudi nationals whom high level sources claim were recruited into a joint CIA-Saudi intelligence operation. The CIA refused to share information about the recruits with the FBI, thereby preventing the FBI from launching a criminal investigation that could have stopped the terrorist plot. Other evidence points to an even more sinister possibility, namely that U.S. authorities not only knew about the potential for an attack beforehand, but were part of it

September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda carried out four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks against the United States, killing 2,750 civilians in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon and 40 airline passengers whose plane crashed in Pennsylvania.1 At least, that’s what we’ve been told. But is that really what happened?

The video above is a five-minute rapid-fire summary by investigative journalist James Corbett of the official narrative and the main problems with the “terrorist attack” narrative.In 2016, Corbett published a “9/11 Suspects” video series in which he dissected the alleged attacks and reviewed potential suspects. Four years later, he re-released the series as an hour-long documentary,2 embedded below for your convenience. As noted by Corbett in the documentary:3

“9/11 was a crime. This should not be a controversial statement, but given how 9/11 was framed as a terrorist attack or even an ‘act of war’ from the very moment that it occurred, it somehow is. If we lived in a world of truth and justice, 9/11 would have been approached as a crime to be solved rather than an attack to be responded to ...

Like a prosecutor trying to bring down a mafia kingpin, it is unlikely that such an investigation would start by bringing the suspected mastermind of the plot to trial. Such a vast and intricate operation would be picked apart from the outside, starting with people on the periphery of the plot who could be forced to testify under oath and who could provide leads further up the ladder.

As more and more of the picture was filled in, the case against the inner clique who ran the operation would begin to strengthen, and, gradually, more and more central figures could be brought to trial. We may not live in a world where such a criminal investigation is taking place, but we are trying the crimes of 9/11 in the court of public opinion ...

Over the course of The Corbett Report’s existence, I have looked at many figures who no doubt feature more prominently in the 9/11 plot itself from an operational standpoint: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim, Paul Bremer, Richard Armitage.

[In the documentary] we will look at some of the other suspects in that crime; not ringleaders or masterminds, not even people who were likely to know about the plot ahead of time. But those who helped cover up those crimes for the real perpetrators.”Characters featured in Corbett’s film are former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, executive director of the 9/11 commission Philip Zelikow, former CIA case officer Robert Baer and general Ralph Eberhart.

Was Saudi Arabia Involved?

As noted by Corbett, it took President Bush 441 days to establish a commission to investigate the events of 9/11, and even then he didn’t do it willingly. Bush reportedly resisted the idea of conducting an investigation, and even asked Senate majority leader Tom Daschle to limit Congressional inquiries.

Commission chairman Thomas Kean also later stated the commission members felt they’d been “set up to fail,” as the investigation was underfunded and rushed. Curiously, Zelikow, the executive director of the commission, had also authored the Bush administration’s 2002 national security strategy, which included the use of a “preemptive war” strategy against Iraq, which would seem a rather severe conflict of interest. The 9/11 Commission Report4 was published July 22, 2004, but to this day, 28 pages of the report detailing the role of Saudi Arabia remain classified. In April 2016, the editorial board of the New York Post called on then-President Barack Obama to declassify the sealed pages, stating “America deserves the truth about the Saudis and 9/11.” According to the New York Post:5

“As early as 2003, a U.S. official who’d read the pages told the Los Angeles Times they linked ‘direct involvement of senior Saudi government officials in a coordinated and methodical way directly’ to the terrorists ...

Paul Sperry has been writing in The Post about this for over three years, reporting that Riyadh’s involvement ‘was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government.’ Federal investigations were quashed and leads ignored ...Riyadh actively funded al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists for decades — officially stopping only after they turned on the Saudi kingdom. How many of the perfidious princes kept it up anyway?

Only the 9/11 commissioners have dared pursue that question. The rest of official Washington shied away, for fear disclosure would threaten the US-Saudi relationship.”

In another 2016 New York Post article, Sperry wrote:6

“... the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the U.S. Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was ‘diplomatic immunity.’ Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report ... detail ‘incontrovertible evidence’ gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego ...

‘The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,’ [former FBI agent John] Guandolo said. ‘He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the U.S. government knows are currently funding the global jihad.’”

At Least Two 9/11 Hijackers Were CIA Recruits

Even more disturbing is the declaration7 of Donald Canestraro, an investigator with the Office of Military Commissions, the legal body overseeing the cases of 9/11 defendants, who in July 2016 launched an investigation into the possible involvement of both the Saudi Arabian government and the CIA in events leading up to 9/11.

According to Canestraro, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers — Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar — were Saudi nationals who had been recruited into a joint CIA-Saudi intelligence operation. Hazmi and Mihdhar also lived with an FBI informant. Canestraro’s declaration confirms previous suspicions that the CIA knew far more about the hijackers than they admitted,8 and may in fact have been working with them at the time of the attacks. As reported by The Grayzone:9

“When originally released in 2021 on the Office’s public court docket, every part of the document was redacted except an ‘unclassified’ marking. Given its explosive contents, it is not difficult to see why: as Canestraro’s investigation concluded, at least two 9/11 hijackers had been recruited either knowingly or unknowingly into a joint CIA-Saudi intelligence operation which may have gone awry.

In 1996, Alec Station [a special CIA unit tasked with tracking the activities of Osama bin Laden] was created ... The initiative was supposed to comprise a joint investigative effort with the FBI. However, FBI operatives assigned to the unit soon found they were prohibited from passing any information to the Bureau’s head office without the CIA’s authorization ...

In late 1999, with ‘the system blinking red’ about an imminent large-scale Al Qaeda terror attack inside the U.S., the CIA and NSA were closely monitoring an ‘operational cadre’ within an Al Qaeda cell that included the Saudi nationals Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. The pair would purportedly go on to hijack American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

January 15th, Hazmi and Mihdhar entered the U.S. through Los Angeles International Airport ... Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi government ‘ghost employee’ immediately met them at an airport restaurant. After a brief conversation, Bayoumi helped them find an apartment near his own in San Diego, co-signed their lease, set them up bank accounts, and gifted $1,500 towards their rent ...

Bayoumi alleged his run-in with the two would-be hijackers was mere happenstance... The Bureau disagreed, concluding Bayoumi was a Saudi spy, who handled a number of Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. They also considered there to be a ‘50/50 chance’ he — and by extension Riyadh — had detailed advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks ...

A Bureau special agent, dubbed ‘CS-3’ in the document, stated Bayoumi’s contact with the hijackers and support thereafter ‘was done at the behest of the CIA through the Saudi intelligence service.’ Alec Station’s explicit purpose was to ‘recruit Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar via a liaison relationship,’ with the assistance of Riyadh’s General Intelligence Directorate.”

FBI-CIA Coverup

According to high level sources that spoke to Canestraro, it was highly unusual for Alec Station to recruit human assets. The unit consisted of CIA analysts whose job it was to collect intelligence on Osama bin Laden and warn policymakers about his activities. Alec Station was not equipped to handle covert operations.Moreover, if the CIA had recruited or even was just monitoring Hazmi and Mihdhar in the U.S., they were likely in violation of the CIA’s charter, as they’re not allowed to carry out operations on U.S. soil.

CIA case officers within Alec Station also admitted to other violations, such as directing field officers — over whom they had no legal authority — to carry out tasks for the unit. In the aftermath of 9/11, both Alec Station and the FBI suppressed investigations into the unit’s operation to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar.One key takeaway from the Grayzone’s extensive writeup about this affair is that the FBI could have stopped Hazmi and Mihdhar, if only the CIA unit had actually shared information with the FBI, as it was supposed to, as the FBI had already linked the pair to Walid bin Attash, another al-Qaeda terror suspect. As noted by Grayzone:

“Alec Station’s tireless efforts to protect its Al Qaeda assets raises the obvious question of whether Hazmi and Mihdhar, and possibly other hijackers, were in effect working for the CIA on the day of 9/11.The real motives behind the CIA’s stonewalling may never be known. But it appears abundantly clear that Alec Station did not want the FBI to know about or interfere in its secret intelligence operation.

If the unit’s recruitment of Hazmi and Mihdhar was purely dedicated to information gathering, rather than operational direction, it is incomprehensible that the FBI had not been apprised of it, and was instead actively misdirected.”

A question then arises. Had Alec Station gone rogue? It’s unlikely, considering no Alec Station member has ever been punished for the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to occur.

Was It an Inside Job?

As bad as all of that may seem, other evidence10 points to an even more sinister possibility, and that is that U.S. authorities not only knew about the potential for an attack beforehand, but that they were part of it. In other words, it may have been a false flag event, orchestrated to justify the implementation of the Patriot Act, which brought with it massively increased surveillance and reduced freedom, and the launch of the war in Afghanistan.

Just how and why did World Trade Center building 7 collapse? No planes struck it, and it wasn’t on fire. Speaking of fire, more than 3,000 architects and engineers have gone on record saying fire, even if fueled by jet fuel, couldn’t possibly cause a skyscraper to collapse into its own footprint, let alone a skyscraper that was undamaged.

According to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,11 the evidence clearly points to the three buildings being destroyed by explosives placed at strategic locations within the buildings, which means they had to have been planted well beforehand.

Was it pure coincidence that war games and terror drills were being conducted that very same day, allowing air defenses to be circumvented? Was it also pure coincidence that whatever hit the Pentagon vaporized the budget analyst office and its contents, which was trying to figure out where $2.3 trillion of the Pentagon’s budget had disappeared to?

And what’s the likelihood of finding an undamaged passport on the streets of New York City, identifying one of the hijackers, when the plane and the entire building had been turned to ash? These and many other questions have been asked by 911truth.org,12 which today, 22 years later, is still working to get answers. You can delve deeper into these questions on 911 Truth’s Case for Complicity page.13 The Journal of 9/11 Studies14 is another resource. It’s a peer-reviewed electronic-only journal that covers any and all research related to the events of 9/11.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.