TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @EpochTV
@EpochTV - EpochTV
"Censorship is no longer an act; it has now become an industry," says Global censorship expert @MikeBenzCyber. He joins @LeeSmithDC to discuss the millions of dollars being funneled to support "full-time professional censorship industry operatives." https://ept.ms/CIACensorship2-OT
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CIA has the power to censor media institutions abroad and plans to expand this censorship industry worldwide to control political systems and elections. The American empire is disseminating this industry and assisting other countries in setting it up. It is a government-funded and society-coordinated effort, turning censorship into an industry. This paints a dark future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The CIA has always had the power of censorship of media institution. They have a license to do this abroad.
Speaker 1: Did you get a sense of how bad was?
Speaker 0: Or Their plan is to basically roll out this censorship industry and install it in basically every country in the world to be able to control the political system the In the course of elections in every country.
Speaker 1: And so this is what the American empire looks like now. We are disseminating the censorship industry across the world? We're helping other countries set this up. The
Speaker 0: It is a whole of government funding effort and a whole of society coordination effort. Censorship is no longer an act. It has now become the industry
Speaker 1: That's a pretty dark future.
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
@EpochTV - EpochTV
An agency that most Americans have never heard of has been running a whole-of-government censorship operation. This is the CISA—the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. https://ept.ms/CensorshipBlocked
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a relatively unknown agency, has been involved in a censorship operation. However, a court order froze its powers of mass censorship, with the 5th Circuit ruling that CISA likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to censor free speech. This case is part of a larger issue tied to the Missouri v Biden case, where attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, arguing that government contact with social media companies for content removal violates the First Amendment. The court rulings have brought attention to the government's involvement in censorship through private companies. The battle over censorship is likely to continue to the Supreme Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening and welcome to Crossroads. An agency that most Americans have never heard of Has been running a whole of society censorship operation. This is CISA, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency. It's under the Department of Homeland Security. And on October 3rd, the agency's powers of mass censorship were frozen by a court order.
Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey wrote on Twitter that the 5th Circuit held yesterday that CISA likely violated the First Amendment, when it coerced social media companies into censoring free speech. He added this, Think about that for a second. CISA was weaponized against the very citizens it was designed to protect. Now the case is part of something much larger and something that's gonna very likely only end with a future determination from the Supreme Court. It ties to the Missouri v Biden case.
The attorneys general of Missouri and of Louisiana Filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration arguing that the government's contact with social media companies to request removal of Content is a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The issue at play is this. Now, government censorship is, of course, unconstitutional. The government can't directly censor you. But private businesses like social networks or news organizations, they have Many rights to remove content and to censor users themselves.
But what happens when the government requests a private Company remove content or censor a user for that matter. Does it still count as a private company doing it or does the pressure from the government Represent a type of state censorship by proxy. Well, so far, it seems the courts agree with the latter. On July 4th, a federal judge in Louisiana determined that the Biden administration was violating standards on protected speech. The court issued a temporary injunction that essentially brought a temporary end to government censorship by proxy of that type.
It banned several government agencies from communicating with social media companies. These include the FBI, the Justice Department overall, the Department of Homeland Security, the exception to this was if federal agencies alerted the social networks of Crimes or threats to national security, or for example, attempts to influence the elections. The decision was taken by many as a Kind of wake up call before that ruling took place. It had been widely alleged, the establishment media, that they were saying there was no censorship like is taking place, many had been told that censorship by private companies was not censorship. And folks like myself, who were Exposing the government hand behind that censorship were largely being written off.
But that ruling, coupled with the Twitter files which revealed how the FBI and other agencies were regularly communicating with social networks to censor Americans, that ruling changed things. Of course, the ban on government censorship of that sort did not last in its entirety. The Biden administration has been directly challenging it. And an appeals court in the 5th Circuit overturned part of it in early September. It argued the ban on government agencies with social media companies was too vague, but the case is, of course, still ongoing.
And that being said, the latest ruling is actually even more significant than the July 4th one. It goes beyond just upholding the injunction. It expands it. And even more importantly, it expands that injunction to include a federal agency that functions as the pseudo Heartbeat of government censorship, the agency that beats the drums for censorship for all the other agencies, CISA. Now, the updated injunction also includes the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and of course, the FBI as well.
And again, the battle over censorship, again, it's not over yet. It's very likely to keep going to appeal all the way to the Supreme court. But for now, the systems of government censorship are largely on hold. The government, at least to a very large extent cannot directly censor you either through its own actions or by proxy currently. Now attorney general Bailey wrote an x that if you don't remember, the 5th Circuit already handed out a court order blocking the Biden administration from Silencing disfavored viewpoints.
He noted that CISA was originally not included in the 5th Circuits order. They filed a motion asking the 5th Circuit to include CISA and that request was granted. So what exactly is CISA? Attorney General Bailey describes it as the nerve center of the vast censorship enterprise. The very entity that worked with the FBI to Silence the Hunter Biden laptop story, but is that the case?
Well, yes, it is actually. Now, In the true spirit of the agency, it looks like they've been scrubbing some of their own public records. They've been removing videos on their operations And they've been redirecting web pages that used to document some of the agency's most concerning practices, but luckily we have of the archives, and I'm gonna show them to you. CISA actually has a YouTube page. Now, a lot of it these days is more just videos from webinars and things like Cybersecurity alerts and so on.
But it wasn't always that way, they used to have some content detailing some of the agency's most Controversial programs. One of the videos from June of 2021 was called Countering disinformation in social media. Now, if you were to go to the link to that now on YouTube, you're met with This. It's a simple alert saying this video isn't available anymore. And I did a search online, it looks like they Scrubbed it from every discoverable part of the Internet.
But luckily, I played part of it on Crossroads last year. Let me show you that clip.
Speaker 1: Welcome to cybersecurity 101. Class is in session. Today's lesson, countering disinformation on social media. If you're on social media, you probably know that some information found there is fake or dishonest. How can you tell?
And who is behind it? Let's take a closer look. Since 2020, there has been a lot of false and inaccurate information about COVID nineteen.
Speaker 0: Now remember, that's what they're being accused of. The agency was working with social media companies on censorship. And also a big part of the controversy is that CISA and the Biden administration ran into, really, overall, when it comes to censorship, was about targeting people who covered COVID It turned out they even labeled a handful of online commentators the quote, disinformation dozen. Government agencies were communicating with social networks like Twitter and Facebook to silence them and many others. Here's former White House press Kateri Jen Psaki saying as much.
Speaker 2: There's about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. All of them remain active on Facebook despite some even being banned on other platforms, including Facebook, ones that Facebook owns. 3rd, it's important to take faster action against harmful post. As you all know, information travels quite quickly on social media platforms. Sometimes it's not accurate, and Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violated posts.
Speaker 0: Interesting.
‘Nerve Center’ of Government Censorship Blocked by Court Order
An agency that most Americans have never heard of has been running a whole-of-government censorship operation. This is CISA, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure
theepochtimes.com
@EpochTV - EpochTV
You may have heard about an illegal Chinese lab that was discovered recently in California. The lab was housing dozens of deadly pathogens including COVID-19, tuberculosis, HIV, and dengue fever. That’s a pretty big deal, especially since the pandemic. https://ept.ms/IllegalChineseLab_TON
Video Transcript AI Summary
In California, an illegal Chinese lab housing dangerous pathogens, including COVID, tuberculosis, HIV, and dengue fever, was discovered. However, the corporate media covered it up, with the Associated Press claiming it posed no danger. Despite 305 pages of court filings stating otherwise, the media stuck to the official narrative. This show delves into the facts, revealing a national scandal of epic proportions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You may have heard about an illegal Chinese lab that was discovered in California housing dozens of deadly pathogens, including COVID, tuberculosis, HIV and dengue fever that's a pretty big deal especially since COVID so the corporate media covered it up nothing to see here. The Associated Press led the way, breathlessly claiming that an illicit Chinese owned lab fueled conspiracy theories, but officials say it post no danger see, no danger, all good. Other media organizations just parroted the Associated Press despite the fact that there are at least 3 0 5 pages of court filings to do with the shutting down of the lab that all say the opposite. Of course, reading 305 pages takes a long time and those 305 pages also contain a lot of uncomfortable truths so the media just decided to stick to the official narrative Well, not on this show. We dug into the facts and can now tell you the real story and what a crazy story it is, a national scandal of epic proportions.
Illegal Chinese-Owned California Lab Posed Huge National Security Threat, Court Filings Show | Truth Over News
You may have heard about an illegal Chinese lab that was discovered in California housing dozens of deadly ...
theepochtimes.com
@EpochTV - EpochTV
EXCLUSIVE: The Capitol Hill Tapes Exclusive investigation into 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟔 based on 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐥 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 https://ept.ms/3KVxjll
[PREMIERING 8/11 at 9 AM ET] EXCLUSIVE: The Capitol Hill Tapes
The Epoch Times was given access to tens of thousands of hours of U.S. Capitol Police security video ...
theepochtimes.com
@EpochTV - EpochTV
In the ongoing and evolving saga surrounding David Weiss—the U.S. Attorney for Delaware in charge of the Hunter Biden Investigation—one thing remains clear. His story regarding his ability to actually charge Mr. Biden has shifted and evolved. https://ept.ms/AShamInvestigation_TON https://ept.ms/AShamInvestigation_TON
Video Transcript AI Summary
The ongoing saga surrounding David Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware and the Hunter Biden investigation, has raised questions about his ability to charge Hunter. Whistleblower Gary Shapley testified that Weiss stated he was not the deciding official on charges in the Hunter case, contradicting Attorney General Merrick Garland's comments. Weiss also claimed he had sought authority to bring charges against Hunter in the District of Columbia but was denied. Shapley's account was confirmed by others at the meeting. The release of Shapley's testimony prompted Garland to reiterate Weiss's authority, but Weiss later confirmed he needed to partner with relevant US attorneys. Weiss's shifting statements raise doubts about his credibility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everyone. And welcome to Truth Over News. In the ongoing and evolving saga surrounding David Weiss, The US attorney for Delaware, and the man ostensibly in charge of the Hunter Biden investigation, one thing remains clear. His story regarding his ability to actually charge Hunter has shifted and evolved, while the story from the IRS whistle blowers who outed the Hunter investigation cover up has remained staunchly the same. If you recall, whistleblower Gary Shapley testified that on October 7, 2022, Weisz told a roomful of senior level managers from IRS Criminal Investigation, FBI, and the Delaware US Attorney's Office that he was not the deciding official on whether charges are filed in the Hunter case.
This statement attributed to Weiss was Totally inconsistent with public comments to the contrary from attorney general Merrick Garland presenting a very real problem for Garland and the Biden DOJ.
Speaker 1: The US attorney in Delaware has been, advised that he has full authority, To to make those kind of, referrals that you're talking about or to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary. And I will assure that if he does, he will be able to do that.
Speaker 0: Furthermore, according to Shapley, Weiss told the assembled agents in the same meeting that months before, He had sought and been denied the authority to bring felony tax evasion charges against Hunter Biden in the District of Columbia by Biden's political appointee, The US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves. Weiss further told the agents during that October 7th meeting That he had requested special counsel or special attorney status from Maine Justice in order to bring charges in the District of Columbia, but had been rebuffed. These additional statements from Weiss to the IRS agents during that meeting are also inconsistent with Garland's public comments and inconsistent with Weiss's multiplying public comments, the latest of which were made in a July 10th response letter to senator Graham, which we'll get to shortly. There's also the obvious problem of Weiss subordinating himself to a Biden political appointee at all. As a result of all this, Schappley testified that Weiss informed him the government would not be bringing charges against Hunter Biden for the 2014 and 2015 tax years, for which the statute of limitations was set to expire in a month.
Of course, those limitations are now long past. As Shapley stated, all of our years of effort getting to the bottom of the massive amounts of foreign money Hunter Biden received from Burisma and others during that period would be for nothing. However, unknown to Weiss, Shapley's account of Weiss's statements were memorialized in an email that Shapley wrote directly after that meeting ended, noting that he believed this was a huge problem and inconsistent with DOJ public position and Merrick Garland testimony. Shapley's supervisor then confirmed the accuracy of Shapley's statements In a follow-up email. On June 7, 2023, Weiss wrote to chairman Jim Jordan on behalf of Garland In response to questions from Jordan posed to Garland regarding his testimony that Weiss had complete authority in the Hunter investigation, Weiss, or whoever actually drafted that letter, appears to have gone to great lengths to backup Garland, stating that I want to make clear that as the attorney general has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.
Weisz's statement presented us with 3 possibilities. Weisz lied to his top investigators. Weis and Garland deceive Congress? Or Shapley is lying? And as we know, Shapley's account of things was confirmed by others at the meeting, Including his supervisor.
We also know the New York Times recently confirmed that US attorneys in both DC and Los Angeles Rejected any prosecution by Weis of Hunter. But there's an additional rather large problem for Weis, Garland, and the DOJ. Weiss wrote his response letter to Jordan before the House Ways and Means Committee released Shapley's testimony and backing documentation on June 22nd. In other words, neither Weisz, Garland, nor the DOJ would have known that Shapley had that October 7, 2022 email to corroborate his oral testimony when Weiss's original statement was drafted. And it's all but certain that Weiss didn't actually write that letter, something Jordan also took issue with.
This was a problem for all involved at the DOJ, As Shapley's full testimony and backing documents were exclusive, including the now infamous text from Hunter to his Chinese business partners, Where Hunter wrote that, I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father. The release of Shapley's testimony on June 22nd prompted another appearance from Garland the following day, With former Obama official and current deputy AG, Lisa Monaco, the real head of Biden's DOJ, peering sternly over Garland's shoulder.
Speaker 1: To as I said at the outset, mister Weiss, who was appointed by president Trump as the US attorney in Delaware and assigned this matter during the previous administration would be permitted to continue his investigation And to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to.
Speaker 0: Garland doubled down on his prior testimony, saying Weiss could make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to, and in any district in which he wanted to. A few days later, on June 30th, Weiss wrote to Jordan again, stating that my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. If the venue for a case lies elsewhere, common departmental practice is to contact the US Attorney's Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. Now note the crucial shift in Weiss's statement. Weiss originally said he'd been ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.
But now, in his 2nd letter, Weiss was forced to confirm exactly what Shapley had told Congress, that Weiss did not have full authority to bring charges, but had to partner with the relevant US Attorney. This shift from Weiss is particularly important because Shapley, as you'll remember, Had alleged that Weiss was denied the authority to bring felony tax evasion charges against Hunter in the District of Columbia by the DC US attorney Matthew Graves, A Biden political appointee. Now, despite earlier claims to the contrary by both Weiss and Garland, Weiss appeared to be corroborating this portion of Shapley's testimony. All of this brings us to the 3rd letter from Weiss, or those answering on his behalf. This time in response to a letter from Lindsey Graham.
Weiss was very careful in his wording, claiming that he had not requested special counsel designation, but did have discussions regarding special attorney authority, which would have allowed Weiss to file charges in a district outside Delaware Without the partnership of the local US attorney, Weiss claimed that he was assured that he would be granted this authority if it proved necessary. But of course, in needing to seek authority in the 1st place, Weisz acknowledged Shapley's claims that he was not the deciding official on whether charges are filed in the Hunter case. Weis also claimed that this assurance came months before the October 7th meeting. In other words, Weisz acknowledged that the October 7th meeting referenced by Shapley definitely happened. Finally, Weiss claimed that he had never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.
This means the legal distinctions between special counsel and a special attorney are irrelevant. Weiss told the IRS agents during that October 7 meeting that he had asked for authority to filed charges against Hunter in DC and had been turned down, which leaves us with 2 viable possibilities. Weisz either lied to those agents or is lying now.
US Attorney’s Statements on Hunter Biden Investigation & Actions by Lead Prosecutor Raise Huge Questions for DOJ | Truth Over News
In the ongoing and evolving saga surrounding David Weiss—the U.S. Attorney for Delaware and the man ostensibly in ...
theepochtimes.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Experts discuss strategies for optimal pregnancy and protecting pregnant women and their babies from COVID19 vaccine risks on OnTheFrontline. Concerns about microclotting in the placenta due to the vaccine are rising. Tune in for more.
@EpochTV - EpochTV
Concerns about micro-clotting in the placenta due to COVID-19 #vaccines are rising. Tune in to @OnTheFrontline with OB/GYN 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗽 and family physician 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 as they discuss strategies for optimal pregnancy. https://ept.ms/43GtzLk
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, doctors discuss the impact of inflammation on pregnancy and the importance of optimizing blood flow to the developing baby. They also mention the need to restore the immune system before trying to conceive if vaccinated. Checking gestural levels in women is not a common practice among obstetricians, and they do not typically consider it as a preventive measure for miscarriage in vaccinated women. One of the doctors shares that he has observed a significant increase in fetal stillbirth rates after the vaccine was introduced.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dan, we've known for a long time that the one of the greatest threats to pregnancy is inflammation.
Speaker 1: When it does not have adequate flow, the consequence of that is miscarried. You just have to do whatever you can to prevent these Small blood clots and to optimize the flow to the developing baby. Today on Frontline Health, we chat with OB GYN, doctor James Thorpe, In a family physician, doctor John Littel.
Speaker 0: If you were vaccinated and you wanna get pregnant, I I wait. What we wanna do Is we want to restore as best we can your immune system.
Speaker 1: 99% of obstetricians don't even think about checking the gestural levels in women. And, of course, I don't think they would consider doing these to prevent a miscarriage in a woman who's been vaxxed. Doctor Thorpe has managed Over 26,000 high risk pregnancies in the past 4 years.
Speaker 0: The fetal stillbirth rate rose dramatically by my own eyes after the vaccine was rolled out.
Birth Rates Are Dropping Worldwide Post COVID-19 Vaccination—Here's What Women Can Do
Birth rates have fallen all over the world "ominously," said Dr. James Thorp, a practicing obstetrician gynecologist who ...
theepochtimes.com
@EpochTV - EpochTV
Worried about COVID-19 #vaccine risks during pregnancy? Join 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗽 and 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 @OnTheFrontline as they discuss strategies to protect pregnant women and their babies. https://ept.ms/43GtzLk
Birth Rates Are Dropping Worldwide Post COVID-19 Vaccination—Here's What Women Can Do
Birth rates have fallen all over the world "ominously," said Dr. James Thorp, a practicing obstetrician gynecologist who ...
theepochtimes.com