reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This case was filed last May by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with private plaintiffs, against numerous agencies in the federal government. Plaintiffs alleged that the government (including the FBI, White House, Surgeon General, CISA, among many others) were forcing social media companies to censor speech by threat.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This case was filed last May by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with private plaintiffs, against numerous agencies in the federal government. Plaintiffs alleged that the government (including the FBI, White House, Surgeon General, CISA, among many others) were forcing social media companies to censor speech by threat.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The Plaintiffs wanted a temporary injunction to STOP this activity as their case moved to trial. Judge Terry Doughty granted them expedited limited discovery and deposition to get the information they needed to prove a temporary injunction was warranted.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Of course, the government fought this the entire way, but ultimately were widely unsuccessful. The information plaintiffs received was absolutely mind blowing. For certain the government was coercing social media companies to censorship— the discovery proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
It came time for a hearing on the injunction, and I traveled to Louisiana for that hearing. It was 8 hours long, and absolutely damning for the government. If you see the post I placed in the first post in this thread, you can scroll down and read all about it.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Since that hearing, I have been honored to do several spaces with @ThaWoodChipper, who also understands the importance of this monumental civil rights case. It is the most important civil rights case in the modern era, hands down. We waited patiently for the ruling… And on July 4th, we got it.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
On July 4th, the district court under an absolutely AMAZING judge in Terry Doughty, ruled in FAVOR of the Plaintiffs. Here is where you need to pay attention. Everything this judge wrote in his ruling is a PROVEN FACT in a court of law. In a 155 page ruling, the judge METICULOUSLY dissected the record and rendered a judgement.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I threaded this ruling when it happened, and you can find it on my “highlights” page - but I want to make something clear; the fact set the judge is relying on here came from EXTREMELY limited discovery and deposition from ONLY the government Defendants.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, the ruling was for a temporary injunction to STOP the government from the following while carving out some exceptions for them, AS THE REST OF THE CASE PROGRESSED THROUGH DISCOVERY AND TO TRIAL. Read this very carefully.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This list is going to be very important as we move forward through this thread, so please bookmark this for reference moving forward. So, the government obviously appealed this to the 5th circuit. The court heard the appeal in an expedited fashion (for them) and yesterday, THEIR opinion was filed.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
It is hard to completely rehash all of the reporting I have done over the past year and some months in a short update, but basically the government argued that they weren’t threatening anyone ever and everything we got in discovery was nonsense and misinterpreted, and the 3 judge panel of the court of appeals had to listen to that, while reviewing the DETAILED fact set the judge had ruled on in the order for the injunction.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, quickly, what we are about to go through is the 5th circuits decision on whether or not to UPHOLD the ruling that Judge Doughty made barring the government agencies listed from the actions listed above in the 4 set screenshot, or to REVERSE that ruling. It isn’t about the entire case— ONLY the temporary injunction.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I am probably 70/30 on how this panned out, but the details are important. The government asked that if the court should rule against them, they put a stay (pause) on the order for 10 days so that they could appeal it to the SCOTUS. The 5th did that, so the ruling they just laid down is PAUSED for 10 more days while the government attempts to write to the SCOTUS convincing them that they SHOULD be able to force social media companies to censor you. Chew on that for a minute.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Also, in the interim while we waited for this decision, I had the honor of interviewing both @AGAndrewBailey from Missouri, and @AGJeffLandry from Louisiana. Both are WONDERFUL examples of what you want in a state Attorney General. For links, see: Andrew Bailey: https://rumble.com/v342ndn-dark-to-light-missouri-attorney-general-andrew-bailey.html Jeff Landry: https://rumble.com/v36i7oh-dark-to-light-missouri-v.-biden-and-ag-jeff-landry.html
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@AGAndrewBailey @AGJeffLandry We are about to travel through 74 pages together.. Grab coffee, whatever, and off we go. Here is the link to the decision, and here is a summary of what we are about to dissect as best we can. LINK: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, the court agrees the government is guilty of what is alleged, but not for ALL of the officials that Judge Doughty did. Remember, everything is based on the limited discovery they were able to receive, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and we will go through the reasons why. Still, the fact this was affirmed AT ALL is a massive, massive win.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@AGAndrewBailey @AGJeffLandry They summarized much more concisely than I ever could… https://t.co/mOVcbQlst9
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
1. The White House and Surgeon General - taken together Here the appeals court affirms that the WH and SG requested social media companies remove posts and pressured them to do so. It also affirms that they also monitored the platforms moderation activities, demanded information from them about their policies, “Always, the officials asked for more data and stronger interventions” said the 5th.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
From the beginning the platforms cooperated - even creating special tools, but as officials began to demand more from them, the platforms worked to “appease” government officials, “eager” to stay in their good graces. https://t.co/JRstpgWUIH
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Remember, everything in this decision REAFFIRMS a fact pattern. Here the 5th affirms that the WH and SG attempted to interfere with the platforms own POLICY creation. This is so important. The government can not do this. https://t.co/Xs82GI5HzO
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Here the court affirms that platforms changed their moderation policy after instruction from the government… Tsk Tsk “…they also changed their moderation policies expressly in accordance with the officials’ wishes…” https://t.co/k1bN5Pxz11
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
As an aside, I don’t want to hear ONE PERSON come at any of us who have been saying this for years and say it is “misinformation” any longer. This is now affirmed both in congress and in two courts - a district court and the court of appeals of the United States. @krassenstein and @EdKrassen argued with me in a space once that this is all totally untrue. I hope they will revise their positions. I wont hold my breath.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The discovery proved that the changes many of the platforms enacted coincided closely with meeting between the WH and SG and the platforms. And even when they didn’t adopt the changes, they censored content that DID NOT BREAK their terms of service after that content was flagged by the government.. Again, marinate on it…
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@krassenstein At the same time as they were demoting normal Americans, the social media platforms capitulated to government demands to “amplify” (inorganically) the governments “approved” narrative, specifically in this case when it pertained to vaccines for COVID. https://t.co/asT2LPmGow
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I want everyone to think about the above for a moment. They were forcing inorganic amplification so people would be fooled into thinking the vaccine was “safe and effective” when one of them was REMOVED because it wasn’t. The sheer evil behind the obvious is unbelievable.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even with all of that, the ministry of truth wasn’t happy, scolding platforms for not doing enough, and trying to coerce them to do more. All of this to get that needle in your arm, consequences be damned… https://t.co/u1Ws27lq1M
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And here the court details the infamous press conference, where Jen Psaki and Vivek Murthy *expressly threatened* the platforms from the bully pulpit, even singling out certain accounts.. This was the ultimate in authoritarianism, and the 5th circuit agrees. https://t.co/pfuKR2Dl6a
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“The platforms responded with total compliance. Their answer was four-fold.” The social media companies responded with child like obedience to daddy government. You can’t make this up. https://t.co/7KdEbIZtoF
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They changed their internal policies in response to the presser… https://t.co/6mUxhGE6FP
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They removed speakers (like the so called “disinfo dozen” that they HAD NOT BEEN targeting BEFORE the press conference, and they continued to inorganically amplify the government’s content. https://t.co/CoBxeDgV0A
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even this wasn’t enough for the ministry of truth. They continued their public threats, invoking Section 230 protection as a cudgel for MORE action, and using the office of the President as a backbone for that threat. https://t.co/lSVh0dUC71
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“Next, we turn to the CDC” says the 5th panel. They behaved much like the White House and Surgeon General. They flagged posts with supposed “misinformation” and actively sought to promote its “official” position over others. They also provided direct guidance to the platforms on the application of their internal policy and moderation activities.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They had BOLO (Be on the Lookout) meetings on “misinformation” hot topics. They asked for moderation changes, and they OUTRIGHT DIRECTED platforms to take certain actions. Direct violation of the constitution. Platforms began relying on the CDC to “Debunk” posts it wasn’t sure about.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And now, the good ol’ FBI. They regularly met with platforms, at least since the 2020 election. They shared “Strategic information” to alert them to “misinformation” trends in the lead up to the elections. https://t.co/yvtGq79TMf
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Per their operations, the FBI monitored platforms moderation policies and asked for “detailed assessments” during regular meetings. Some platforms changed their TOS to be able to comply with the FBI. While the government boasted that *only* 50% of the domestic (I repeat - DOMESTIC) content they wanted to remove was removed, the court didn’t find that so beneficial for them.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This is going to be the part where my disappointment comes in…But, again, this isn’t the CASE decision, its the decision on the injunction only.. They talk about NIAID, CISA, and the State Department. NIAID and Fauci didn’t have regular contact with platforms or flag, they mainly appeared on Live Streams and podcasts and had those amplified. CISA and the SD directly engaged with the platforms and discussed the tools and techniques that foreign influence actors would use.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The State Department didn’t flag content, but CISA did, acting as an intermediary for third party groups and then “switch boarding” based off of the EIP and CIS. The officials actions “apparently led to content being removed or demoted by the recipient platforms” https://t.co/KuNQmkYwuW
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Relying on the fact set above, the district court concluded that the officials coerced platforms to remove content and change their moderation policies, and therefore were likely to succeed on the merits, granting the injunction. https://t.co/3vpLFQuWg7
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
LEGAL THEORY: On standing - Any ONE plaintiff that demonstrates ongoing harm or continued injury is enough to pass the standing argument, a fact that was argued eloquently by the Plaintiff attorney in court. https://t.co/1CGDLZqSRK
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government is arguing that Plaintiffs dont have standing because they can’t prove a FUTURE injury. Here the court goes over their PAST injury. But the court doesn’t agree with the government. They believe there is ongoing injury and there will be future injury as well. https://t.co/Gfmm96ScvQ
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I want to stop for a second (again) and go over how monumental this actually is. This is the first time ever that a normal “user” or American has submitted evidence of social media censorship and had their concerns ADDRESSED at all by a COURT OF LAW.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Another HUGE precedent set here - the past chilling of their speech has caused individuals to SELF CENSOR. That is considered ongoing harm. This is a massive and very important section. https://t.co/vfa8NBIywk
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“As the Supreme Court has recognized, this chilling of the Individual Plaintiffs exercise of their First Amendment Rights, is, itself, a constitutionally sufficient injury.” They rule that the fears motivating the self censorship aren’t hypothetical, and come from very real censorship injuries they have previously suffered… Legal Eagles, affirm for me the importance of JUST this paragraph.. Amazing.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government had tried to argue that ongoing harms were not going to occur because, for example, Twitter had “stopped” enforcing its COVID misinformation policy. But the court disagrees, saying that they have been censored for views well beyond COVID. Continued next— very important.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Here is something ANYONE who is considering any sort of lawsuit needs to consider. The court here aptly notes that plaintiffs aren’t suing the platforms over their TOS, they are suing to stop the GOVERNMENT from interfering with platforms. Also - the government admitted in oral argument that they are STILL in contact with these platforms today. TLDR; the court doesn’t trust that the government isn’t still forcing social media companies to censor..
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This is GRAND. The government argued that because the users had been REINSTATED, all is well. The court rightly says no. The fact that they WERE REINSTATED is what causes the threat of ongoing harm. If they didn’t have an account, they wouldn’t have to worry about censorship— they wouldn’t be able to post. Masterful.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The first standing hurdle, crossed and landed for Plaintiffs. This means any chance of appeal on standing to SCOTUS is likely a failure. The government had argued this standing issue over, and over, and over and have been shot down every single time. Now that is reinforced yet again. This case isn’t going ANYWHERE.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The Plaintiffs had to show that their injuries were traceable to conduct of the government. Government argued that since the content moderation policies were in place in the Trump administration, and also because moderation decisions were made independently by the social media companies. They had no standing. However, the plaintiffs aren’t challenging the policies themselves, but whether they can be traced back to government actors. The appeals court agrees with the district court that yes, they can be.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even though there were instances where social media companies declined to censor, the Plaintiffs only have to show the likelihood they would comply, not certainty. The logical conclusion is that they would, based on the preliminary discovery they received.. https://t.co/iBBr8Z4vGw
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And I want to again stress, this was LIMITED discovery. The judge in the district court had made it a point in an order to let the government know that this was a mere scintilla of what would be required for production moving forward. So position this for yourselves - all of this is coming from an EXTREMELY limited production of evidence, which will now broaden to include more officials, more agency heads, more PRIVATE companies, like Facebook, Google, and X, that will be subpoenaed and deposed for evidence at trial.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Next on standing, the Plaintiffs had to prove that their injuries could be redressed by a favorable decision on the injunction. https://t.co/yr5tIK2Usd
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Again, key here is that the Plaintiffs aren’t challenging the social media companies policies themselves, rather they asked for the government from being restrained from unlawfully interfering with their independent application of those policies. https://t.co/kut8vbUl2L
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And IMPORTANTLY, the government had argued that the state plaintiffs didn’t have standing. That goes right down the trash shoot here, and it is a BIG deal. States were censored by platforms. This court determines they have standing as well. https://t.co/CSJYbS0iVE
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And an interesting little tidbit here. Other state officials have experienced censorship as well, so this isn’t limited to just Missouri and Louisiana. https://t.co/lLRibdfomG
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And next, a very important part of the 1st Amendment that often goes undiscussed. THE RIGHT TO LISTEN. Constituent plaintiffs were harmed by the censorship of their elected representatives, and the elected representatives and states are harmed WHEN THEY CAN NOT HEAR their constituents. This was discussed at length in my interview with @AGJeffLandry
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The appeals court rules that Plaintiffs have standing - finally putting that issue to bed (hopefully) and also the court makes sure to include that even the CDC admitted the need to “hear” citizens. It may be for a different reason for them, but if you think about it - if the government couldn’t “hear” what we are all saying, they wouldn’t know what narrative they needed to craft to counter the truth… Goes both ways. NEXT!
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
There is a high bar to hit to even be granted an injunction. You must meet four criteria, as detailed below. 1. You are likely to succeed on the merits of your case. 2. There is a “substantial threat that you will suffer “irreparable injury” without it. 3. The injury you could sustain outweighs whatever “harm” the injunction could cause the other side 4. An injunction doesn’t disserve the public interest.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
FRAME THIS. “The Plaintiffs allege that federal officials ran afoul of the First Amendment by coercing and significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor disfavored speech, including by threats of adverse government action like antitrust enforcement and legal reforms. WE AGREE”
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government CAN NOT abridge free speech. Private parties are not normally constrained by the first amendment. Again, the importance of this can not be understated. We are here because they government acted through threats to social media companies to censor “disfavored” viewpoints. Every case against a social media company for their TOS or their censorship moves has failed because Plaintiffs have targeted the social media company rather than the government. One exception I know of off the top of my head is the Berenson case, and he settled.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Took a quick pause for my carnivore lunch. Back in a moment.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
My thread broke here for some reason. No, I didn't take a VERY extended carnivore lunch..... https://t.co/hSVRWeyvDG
@amuse - @amuse
USAID: It is over. More than 600 USAID employees have being locked out of the agency’s computer systems overnight. The rest received emails saying that “at the direction of Agency leadership” the headquarters building “will be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, Feb. 3.” https://t.co/bXdsh0FFYM
@amuse - @amuse
USAID: The organized crime operation parading around as a humanitarian aid organization is over… https://t.co/S9prd4ls2j
@amuse - @amuse
DOGE: 81yo Judge Kollar-Kotelly is the same judge that sentenced 75yo pro-life protester Paula Harlow to two years in prison. Now she's blocking Trump's administration from making changes to the Treasury Department's payment system. DOGE is blocked completely and Treasury officials have 'read-only' rights. This means that, if Trump's team follows the rules, no one can pause, delete, or add a payment. This is no way to run a government. Also, the DOJ lawyer handling the case for the Trump administration is the same one that was involved in the case that provided a $2M settlement to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The swamp is deep - keep draining Mr. President.
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: Total BS…
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
This ruling will not age well. Remember, Trump wants this. Trump in his team expected this, that the deep state would attempt to use judges to block executive actions from executive branch official. This is all going to be hashed out now not a year or two from now . They are taking their best shot with the judges to stop him. Legally and constitutionally, they have no leg to stand on .
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
This is an activist posing as a judge
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Let me see if I have this right. The Treasury Secretary CANNOT access any data from the treasury? Wow. Who is afraid the secrets are coming out. This judge was not elected nor was he given the mandate by the people. Enough is enough. WE THE PEOPLE demand transparency. IT IS OUR MONEY, NOT YOURS.
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
This is insane. A DC federal judge has ordered the commander-in-chief not to bring home overseas foreign-service officers. This is lawless. And a dangerous sabotage of the President’s Article II constitutional powers. (Maybe this judge has a conflict of interest?) https://t.co/VOnWOQmOES
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 #BREAKING: A federal judge has just sided with Elon Musk and DOGE, REJECTING an effort to block them them from accessing government information systems This is a HUGE win! 🔥 DOGE now has the green-light to fully dig into Elizabeth Warren’s CFPB, HHS, and the Department of Labor Expect MANY more of these wins in court!
@WallStreetMav - Wall Street Mav
I just reviewed news on the word "USAID". It is all stories about how horrible it is that Trump and Elon shut it down. There are ZERO stories about the crazy items that USAID was spending money on. They are trying to create a fake narrative to that USAID was an awesome agency and Trump is horrible for stopping the flow of money.
@The_Jtoms101 - Devil Dog
🚨 BREAKING: MEDIA NOW HOSTING A FUNERAL FOR USAID 🚨 Y’all, I just Googled “USAID,” and apparently, Trump and Elon personally turned off the world’s oxygen supply. At least, that’s what the headlines are saying. 📰 “USAID was the heart and soul of humanity!” 📰 “Without USAID, the world may not survive!” 📰 “Trump and Elon hate poor people, confirmed!” But guess what’s mysteriously missing from all these sob stories? ❌ ANY actual reporting on what USAID was spending money on. ❌ ANY mention of the sketchy projects they were funneling billions into. ❌ ANY explanation of why shutting it down might be… a good thing? It’s almost like we weren’t supposed to notice that USAID was: 💰 Dropping millions on gender studies in countries that still stone women. 💰 Funding “infrastructure projects” where nothing ever got built. 💰 Paying for D.C. cocktail parties instead of actual aid. The media is clutching its pearls like USAID was a holy temple, when in reality it was just a government ATM with no withdrawal limits. The funniest part? Nobody outside of Washington even knew what USAID did until Trump shut it down. Now suddenly, half of X is acting like they’ve been volunteering there every weekend since birth. Here’s a thought: If your “charity” dies the second the free government money stops flowing, it wasn’t a charity—it was a money-laundering Ponzi scheme. And the fact that CNN is crying harder than Nancy Pelosi at an empty wine glass? Yeah, that tells you everything you need to know. 💀🔥
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
The House Dems are trying to hide the biggest fraud in history
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 HOUSE DEMS TRY TO KILL ELON’S DOGE PROGRAM—NEED JUST 3 GOP DEFECTORS House Democrats are trying to shut down DOGE by pushing the Taxpayer Data Protection Act, which would block DOGE from accessing IRS records to root out waste and fraud. They’re desperately hunting for three House Republicans to flip, targeting Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Don Bacon (R-NE) to help them block Elon’s reforms. While Democrats fear an “unelected billionaire” making government more efficient, Republicans argue that DOGE is essential to tackling the $36 trillion national debt and holding Washington accountable. Source: Fox News Digital
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸BREAKING: JUDGE SHUTS DOWN DEM STATES’ ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ELON & DOGE A federal judge just told 14 Democrat-led states: No, you can’t stop Elon from cutting government waste. Judge Tanya Chutkan denied their emergency request, ruling they failed to prove “imminent,… https://t.co/D2nWftpCNv
@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
39-year-old Canadian-born Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, the first Muslim and Arab DC judge, clerked on the Supreme Court of Canada and later led a radical leftwing group that called for defunding the police. In the lame-duck session after Democrats lost the White House and Senate on November 5, 2024, Senate Democrats confirmed Ali on November 20 with a vote of 50-49.
@kyledcheney - Kyle Cheney
NEW: A federal judge gave the Trump administration about 36 hours to pay out hundreds millions of dollars for work performed by foreign aid contractors — and is demanding details about potential defiance of his orders. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/foreign-aid-funding-state-department-022736
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
BREAKING: The US Supreme Court just denied President Trump‘s bid to cancel $2 billion in USAID spending in a 5-4 vote. So basically SCOTUS is over ruling Trump to pay out foreign aid. Roberts & Barrett sided with Democrat appointed justices. Trump appointed Barrett. https://t.co/vhiZzIQhi5
@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump must unfreeze $1.9 billion in foreign USAID payments. Unbelievable. Justice Samuel Alito BLASTS the majority with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joining in dissent: "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
🚨 BREAKING: Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham just handed @elonmusk a MASSIVE way to slash $500B in spending - and it's already part of the law! 1/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk It's called rescission. It's a way to claw back money already appropriated by Congress that the “Department of Government Efficiency” has identified as wasteful. And it only takes a simple majority in Congress! 2/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk The plan is GENIUS in its simplicity: - Uses an old 1974 budget law - Only needs 51 Senate votes, not 60 - Bypasses Dem obstruction - Rand Paul is ALL IN 3/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk 🔥 Elon met with the Senators at the Capitol. His reaction when he learned about this tool? PURE EXCITEMENT. Graham: "He was doing like THIS" *arms raised in triumph* The Deep State is going to HATE this... 4/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk Here's the REAL BOMBSHELL: Rand Paul believes the GOP Congress could quickly claw back $500B in wasteful spending. Not million. Not billion. HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. And it would be Congress doing it, using a law the Supreme Court's already upheld. Let that sink in. 5/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk Why this matters RIGHT NOW: - Supreme Court just blocked a Trump spending freeze - More challenges are coming - This is a LEGAL way to drain the swamp - Democrats can't stop it 6/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk FACT: Last time GOP tried this, they only went for $15B and they STILL FAILED. But now? We have: - Stronger Senate numbers - Better Senators, fewer RINOs - Elon's backing - Trump's determination - Public outrage over waste 7/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk What Musk, Graham and Paul are cooking up here could make it devilishly difficult for Democrats to stop Elon's chainsaw. It's also a backstop against the possibility that the Supreme Court rules against Trump's impoundment powers. Recission WILL STICK. 8/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk BOTTOM LINE: This is our chance to cut $500B in wasteful spending. All we need is: - Trump's full support (no problem) - 50 GOP senators plus VP Vance - Political courage Time to act. 🎯 8/🧵
@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin
@elonmusk If you enjoyed this content, please like and share; and also, sign up for your FREE subscription to my newsletter at http://RodMartin.org. 9/9
@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady
This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI
@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters
Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X
@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady
This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI
@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters
Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X
@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫
@angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is Why It Is Happening. There Is NO RULE OF LAW, Or Equal Protection Under The Law, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated Unconstitutionally Via Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, From The Most Populace Counties, And Cities In Those Counties, In All 50 States, Territories And Possessions. That Form Of Government Is A Anti-Republican Unconstitutional Representative Constitutional Democracy. Which Is Unconstitutional As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Which Says; “Guarantee Clause ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” There Are Supposed To Be Three Voices Represented In Our Federal Government, Hence The Three Branches. The Voice Of The People, Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives. The Voice Of The State Represented In State And Federal Senates. The Voice Of The Law, The State And Federal Judiciary. Right Now, Which Is The Problem, The Voice Of The People, Which Is Already Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, Via Direct Popular Vote. Seats The Voice Of The State And The Law From The Same Voting Pool, Which Is Only The Most Populous Counties, And Cities In Those Counties. That Means, ONLY That Voting Pool Has Any Representation In Our State And Federal Government. And That Form Of Government Is A Unconstitutional Democracy Form Of Government, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution. Which Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, And NOT A MOB Seated Democracy! It Is Impossible To Be A Constitutional Republic, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated By Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, ONLY From The Most Populous Counties And Cities In Them Because They Have The Population Density To Do So, That Being THE MOB, The Voice Of The People, Which Also Seats State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, State And Federal Senates, ALL From That Same Pool Of Voters, Directly Or Indirectly. There Is NO Equal Protection Under The Law By Such A Unconstitutional Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government. Being Unconstitutional, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which It Has Not Since 1849, Via Luther v Borden, Which Set Into Motion Other Individual States, Seating State Judiciary Via Direct Popular Vote. What Made The United States The Constitutional Republic We Started Out As Was The Guarantee Of A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which Means Independent State Judiciary, Seated By The State Senate, State District Court And Above To Include State Supreme Court, As The State Senate Is Representative Of The State As A Whole As The Voice Of The State, Where As The Voice Of The People Is Representative Of The Population Centers, And Cities In Them, As They Have The Population Density To Cancel Out The Rural Areas Of The State. When ALL Of That Is Achieved In All Of The States, That Creates The Constitutional Republic, With The Voice Of The State, Residing In The United States Senate, Seated There To Seat A Independent Federal Judiciary, Those Senators Being Chosen In Full And Open Sessions Of State Legislatures, To Seat Them There. ALL Of THAT Is What Made Us A Constitutional Republic. That Does NOT Exist Today, What Exists In State And Federal Government, Are A Anti-Republican Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government, Masquerading As A Constitutional Republic, Which It Is Not!
@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫
@angelwoman501 @Ikennect @angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is How To End It. 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: Obama judge has ordered Trump to restart USAID functions claiming, without evidence, that acting USAID Director Marco Rubio didn't have authority to layoff staff and redirect the agencies efforts. He argued that scaling back the agency was unconstitutional.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 FEDERAL JUDGE TAKES OVER USAID HIRING — BLOCKS TRUMP PICK Judge Theodore D. Chuang has barred Jeremy Lewin, a former DOGE team member, from becoming Deputy Administrator of USAID. Instead of letting the administration make its own staffing decisions, Judge Chuang decided Lewin’s loyalty to Trump disqualified him. Government lawyers asked for clarity — the judge flat-out denied it and warned he could expand the ban if they try any workarounds. In effect, one judge is now acting as the self-appointed HR department for the federal government... Source: @amuse
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 EXPOSED: U.S. GOVERNMENT, UK, AND MEDIA FIRMS RAN CENSORSHIP NETWORK — DOCUMENTS REVEAL Bombshell court filings and leaked internal emails show a coordinated censorship machine run by the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), USAID, foreign governments including the UK, and major media companies. The GEC produced weekly reports flagging COVID-19 narratives, election content, and foreign messaging — often targeting speech from American citizens under the guise of "disinformation." Congress never reauthorized the GEC. It will shut down on December 23, 2024 — but documents confirm staff and funding are being quietly reassigned to keep the system alive. Source:@America1stLegal
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🇺🇸THE CRAZIEST THINGS USAID SPENT YOUR TAX DOLLARS ON—A THREAD USAID was supposed to fund development and humanitarian aid. Instead, millions of your tax dollars went to some of the most bizarre, wasteful, and outright questionable projects imaginable. From foreign DEI
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump, Elon Musk, DOGE just scored a win over the activist judge who tried to force them to reinstate USAID The 4th Circuit just halted Activist Judge Chuang’s order, which required DOGE’s access to much of USAID be suspended. An expanded ruling could come later this week, but as of now, the appeals court is pumping the brakes on Judge Chuang’s BS ruling.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump, Elon Musk, DOGE just scored a win over the activist judge who tried to force them to reinstate USAID The 4th Circuit just halted Activist Judge Chuang’s order, which required DOGE’s access to much of USAID be suspended. An expanded ruling could come later this week, but as of now, the appeals court is pumping the brakes on Judge Chuang’s BS ruling.
@nyxxiana - Shelby Varney
@nicksortor There ARE good judges out there. But we need to get rid of the ones that don't follow the laws as written. AND all these Soros paid DAs. https://t.co/FQkRs4I6QT
@PeterBernegger - Peter Bernegger
2/ George Soros in Oshkosh Wisconsin and another surprise ending. There are not 70 district attorneys being controlled by George Soros and using federal taxpayers' monies.....there are 95! I found them and began creating a list, it is below. Look at this email from Fair and Just Prosecution non-profit Director Miriam Aroni Krinsky (in image below also) to all 90 (at the time) prosecutors: "All: Thanks to the many of you who brought your voices to the joint statement FJP issued last month with over 90 elected prosecutors pledging to use their settled discretion and not criminalize personal healthcare decisions. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ending the long established, relied upon, and federally protected constitutional right to abortion, we know that many of you have stepped forward as leaders in your communities to protect reproductive rights and preserve access to abortion care. And we know that many elected prosecutors are working alongside, and in collaboration with, communities, advocates, and other elected leaders across the health and legal systems in these efforts. To support the developing work in this space and help facilitate the sharing of ideas and resources, FJP is aiming to gather information on actions being taken by elected prosecutors to protect reproductive rights, avoid criminalizing personal medical decisions, and proactively support access to necessary care and justice for all. Those actions might include (among others): joining lawsuits or briefs challenging the validity of state abortion restrictions, publishing “know your rights” materials or other resources for people seeking reproductive care, joining efforts to protect access to reproductive health care, addressing concerns about data privacy, or developing inter-agency policies protecting medical care and reproductive health in the face of restrictive laws. If you have any efforts or news that you, your office, or other leaders in your jurisdiction are researching, contemplating and planning – or any statements, policies, activities, engagement with other local leaders, or other actions you have already put in place – please let us know. You can send them on to me as well as Kalyn Hill at khill@fairandjustprosecution.org and Rebecca Blair at rblair@fairnadjustprosecution.org. We are aiming over the coming weeks to put together information and resources, including thoughts on how prosecutors can continue to engage to promote and protect reproductive rights and we welcome all of your ideas. Given the timeliness and fast-moving nature of this issue, if at all possible please pass on any responsive information on or before next Monday, August 1. As always, if you have any questions or if there is any way FJP can provide further support, please do not hesitate to reach out. Sincerely, Miriam & the FJP Team Miriam Aroni Krinsky Founder and Executive Director Fair and Just Prosecution Email: krinskym@krinsky.la Cell: (818) 416 5218" Notice Krinsky is not using an FJP email address. FJP is using federal tax dollars, from the Tides Center, to control these county prosecutors. And you'll see in future tweets the tremendous amount of time these prosecutors are spending on/with FJP - all the while being on the clock and paid by local taxpayers. FJP is using federal tax dollars, and local tax dollars also as all these county district attorneys are getting a paycheck, to control these local prosecutors. Getting them to sign pledges not to enforce laws passed by state legislatures! This all smacks of racketeering, defrauding the US Government, conspiring to defraud the US Govt., collusion and a host of other felony crimes. Alphabetical List of Prosecutors I'm including former and current known ones. This list is not complete, it will grow due to newly elected county prosecutors. Patriots: get public records requests out to these offices. Ask for emails, texts, pledges, agreements, any record with FJP (Fair and Just Prosecution) on it. Remember to put a time limit on it, such as the past 2 or 3 years for example. Call your local county supervisor, pass all this info onto them. Alabama Danny Carr - District Attorney, Jefferson County Arizona Laura Conover - County Attorney, Pima County California Michael Atwell - District Attorney, Alpine County Diana Becton - District Attorney, Contra Costa County George Gascón - District Attorney, Los Angeles County Nancy O’Malley - District Attorney, Alameda County Jill Ravitch - District Attorney, Sonoma County Jeff Rosen - District Attorney, Santa Clara County Colorado Michael Dougherty - District Attorney, 20th Judicial District (Boulder) Gordon McLaughlin - District Attorney, 8th Judicial District Beth McCann - District Attorney, 2nd Judicial District (Denver) Brian Mason - District Attorney, 17th Judicial District Alonzo Payne - District Attorney, 12th Judicial District Delaware Kathleen Jennings - Attorney General District of Columbia Karl Racine - Attorney General Florida Andrew Warren - State Attorney, 13th Judicial Circuit (Tampa) Georgia Patsy Austin-Gatson - District Attorney, Gwinnett Judicial Circuit Sherry Boston - District Attorney, DeKalb County David Cooke - District Attorney, Macon Judicial Circuit Deborah Gonzalez - District Attorney, Western Judicial Circuit (Athens) Dalia Racine - District Attorney, Douglas County Jared Williams - District Attorney, Augusta Judicial Circuit Hawaii Rebecca Like - Prosecuting Attorney, County of Kaua’i Illinois Kimberly M. Foxx - State’s Attorney, Cook County (Chicago) Jamie Mosser - State’s Attorney, Kane County Eric Rinehart - State’s Attorney, Lake County (Waukegan) Dora A. Villarreal - State’s Attorney, Rock Island County Indiana Ryan Mears - Prosecuting Attorney, Marion County (Indianapolis) Kansas Suzanne Valdez - District Attorney, Douglas County (Lawrence) Louisiana Jason Williams - District Attorney, Orleans Parish Maine Natasha Irving - District Attorney, 6th Prosecutorial District Maryland Aisha Braveboy - State’s Attorney, Prince George’s County Marilyn J. Mosby - State’s Attorney, Baltimore City Massachusetts Rob Galibois - District Attorney, Cape and Islands Andrea Harrington - District Attorney, Berkshire County Marian Ryan - District Attorney, Middlesex County David Sullivan - District Attorney, Northwestern District Michael W. Morrissey - District Attorney, Norfolk County Michigan Dana Nessel - Attorney General Karen McDonald - Prosecuting Attorney, Oakland County Eli Savit - Prosecuting Attorney, Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) Carol Siemon - Prosecuting Attorney, Ingham County (Lansing) Matthew J. Wiese - Prosecuting Attorney, Marquette County Minnesota Keith Ellison - Attorney General John Choi - County Attorney, Ramsey County Mary Moriarty - County Attorney, Hennepin County Mississippi Shameca Collins - District Attorney, 6th Judicial District Jody Owens - District Attorney, Hinds County Missouri Wesley Bell - Prosecuting Attorney, St. Louis County New Mexico Mary Carmack-Altwies - District Attorney, 1st Judicial District Raúl Torrez - District Attorney, Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) New York Alvin Bragg - District Attorney, New York County (Manhattan) Dave Clegg - District Attorney, Ulster County Eric Gonzalez - District Attorney, Kings County (Brooklyn) Mimi Rocah - District Attorney, Westchester County Matthew Van Houten - District Attorney, Tompkins County (Ithaca) North Carolina Satana Deberry - District Attorney, Durham County Todd Williams - District Attorney, Buncombe County (Asheville) Ohio Zach Klein - City Attorney, Columbus Michael O’Malley - County Prosecutor, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Oregon Matt Ellis - District Attorney, Wasco County John Hummel - District Attorney, Deschutes County Mike Schmidt - District Attorney, Multnomah County (Portland) Pennsylvania Lawrence S. Krasner - District Attorney, Philadelphia Jack Stollsteimer - District Attorney, Delaware County Texas John Creuzot - District Attorney, Dallas County José Garza - District Attorney, Travis County (Austin) Brian Middleton - District Attorney, Fort Bend County Joe Gonzales - District Attorney, Bexar County (San Antonio) Mark Gonzalez - District Attorney, Nueces County (Corpus Christi) Vermont Sarah F. George - State’s Attorney, Chittenden County (Burlington) Joshua R. Diamond - Acting Attorney General Virginia Buta Biberaj - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Loudoun County Parisa Dehghani-Tafti - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Arlington County and the City of Falls Church Steve Descano - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax County Jim Hingeley - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Albemarle County Ramin Fatehi - Commonwealth’s Attorney, City of Norfolk Colette McEachin - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Richmond Stephanie Morales - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Portsmouth Bryan Porter - Commonwealth’s Attorney, City of Alexandria Shannon Taylor - Commonwealth’s Attorney, Henrico County Washington Ann Davison - City Attorney, Seattle Dan Satterberg - Prosecuting Attorney, King County Wisconsin John T. Chisholm - District Attorney, Milwaukee County Eric D. Sparr - District Attorney, Winnebago County Northern Mariana Islands Edward E. Manibusan - Attorney General Miriam Aroni Krinsky in effect is working for George Soros, the guy who admitted on 60 Minutes he pointed out Jews to the Nazi's - where those Jews were then gassed to death in the concentration camps. Ms. Krinsky is Jewish. Many on FJP's staff are Jewish also. What sick people they are. @fjp_org @SidneyPowell1 @RonJohnsonWI @SenRonJohnson @WisGOP @WinnebagoGOP @wioshkosh @WCSO_Wisconsin (Sheriff how about an investigation?) @WaukeshaGOP @Rasmussen_Poll @BehizyTweets @EmeraldRobinson @nataliegwinters @JamesOKeefeIII @GrothmanforWI @RepTonyWied @RCGforSenate @realDonaldTrump @PamBondi @Kash_Patel @DanScavino @KenPaxtonTX @LAGovJeffLandry @elonmusk @Article3Project @mrddmia @julie_kelly2 @TheLastRefuge2 @CannConActual @AsheinAmerica @ConradsonJordan
@GoyWonderTM - Juan Decentbaum
No shit. That was always the plan. Amy Totenberg’s sister works for Katherine Maher at NPR and Garland is married to a BigPharma executive who also happens to be the Congressional Liaison of Christians United for Israel. It was always just limited hangout Jew bullshit, @CannConActual. And Garland was in on it. Thankfully, serious people hadn’t given that nonsense a second thought in over a year.
@CannConActual - CannCon
BREAKING: After an 8 year-long battle in Federal courts, spanning the two separate voting systems (Diebold and Dominion), Federal Judge Amy Totenberg has DISMISSED the Curling v Raffensperger case for "lacking jurisdiction". It took this judge EIGHT YEARS to determine her Court didn't have jurisdiction!? How many MILLIONS of dollars were squandered by both @MarilynRMarks1 and @VoterGa AND the taxpayers of Georgia!? This judge waited ONE YEAR since the trial ended before issuing this Order. @AsheinAmerica and I will unpack this this morning on Badlands Daily No, this is not an April Fools joke.
@wendyp4545 - Wendy Patterson
Republicans don't want the illegals removed either. Because if they did, they could stop these Judges.
@ProfMJCleveland - Margot Cleveland
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another day, another federal court injunction. Here court turned temporary restraining order into an preliminary injunction, prohibiting firings at numerous agencies. 1/ https://t.co/gNnQFFxgW4
@StephenM - Stephen Miller
The Supreme Court stripped him of jurisdiction weeks ago. He just doesn’t care.
@ProfMJCleveland - Margot Cleveland
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge Boasberg certifies class and enters injunction in removal of Venezuelans to El Salvador: 1/ https://t.co/EB6SZJyV3L
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This case was filed last May by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with private plaintiffs, against numerous agencies in the federal government. Plaintiffs alleged that the government (including the FBI, White House, Surgeon General, CISA, among many others) were forcing social media companies to censor speech by threat.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This case was filed last May by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with private plaintiffs, against numerous agencies in the federal government. Plaintiffs alleged that the government (including the FBI, White House, Surgeon General, CISA, among many others) were forcing social media companies to censor speech by threat.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The Plaintiffs wanted a temporary injunction to STOP this activity as their case moved to trial. Judge Terry Doughty granted them expedited limited discovery and deposition to get the information they needed to prove a temporary injunction was warranted.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Of course, the government fought this the entire way, but ultimately were widely unsuccessful. The information plaintiffs received was absolutely mind blowing. For certain the government was coercing social media companies to censorship— the discovery proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
It came time for a hearing on the injunction, and I traveled to Louisiana for that hearing. It was 8 hours long, and absolutely damning for the government. If you see the post I placed in the first post in this thread, you can scroll down and read all about it.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Since that hearing, I have been honored to do several spaces with @ThaWoodChipper, who also understands the importance of this monumental civil rights case. It is the most important civil rights case in the modern era, hands down. We waited patiently for the ruling… And on July 4th, we got it.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
On July 4th, the district court under an absolutely AMAZING judge in Terry Doughty, ruled in FAVOR of the Plaintiffs. Here is where you need to pay attention. Everything this judge wrote in his ruling is a PROVEN FACT in a court of law. In a 155 page ruling, the judge METICULOUSLY dissected the record and rendered a judgement.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I threaded this ruling when it happened, and you can find it on my “highlights” page - but I want to make something clear; the fact set the judge is relying on here came from EXTREMELY limited discovery and deposition from ONLY the government Defendants.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, the ruling was for a temporary injunction to STOP the government from the following while carving out some exceptions for them, AS THE REST OF THE CASE PROGRESSED THROUGH DISCOVERY AND TO TRIAL. Read this very carefully.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This list is going to be very important as we move forward through this thread, so please bookmark this for reference moving forward. So, the government obviously appealed this to the 5th circuit. The court heard the appeal in an expedited fashion (for them) and yesterday, THEIR opinion was filed.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
It is hard to completely rehash all of the reporting I have done over the past year and some months in a short update, but basically the government argued that they weren’t threatening anyone ever and everything we got in discovery was nonsense and misinterpreted, and the 3 judge panel of the court of appeals had to listen to that, while reviewing the DETAILED fact set the judge had ruled on in the order for the injunction.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, quickly, what we are about to go through is the 5th circuits decision on whether or not to UPHOLD the ruling that Judge Doughty made barring the government agencies listed from the actions listed above in the 4 set screenshot, or to REVERSE that ruling. It isn’t about the entire case— ONLY the temporary injunction.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I am probably 70/30 on how this panned out, but the details are important. The government asked that if the court should rule against them, they put a stay (pause) on the order for 10 days so that they could appeal it to the SCOTUS. The 5th did that, so the ruling they just laid down is PAUSED for 10 more days while the government attempts to write to the SCOTUS convincing them that they SHOULD be able to force social media companies to censor you. Chew on that for a minute.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Also, in the interim while we waited for this decision, I had the honor of interviewing both @AGAndrewBailey from Missouri, and @AGJeffLandry from Louisiana. Both are WONDERFUL examples of what you want in a state Attorney General. For links, see: Andrew Bailey: https://rumble.com/v342ndn-dark-to-light-missouri-attorney-general-andrew-bailey.html Jeff Landry: https://rumble.com/v36i7oh-dark-to-light-missouri-v.-biden-and-ag-jeff-landry.html
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@AGAndrewBailey @AGJeffLandry We are about to travel through 74 pages together.. Grab coffee, whatever, and off we go. Here is the link to the decision, and here is a summary of what we are about to dissect as best we can. LINK: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
So, the court agrees the government is guilty of what is alleged, but not for ALL of the officials that Judge Doughty did. Remember, everything is based on the limited discovery they were able to receive, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and we will go through the reasons why. Still, the fact this was affirmed AT ALL is a massive, massive win.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@AGAndrewBailey @AGJeffLandry They summarized much more concisely than I ever could… https://t.co/mOVcbQlst9
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
1. The White House and Surgeon General - taken together Here the appeals court affirms that the WH and SG requested social media companies remove posts and pressured them to do so. It also affirms that they also monitored the platforms moderation activities, demanded information from them about their policies, “Always, the officials asked for more data and stronger interventions” said the 5th.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
From the beginning the platforms cooperated - even creating special tools, but as officials began to demand more from them, the platforms worked to “appease” government officials, “eager” to stay in their good graces. https://t.co/JRstpgWUIH
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Remember, everything in this decision REAFFIRMS a fact pattern. Here the 5th affirms that the WH and SG attempted to interfere with the platforms own POLICY creation. This is so important. The government can not do this. https://t.co/Xs82GI5HzO
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Here the court affirms that platforms changed their moderation policy after instruction from the government… Tsk Tsk “…they also changed their moderation policies expressly in accordance with the officials’ wishes…” https://t.co/k1bN5Pxz11
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
As an aside, I don’t want to hear ONE PERSON come at any of us who have been saying this for years and say it is “misinformation” any longer. This is now affirmed both in congress and in two courts - a district court and the court of appeals of the United States. @krassenstein and @EdKrassen argued with me in a space once that this is all totally untrue. I hope they will revise their positions. I wont hold my breath.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The discovery proved that the changes many of the platforms enacted coincided closely with meeting between the WH and SG and the platforms. And even when they didn’t adopt the changes, they censored content that DID NOT BREAK their terms of service after that content was flagged by the government.. Again, marinate on it…
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
@krassenstein At the same time as they were demoting normal Americans, the social media platforms capitulated to government demands to “amplify” (inorganically) the governments “approved” narrative, specifically in this case when it pertained to vaccines for COVID. https://t.co/asT2LPmGow
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I want everyone to think about the above for a moment. They were forcing inorganic amplification so people would be fooled into thinking the vaccine was “safe and effective” when one of them was REMOVED because it wasn’t. The sheer evil behind the obvious is unbelievable.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even with all of that, the ministry of truth wasn’t happy, scolding platforms for not doing enough, and trying to coerce them to do more. All of this to get that needle in your arm, consequences be damned… https://t.co/u1Ws27lq1M
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And here the court details the infamous press conference, where Jen Psaki and Vivek Murthy *expressly threatened* the platforms from the bully pulpit, even singling out certain accounts.. This was the ultimate in authoritarianism, and the 5th circuit agrees. https://t.co/pfuKR2Dl6a
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“The platforms responded with total compliance. Their answer was four-fold.” The social media companies responded with child like obedience to daddy government. You can’t make this up. https://t.co/7KdEbIZtoF
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They changed their internal policies in response to the presser… https://t.co/6mUxhGE6FP
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They removed speakers (like the so called “disinfo dozen” that they HAD NOT BEEN targeting BEFORE the press conference, and they continued to inorganically amplify the government’s content. https://t.co/CoBxeDgV0A
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even this wasn’t enough for the ministry of truth. They continued their public threats, invoking Section 230 protection as a cudgel for MORE action, and using the office of the President as a backbone for that threat. https://t.co/lSVh0dUC71
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“Next, we turn to the CDC” says the 5th panel. They behaved much like the White House and Surgeon General. They flagged posts with supposed “misinformation” and actively sought to promote its “official” position over others. They also provided direct guidance to the platforms on the application of their internal policy and moderation activities.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
They had BOLO (Be on the Lookout) meetings on “misinformation” hot topics. They asked for moderation changes, and they OUTRIGHT DIRECTED platforms to take certain actions. Direct violation of the constitution. Platforms began relying on the CDC to “Debunk” posts it wasn’t sure about.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And now, the good ol’ FBI. They regularly met with platforms, at least since the 2020 election. They shared “Strategic information” to alert them to “misinformation” trends in the lead up to the elections. https://t.co/yvtGq79TMf
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Per their operations, the FBI monitored platforms moderation policies and asked for “detailed assessments” during regular meetings. Some platforms changed their TOS to be able to comply with the FBI. While the government boasted that *only* 50% of the domestic (I repeat - DOMESTIC) content they wanted to remove was removed, the court didn’t find that so beneficial for them.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This is going to be the part where my disappointment comes in…But, again, this isn’t the CASE decision, its the decision on the injunction only.. They talk about NIAID, CISA, and the State Department. NIAID and Fauci didn’t have regular contact with platforms or flag, they mainly appeared on Live Streams and podcasts and had those amplified. CISA and the SD directly engaged with the platforms and discussed the tools and techniques that foreign influence actors would use.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The State Department didn’t flag content, but CISA did, acting as an intermediary for third party groups and then “switch boarding” based off of the EIP and CIS. The officials actions “apparently led to content being removed or demoted by the recipient platforms” https://t.co/KuNQmkYwuW
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Relying on the fact set above, the district court concluded that the officials coerced platforms to remove content and change their moderation policies, and therefore were likely to succeed on the merits, granting the injunction. https://t.co/3vpLFQuWg7
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
LEGAL THEORY: On standing - Any ONE plaintiff that demonstrates ongoing harm or continued injury is enough to pass the standing argument, a fact that was argued eloquently by the Plaintiff attorney in court. https://t.co/1CGDLZqSRK
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government is arguing that Plaintiffs dont have standing because they can’t prove a FUTURE injury. Here the court goes over their PAST injury. But the court doesn’t agree with the government. They believe there is ongoing injury and there will be future injury as well. https://t.co/Gfmm96ScvQ
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
I want to stop for a second (again) and go over how monumental this actually is. This is the first time ever that a normal “user” or American has submitted evidence of social media censorship and had their concerns ADDRESSED at all by a COURT OF LAW.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Another HUGE precedent set here - the past chilling of their speech has caused individuals to SELF CENSOR. That is considered ongoing harm. This is a massive and very important section. https://t.co/vfa8NBIywk
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
“As the Supreme Court has recognized, this chilling of the Individual Plaintiffs exercise of their First Amendment Rights, is, itself, a constitutionally sufficient injury.” They rule that the fears motivating the self censorship aren’t hypothetical, and come from very real censorship injuries they have previously suffered… Legal Eagles, affirm for me the importance of JUST this paragraph.. Amazing.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government had tried to argue that ongoing harms were not going to occur because, for example, Twitter had “stopped” enforcing its COVID misinformation policy. But the court disagrees, saying that they have been censored for views well beyond COVID. Continued next— very important.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Here is something ANYONE who is considering any sort of lawsuit needs to consider. The court here aptly notes that plaintiffs aren’t suing the platforms over their TOS, they are suing to stop the GOVERNMENT from interfering with platforms. Also - the government admitted in oral argument that they are STILL in contact with these platforms today. TLDR; the court doesn’t trust that the government isn’t still forcing social media companies to censor..
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
This is GRAND. The government argued that because the users had been REINSTATED, all is well. The court rightly says no. The fact that they WERE REINSTATED is what causes the threat of ongoing harm. If they didn’t have an account, they wouldn’t have to worry about censorship— they wouldn’t be able to post. Masterful.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The first standing hurdle, crossed and landed for Plaintiffs. This means any chance of appeal on standing to SCOTUS is likely a failure. The government had argued this standing issue over, and over, and over and have been shot down every single time. Now that is reinforced yet again. This case isn’t going ANYWHERE.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The Plaintiffs had to show that their injuries were traceable to conduct of the government. Government argued that since the content moderation policies were in place in the Trump administration, and also because moderation decisions were made independently by the social media companies. They had no standing. However, the plaintiffs aren’t challenging the policies themselves, but whether they can be traced back to government actors. The appeals court agrees with the district court that yes, they can be.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Even though there were instances where social media companies declined to censor, the Plaintiffs only have to show the likelihood they would comply, not certainty. The logical conclusion is that they would, based on the preliminary discovery they received.. https://t.co/iBBr8Z4vGw
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And I want to again stress, this was LIMITED discovery. The judge in the district court had made it a point in an order to let the government know that this was a mere scintilla of what would be required for production moving forward. So position this for yourselves - all of this is coming from an EXTREMELY limited production of evidence, which will now broaden to include more officials, more agency heads, more PRIVATE companies, like Facebook, Google, and X, that will be subpoenaed and deposed for evidence at trial.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Next on standing, the Plaintiffs had to prove that their injuries could be redressed by a favorable decision on the injunction. https://t.co/yr5tIK2Usd
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Again, key here is that the Plaintiffs aren’t challenging the social media companies policies themselves, rather they asked for the government from being restrained from unlawfully interfering with their independent application of those policies. https://t.co/kut8vbUl2L
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And IMPORTANTLY, the government had argued that the state plaintiffs didn’t have standing. That goes right down the trash shoot here, and it is a BIG deal. States were censored by platforms. This court determines they have standing as well. https://t.co/CSJYbS0iVE
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And an interesting little tidbit here. Other state officials have experienced censorship as well, so this isn’t limited to just Missouri and Louisiana. https://t.co/lLRibdfomG
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
And next, a very important part of the 1st Amendment that often goes undiscussed. THE RIGHT TO LISTEN. Constituent plaintiffs were harmed by the censorship of their elected representatives, and the elected representatives and states are harmed WHEN THEY CAN NOT HEAR their constituents. This was discussed at length in my interview with @AGJeffLandry
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The appeals court rules that Plaintiffs have standing - finally putting that issue to bed (hopefully) and also the court makes sure to include that even the CDC admitted the need to “hear” citizens. It may be for a different reason for them, but if you think about it - if the government couldn’t “hear” what we are all saying, they wouldn’t know what narrative they needed to craft to counter the truth… Goes both ways. NEXT!
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
There is a high bar to hit to even be granted an injunction. You must meet four criteria, as detailed below. 1. You are likely to succeed on the merits of your case. 2. There is a “substantial threat that you will suffer “irreparable injury” without it. 3. The injury you could sustain outweighs whatever “harm” the injunction could cause the other side 4. An injunction doesn’t disserve the public interest.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
FRAME THIS. “The Plaintiffs allege that federal officials ran afoul of the First Amendment by coercing and significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor disfavored speech, including by threats of adverse government action like antitrust enforcement and legal reforms. WE AGREE”
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
The government CAN NOT abridge free speech. Private parties are not normally constrained by the first amendment. Again, the importance of this can not be understated. We are here because they government acted through threats to social media companies to censor “disfavored” viewpoints. Every case against a social media company for their TOS or their censorship moves has failed because Plaintiffs have targeted the social media company rather than the government. One exception I know of off the top of my head is the Berenson case, and he settled.
@tracybeanz - Tracy Beanz
Took a quick pause for my carnivore lunch. Back in a moment.