The Highwire with Del Bigtree - MISSOURI VS BIDEN: “ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LAWSUITS OF OUR LIFETIME”

Episode Date: May 21, 2023

HighWire Editorial Contributor and Editor-in-Chief at UncoverDC, Tracy Beanz, describes Missouri vs. Biden as, “one of the most important lawsuits of our lifetime.” Attorney General of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, and Attorney General of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, take on the Office of the President and other federal offices for colluding with social media to suppress speech countering their narrative regarding COVID-19.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Well, have you been watching the High Wire for some time? You know that we really started this program out using social media. This was a show that was placed out on Facebook and YouTube, and that's where we built our audience. But as things started to change, the climate around free speech was shifting, we recognized that our days were numbered. And we started telling all of you, you need to come over to our website, thehighwire.com. In order to watch this show, at least know it's there in case we were ever cut short. Eventually we were. Within just about a month or two, we lost both of our YouTube and our Facebook channels, lots of media. We're celebrating the fact that we had been silenced, which was a very interesting thing coming from media.

Well, at the heart of this is really this conversation, what is free speech, what are our First Amendment rights in the United States of America, and what power should the government use against people that they think are spreading misinformation? Is that really even something that should be in the hands of the government? is misinformation. All of this is the heart of maybe one of the most important lawsuits in the history of the United States of America, especially as we think about all these things hanging the balance. Sure, social media is placing the world in a place that maybe our forefathers never thought about. Has news actually changed? Well, this is the heart of this lawsuit, and it's Missouri against the Biden administration. This is what that has looked like in the news

over the last year. The states of Missouri and Louisiana have just filed a lawsuit. against the administration for colluding with big tech to censor speech. Since taking office, President Biden and his team have labored to suppress viewpoints with which they disagree. And in doing so, they have infringed upon the individual freedoms of millions of Americans. Gen Saki's admitted this that they're working directly with Facebook, for example, to flag particular posts that they want to label as disinformation and working directly with them to get that stuff taken down. The real misinformation operation was run by our government with big media, with big tech, to keep information from us, from the American people.

We know it's the laptop from hell. We know it's the origins of COVID. We know it's the ineffectiveness of mass. We know all of these things that they've been working with them on, and this lawsuit will help bring those to light and expose it, and that's why it's an important case. You start messing with the public square and trying to decide what's true. You are undermining the very process.

It's the only process that we have to find truth. An individual has a right to determine what's best for themselves. The government does not get to make that decision for them. Tracy Beans is a contributing editor to thehighwire.com, but she has been using independent media to stay on top of the story in her investigations and follow what has really been going on here. We reached out to her to say, we really want to be brought up to speed on what is going on in this case. So it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now.

by Tracy Beans. Tracy, thank you for joining us today. Glad to be here, Del. This case is definitely a doozy. It has been wildly successful thus far. And, you know, we're excited because next week there's a hearing in Louisiana in the court to see if the judge will grant a temporary injunction stopping the government from colluding with social media companies and also working through non-governmental organizations

to stifle American speech on social media. Wow. When you say wildly successful, how do you determine something successful? We haven't reached any conclusion. So what's happening in the case that gives you that impression that there's success? Well, firstly, Louisiana and Missouri asked for expedited discovery to be able to get to the temporary injunction phase. And I'm sure that if you speak with any attorney, when you're looking for expedited discovery of high-level government officials and government offices, typically it's not granted.

It was granted to them in this case in a limited fashion. but it was limited to major bureaucracies within the United States government. In addition, depositions of major figures within the government at a very high level were granted as well. And that's where we got the deposition of Anthony Fauci, where he lied to the attorneys conducting the deposition no less than 127 times. And that was corroborated in another filing afterwards. So they've been basically racking up wins at every level with this case. It started with the actual judge. The government freaked out, obviously, because they don't want to be held accountable or have to show anything.

And they appealed it. And the appeals court upheld what they were asking for. And even a judge as far away as Virginia in Jen Saki's district kicked the case back to Louisiana saying, what are you doing here? And why are you asking me these questions? This isn't my jurisdiction. And I'm not going to run cover for you, basically. And so they've really had nowhere to turn. They've been backed into a corner.

So who are really, I guess, the defendants in this case? Is it just, you know, President Biden? Or is there a list of culprits involved in this, you know, scheme by the government? It's a long list of culprits involved in this scheme. You know, the Office of the White House is involved. SISA is involved. The NIH is involved. The CDC is involved. All of these major organizations that have been censoring people on social media who are trying to get information out about any topic. And you ask, you know, who defines what disinformation is or misinformation is? and I'd say the government defines truth as misinformation every single time.

Yeah. And that's what we've seen. We've seen that every single time about whether it's about vaccines, whether it's about the origins of COVID, the efficacy of masks, it's always been the same thing. Yeah, I mean it's really incredible. We look back at the entire pandemic experience, you know, what we now know or what most people now know, the high wire has actually been, you know, we're really proud of our record on how we reported on this and how the science we were looking at held up, but we were deemed as misinformation the entire time, yet all of the things that we were saying,

and some of it we're gonna cover today, has held up through time. Almost none of those things that were being stated by our government held up, not social distancing, not lockdowns. We now know that lockdowns were something that WHO had always said we should never do. We know that masks never worked, never proved to work,

knew that didn't work beforehand, and then after really looking retrospect, Now we know through science, you know, great studies in the Cochrane collaboration showing that they had absolutely no effect. And so how is the government, when you look at this now, I mean, it's almost, I mean, it's dystopian in the idea that most of us are like the lead character in these stories we grew up with, shaking our heads. Like, how is it that the people that are actually doing the lying are the ones that are trying to control what the idea of truth is? It's even worse than that, Dell. Like one of the most significantly disturbing things that came out of this discovery for me was seeing how there was an argument back and forth between the White House and Facebook about people who have been suffering from vaccine injury.

And Facebook was fighting back a little bit against the government who wanted all of their stories just completely removed and the users banned from using Facebook. And Facebook said, actually, you know, people are telling us for their mental health, we need to let them say these things. They're also true. We can't debunk them and say that they're false. So we can't, you know, ban them under that rule. So we're going to let them say what they want to say, but we're not going to let anyone see it. So they can say what they want, but we'll make sure no one sees it. And then we'll also start getting rid of some of these groups where they're gathering to share this information amongst themselves. And that's where, for me, it takes a step from just our free speech rights into affecting the health and well-being of millions and millions of people all across the world and in the United States, being a lot. able to share their thoughts, their experiences, their adverse reactions to what has now turned out to be an absolutely catastrophic gene therapy, in my opinion. We have one of those email

interactions. Let's take a look at this now that's inside the case. The email where Flaherty from the White House is writing back and forth to Facebook talking about what they're going to do, they're outlining the policy directives they're going to take and how they're going to tackle vaccine hesitancy. I'm going to read it here. I got it right in front of me, Trace. Lever's for tackling vaccine hesitancy content. As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we've been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. This is often true content, which we allow at the post level, because experts have advised

us that it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experience and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensational alarmist or shocking. We'll remove these groups, pages, and accounts when they are disproportionately promoting. promoting this sensationalized content. More on this front as we proceed to implement. I mean, it's amazing that idea, right? It's true, and as you said, we don't want to mess with their psyche on this,

so let them think that they're getting to talk to the public. We'll just, you know, basically shadow ban. It's not the term they're using, but we're gonna make sure that nobody else sees it. And, you know, I know that everyone doesn't wanna make this comparison to Nazi Germany and things, but I just think about in that time, when we think about, if we're gonna think about

the slippery slope into a regime that starts trying to control the entire narrative. When we think about, you know what, there's a concentration camp down the road that I want to report on and somebody says, well, it is true, but it's alarming to be talking about that. Therefore, we're going to make sure that nobody can hear it. Now, I'm not saying that these are exactly matched up, but this is the direction it feels like things are heading. And even if you have an altruistic government and is, you know, is maybe looking at things, do we really want them to have that level of power?

Because what happens if we ever get a corrupted official in office? If we don't already have one, I'm trying to be as objective as possible. But this is what I've said to my friends, Tracy, that I talk to that maybe are pro-Biden or whatever. I said, okay, I know you have a big issue with Donald Trump. You think he's terrifying. You think he's the end of the world. Well, he might just get re-elected. How would you like these powers in his hands?

I mean, I think part of what we need to look at is turning the tables. We all have somebody we think would be the worst president in the United States. And what happens if that person has this level of control? This is where we should all be coming together and why I don't understand how this has become so partisan. It's by design so that they can accomplish, you know, what they're looking to accomplish. Look, Del, Sisa, they've designated your thoughts as part of critical infrastructure, okay? That means that they consider your thoughts and what you type and put on social media to be part of the United States. critical infrastructure. SIS is an organization that was started by, or a bureaucracy that was

started by Donald Trump and his presidency. This is a nonpartisan issue. It comes to the fundamentals of our rights as Americans granted to us by our creator, not by a man, and we all deserve to have them even if we disagree with each other. That's what makes beautiful ideas flourish, not the opposite. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think we have another sort of the email Exchange is where the government official is reaching out to, is it Twitter and the social media companies? Can we take a look at that? Here we go. This is the one we're talking about from Flaherty. And this is what he says. And as far as your removal of claims, do you have data on the actual number of claims related to posts you've removed? Do you have a sense of how many are being

flagged versus how many are being removed? Are there actions downranking, et cetera, that sit before removal? How are you handling things that are dubious but not provably false? I mean, what business is it for the government to even be asking these questions? This is a private social media free space of conversation and thought. They have zero authority or they shouldn't have any inclination to be working as part of the trust and safety team at the social media companies, which is what Flaherty was doing. You know, this is an egregious, an egregious abuse of power, from the government. And it gets worse and worse as you dig into what was released so far, which is why this judge in this case is not having any of the nonsense. They basically, when the

government responded to all of this after Missouri laid it out in the suit, they said, we are trying to keep Americans safe. And that's what's at the root of all this. Nonsense. That is absolute nonsense. Everybody with a brain in their heads knows it. And so does the judge. And so does the appeals court, apparently. So we're going to go to next. week and see if the, you know, the judge puts the hammer down in this as we continue on to the full trial. You know, sometimes it cuts most ways. I think we have an email from Flaherty pissed off about something that's happened. Let's take a look at this. Are you guys effing serious? Flaherty exploded? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today. A few weeks later,

Flerity got his answer apparently after months of her ringing by White House officials, met at the parent corporation of Facebook and Instagram ramped up in censorship of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Instagram deployed an algorithm that used posting far above normal vaccine-related content as a proxy for promoting vaccine hesitancy. So I think this is all about that Biden himself got censored because they had set the parameters so high that however he had put out his information, it got censored. This is how bad it's getting. You've set a bunch of watchdogs out, but now those watchdogs are ravenous and attacking everything in sight. Yeah, this was an AI algorithm that got Biden.

And he sure wasn't happy about it. You know, they're also, Dell, they're extending this into, into encrypted chat programs, too. They were badgering Facebook's WhatsApp to censor in their encrypted chats. That's akin to somebody stepping into your living room between you and your husband or wife or partner and saying, you guys can't be having this conversation right now. It's really getting out of control. And yeah, Biden was swept up in his own censorship net. Oh, bummer.

Stinks to be him. I guess he knows how it feels now. But that was reversed really quickly. Those of us like myself and you who have been, you know, stripped of their ability to deliver valid information to the American people. Don't have anywhere to go to get that back. We don't have anywhere to go. We can just keep forging ahead and hope that we attract people to platforms that are safe and free for us to speak. You know, I had a really great good friend of mine made such an interesting point this week.

It says it's incredible the world we live in right now. We're being told that as adults we are incapable of deciphering between, you know, different pieces. information, what's right, what's wrong, how we should move forward with our lives. When they're censoring everything, they want to just give us like one statement so we can handle it. Yet we're going to our children in third grade and presenting them that they may not actually be the sex that they were born into and they're perfectly capable of handling these conversations. So our children are being handled with, you know, an incredible amount of information and thinking that they can handle it, vaccinate themselves, what they should be doing, you know, outside of parental, you know, a vision or

thought, but as adults now, we're a bunch of morons that are incapable of making any decisions and we've just got to be led on a leash wherever we're supposed to go. I mean, this attitude by our government looking at us as citizens, it just seems like exactly what our founding fathers warned us about, that you need to keep this government in control or it will eventually take you over. You know, when I look at the age, really, of those in making policies, I remember when, you know, was before the Senate and talking to these people. And I just thought, you know, these people are from a totally different age. No concept, really, of the power of social media.

Most of them admitted they barely know how to use an email. How dangerous is it that they are so out of touch with the power of what social media is, the fact that it is now the future of all media and news, and, you know, they're making decisions that could alter our freedom, forever. You know, it's interesting that you bring that up because as this lawsuit progresses, if you remember the TikTok bill came out several weeks ago, the restrict bill. It was maybe a month and a half, two months ago. And if you look inside that bill, it was not about restricting TikTok. That bill was advanced to do what the government's already doing without telling us

under the guise of approval from Congress. And it was basically a shadow of what they're already doing that Missouri v. Biden is suing for. So they're looking to usher this in no matter what. And even if Congress doesn't understand the power of social media, which I think they do to some extent, the bureaucracies and the people who are kind of drunk with power do understand the power of it, which is why they're trying to silence those of us that are speaking truth. So when we look at this now, you said you have a good feeling about the direction that this is going. So let's just talk about just very quickly, if this were to lose, if they are to get away with all that they

done, what do you think that spells out for the future of the First Amendment in the United States of America? If they lose, this suit is going to the Supreme Court. Yeah. It will go right up to, yeah. And you think the Supreme Court will stand up? I mean, you obviously have faith that this is so egregious then that there's no way that they're going to get away with this?

I don't have faith in our system generally. I have faith in the progress that this lawsuit has made and the way the judge. have handled it. So I really do feel very confident. Like, for example, just yesterday, the judge denied the government asking for a delay in this hearing and said, nope, no more delays. We're going right to trial on this. I'm going to be there in the courtroom to cover that. And, you know, it's just, it's, it's too egregious. It's too overwhelming. The evidence is too, you know, out there. It's, it's really something if you take the time to read it. They can't. They can't hide it. So what is the relief that they're seeking? What will this, so if they win this lawsuit,

will be, you know, the result of that and how will it affect our lives? So it's a class action now. It was granted. They made a motion to amend the complaint to become a class action. So it encompasses basically everybody in the United States at this point. And the remedy is you're not allowed to collaborate with social media companies to guide, coerce, threaten, or anything like that in terms of what they take in terms of policy and censorship and things of that nature moving forward. So it would stop the government from having the FBI embedded at Twitter and Facebook. It would stop the government from working through companies like the election integrity

partnership in Stanford InfraNet Observatory to mess with elections and have SISA running operations into social media companies with problem tickets that they need removed. It'll stop the CDC from working directly with social media companies or through a non-governmental organization to stop people from talking about their experiences after medical procedures. And a lot of people say to me, Del, well, what happened? They're just not going to listen to it. And I say, well, then we're in a much worse spot than we even imagine if a government is going to just blatantly ignore a court order and decision. That's a much different animal we can discuss at the time. That's a really great point. Will there be any repercussions you think for those individuals

that have been cited in this case as having been a part of this sort of authoritarian regime? It's the government as a whole. It's not an individual party, so it's the offices. The only way I see, like, penalty is if people like me who had loss of income, loss of reputation, you could say, and other things, sue after this verdict saying, I was harmed by this. And here's demonstrably how. Pay me. That's where the harm's really going to come in. You know, I mean, even though it's really, we've been through dark times.

And in some ways, I'm glad it was so dark. I'm glad it was so incredibly egregious because it appears to me that as we come out of this, more people are waking up and the Constitution of the United States is being fortified, not broken down. There's an attack on our Constitution. But I think we're more aware of that Constitution and its power now more than ever. And we're seeing the walls of it being, you know, cleaned and res cemented and re-grouted so that it can stand up, you know, for future generations.

There's obviously a lot of work to do. but this really is a very, very important case in my mind. Agreed. I agree with you. I've been covering it for over a year. I've been obsessed about it for over a year because it really is the most important civil liberties lawsuit of our lifetimes, honestly. It doesn't matter your color, your religion, your creed, your political persuasion. This affects you. And it's being litigated in United States courts. So it's a good thing. All right. Amazing reporting Tracy Beans. I'm looking forward to sitting with you. We're going to be, you know, overseeing the red carpet event for Plandemic 3 is the stars and superstars that have really made a difference in our world are parading on the red carpet for that premiere events happening in two weeks.

Go to Plandemic3.com if you want to sign up and be a part of that historic event. Tracy Beans, keep up the great work and keep us informed. And thank you for helping us on thehighwire.com. Love all that you're doing for us. It's my honor. Thanks, Del. Have a great one. All right.

Take care.