Plus: Nothing Burger for Hunter :: Rare Win for CA Parents :: Putin & Kim Bro Out

Leighton Woodhouse

and

Alex Gutentag

Sep 15, 2023

Free Speech on Trial

Missouri v. Biden, one of the most important free speech cases in American history, is almost certainly going to the Supreme Court.

The case centers around whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment of the Constitution when it pressured social media platforms to take down or de-amplify accounts that voiced speech the government disagreed with. Two of the plaintiffs in the case are Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Battacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, currently on leave from Harvard, who co-wrote a statement called the Great Barrington Declaration, which laid out an alternative public health response to lockdowns and school closures. For that, they were personally targeted by Anthony Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins, who orchestrated a media campaign to discredit them. On social media, they were censored and shadow-banned, which is at the heart of the case.

On the Fourth of July, a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent the government from pressuring social media companies to censor any further content. That ruling was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which issued a mixed ruling on the injunction.

Yesterday, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in by appealing the federal court’s injunction. That’s a risky move for the government, given how stridently pro-free speech this court is. Most observers believe the Supreme Court is almost certain to hear the case.

In its application for a stay on the injunction, the Biden administration argued that the Fifth Circuit decision “contradicts fundamental First Amendment principles.”

“A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the Office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest,” the administration wrote.

“The court imposed unprecedented limits on the ability of the President’s closest aides to use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern, on the FBI’s ability to address threats to the Nation’s security, and on the CDC’s ability to relay public health information at platforms’ request.”

In other words, according to the Biden administration, by preventing the government from censoring people, the court is violating the government’s freedom of speech.

Public is tracking this case closely and will report on any developments here as it makes its way to the nation’s highest court.

—LW & AG

Nothing Burger for Hunter

Special Counsel David Weiss has indicted Hunter Biden with three crimes connected to his purchase of a gun in 2018. Hunter was charged for allegedly false statements he made while buying the gun and for possessing the gun while he was addicted to drugs.

This may be just the beginning of the charges brought against Hunter, but it is also probable that the indictment is a diversion. The DOJ knew about these gun crimes for years and tried to give Hunter a complete pass on them. What’s more, the gun charges are minor compared to Hunter’s multiple alleged felonies for tax evasion and money laundering. And notably, President Joe Biden is not implicated in the gun charges. If the DOJ thoroughly investigated Hunter’s business dealings and foreign influence peddling schemes, his father would almost certainly be connected.

Weiss’ previous attempt to arrange a sweetheart plea deal suggests that he may not be serious about conducting a thorough investigation. This week, an IRS whistleblower also claimed that Weiss was “not the deciding person” in Hunter’s case, implying that the DOJ’s pattern of protecting Hunter goes all the way to the top.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has testified under oath that Weiss was given full authority to bring charges against Hunter in any jurisdiction. If Weiss was actually limited in this capacity, it would potentially mean that Garland committed perjury before Congress.

Weiss’ indictment comes the same week that House Republicans announced the start of their impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s alleged history of foreign business deals involving his official role as vice president. The evidence for the inquiry includes the fact that Biden was present on phone calls with his son’s business associates 20 times, that his son’s business partners met at the White House over 80 times, and that the Bidens’ bank records show they received $20 million through suspicious transactions.

In response to the impeachment inquiry, the White House swiftly sent out a memo to news media companies titled “It’s Time For the Media To Do More To Scrutinize House Republicans’ Demonstrably False Claims That They’re Basing Impeachment Stunt On.” Media outlets then proceeded to write stories with language that came directly from the memo.

Democrats may be right that the allegations against Hunter are bogus, but if that were the case why would the federal government need to undermine investigations and coordinate public relations with the media? We may not have definitive proof that Joe Biden was complicit in his son’s crimes yet, but the behavior of the White House and the DOJ is, if nothing else, highly suggestive of a cover-up.

—AG

War on Parents Hits the Trifecta

Protesters face off with counterprotesters in Glendale, California in June

Subscribe Here