Missouri v. Biden: More Stunning Developments

  • by:
  • Source: UncoverDC
  • 09/19/2023

If it feels like just yesterday we were breaking down some revelations from discovery in the Missouri v. Biden case, it’s because we were. However, there were a few filings last night that we need to go through. Highlights? There are plenty, but the most amazing one, to me, was how Biden’s own censorship policies ended up sweeping the Presidents Instagram into the censorship net.

Every single point in this article is important. Please read them all.

We previously discussed the deposition (or lack thereof) of Jen Psaki. The government brought the case to the 5th circuit, which again sent it back to the district court to re-evaluate taking the deposition of lower-level officials. The 5th erred in their interpretation of the record.

The defendants (the government) filed this today. The court ordered the parties to file regarding the stay that the 5th circuit placed on the Psaki deposition, a deposition they are trying desperately to avoid. We will see a lot of why that is later on.

None of what they are saying here is accurate, even though they accurately portray what the 5th circuit said. They are leaving out a few key statements from the 5th about the case to shift the narrative their way. This judge doesn't deal well with these tactics.

The government states that the judge should decline to extend the expedited discovery period. If he doesn't, it should order them to amend their previous responses to questions they have already been asked. One may wonder, WHAT COULD CHANGE?

Well, they will consult with her.


I am only adding this to show you how malicious they truly are; they cite here the plaintiffs "aging preliminary-injunction motion."

It's "aging" because the government delayed, obfuscated, refused, stamped their feet, screamed, appealed, and threw tantrums the ENTIRE TIME.

Of course, defendants don't believe discovery of Psaki is necessary AT ALL, let alone in an expedited manner. They use the 5th circuit decision and make sure the judge knows what it said, but again, the record was incorrectly reviewed in the decision.

Here they claim the "record is replete" with information like what they seek from Psaki, insinuating that the Plaintiffs have enough government officials pressuring and threatening social media companies to censor Americans' speech—they wouldn't need MORE.

Indeed, Defendants, you have produced a ton of discovery, but the QUANTITY of discovery produced isn't to be a pat on the back. You've WITHHELD a whole lot of it as well. Additionally, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart; you were ORDERED to by a court.

Also, as anyone who has ever received "discovery" or exculpatory under Brady from the government will tell you, they often overwhelm you with BS just as a time suck. Anyone familiar can chime in here and let everyone know.

The government argues here that she was merely commenting on public policy and that she shouldn't be required to disclose anything further. Never mind that the policy was blatantly unconstitutional; that doesn't matter. They say if we open up this can of worms, no one is safe.

They state the Plaintiffs can't justify getting ANY more information about her statements, even by other means, but remember, when we first started this, they admitted that they could consult with her for answers if necessary. Legal wrangling.

The problem with the assertion that they are "exploiting" the discovery process is that the Plaintiffs needed to AMEND their complaint to add more defendants after the first bulk of discovery came in. There were SO MANY officials (that the gov didn't disclose) that were incidentally discovered to be pressuring and threatening social media companies that they needed to redraft their complaint to add people!

So, no, this isn't "exploiting" anything; it's expanded discovery because they were engaged in outright lawbreaking.

The government has responded numerous times now that NO ONE exists that knows anything about what Psaki said, even though in her statements, she told the world those people exist. The defendants have refused to do what they are saying here, so it is amazing they are saying this.

This statement they make is the equivalent of Ty Clevenger sending FOIA to the FBI, only to be told nothing exists, keep pushing, and on the 70th, try to find out that there are thousands of pages of responsive documents. They have NARROWLY tailored their search and admitted it.

Sorry, Brian. This isn't happening. I would be STUNNED if it did, especially given what we are about to embark on reading together now. Attached as an exhibit are four pages of deposition of Vivek Murthy's assistant. The entire transcript isn't included because the government LOVES to be transparent. It's four pages where Eric Waldo pretends he doesn't remember attending meetings and stutters when questioned about unlawful censorship he and his boss advanced on the American people.

Of course, the Plaintiffs responded, and oh, did they respond. What you are about to read is as stunning in fact as it is in theory, and I recommend you buckle up; because when this one SLIVER of information provided is extrapolated out, the picture is GRUESOME for the government.

Defendants have stonewalled requests and tried to run out the clock (recall what I said about time earlier) by not responding properly to the court-ordered interrogatory and using Psaki's former Press Secretary status to block her deposition.

The government identified Flaherty and Slavitt as two of the individuals that Psaki was referring to HOWEVER, they only did that because they had already been unearthed in earlier discovery because they were copied on emails, as we discussed in the space yesterday. You'll see.

The delay and obfuscation by the government HARMED the expedited discovery process because they couldn't do the follow-up they needed to do. (I am not concerned about this— they have TONS of actionable discovery)

The Plaintiffs want a few things:

1. For the gov to talk to Jen and get the right answers to their questions.

2. To identify other WH officials who have worked with socials to censor.

3. Order those officials to respond to written discovery or subpoena.


Still maintain the same briefing schedule to rule on the temp injunction.

Understand, the judge has prolonged that schedule several times, not because of PLAINTIFF issues, but because of DEFENDANT ones. Appeals, delays, and the kicking of feet. ALSO—I want to state this so it isn't surprising to anyone when it happens. As soon as the judge rules in favor of the Plaintiffs on the temporary injunction (he likely will), which immediately HALTS the government's censorship program, the government will appeal upwards. Be ready.

One of the reasons that the court granted the expedited discovery in the first place was the sheer hubris of the officials engaged in the censorship, who BRAZENLY proclaimed they were doing it in press conferences, tweets, meetings, and seminars.

Here we learn the truth. The government only told the Plaintiffs about Flaherty and Slavitt because they knew their names had already been exposed in other emails with other depts. Their involvement—directly out of the White House—spanned almost the whole government.

The government's admission of Flaherty and Slavitt doesn't even scratch the surface, and the Plaintiffs know this due to the responsive docs they've received. Other officials? Courtney Rowe, Benjamin Wakana, Clarke Humphrey, Dori Salcido, Subhan Chema, and Mina Hsiang.

Meta discovery disclosure produced even MORE than what was found in the government response, meaning the government didn't return all docs, OR the other people weren't identified. Those people are pretty stunning: Former White House counsel Dana Remus, Aisha Sha—AND Special Assistant to the PRESIDENT, Laura Rosenberger. Meta handed that to the Plaintiffs, not the government. And for good reason. It's unconstitutional.

The production from Flaherty wielded EVEN MORE officials the government had failed to include when responding regarding Psaki, providing vague and unresponsive information— when it had information in its possession.

The lawsuit started with a subset of topics that MO and LA and Plaintiffs thought were being censored on social media, namely, Hunter Biden's laptop, election fraud, COVID-19, and vaccines, among others. But discovery from Meta has revealed MUCH, MUCH more.

In responsive documents from Meta, it has been revealed that the gov is censoring Americans' speech on climate change, "gendered disinformation," and abortion-related speech through other departments. The U.S. government is a propaganda machine, using YOUR tax dollars to do it.

What we are about to get now in this filing is a review of the most horrific of the discoveries in Flaherty's emails, many of which I have detailed for you already; however, I am going to pick a bunch from here because these attorneys are far more eloquent at explaining than I.

As we discussed in my last article, Flaherty was, well, gross. He cursed at social media execs with "petty and incessant demands." When those didn't work, he and Slavitt resorted to outright threats. We saw a lot of Flaherty acting like the direct manager of Social Media employees and an abusive one at that.

As per the filing, Flaherty gaslit social media execs, telling them their actions were responsible for January 6th.


"And where strong language, persistence, and psychological manipulation fail, they resort to outright threats."

Here they focus on the most depraved of all actions I have seen, ensuring that vaccine injured were ripped from their support groups and screaming their plight to NO ONE, even if true, and even if it didn't violate ANY TOS. This is inhumane. This is your government.

More, with YouTube. Tell me this doesn't look like he is their direct supervisor or an abusive spouse. These are the kinds of people in the White House…

Here they discuss how Flaherty got involved over the Twitter parody video they didn't want to remove. We learn here that ultimately, it WAS removed, even after weeks of back and forth about it and Twitter holding firm. He SCOLDS them.

Facebook truly was the battered spouse in this unconstitutional relationship, bending over backward and apologizing profusely for letting a Tucker Carlson video about the shots-that was 100% accurate and didn't even QUALIFY for fact-checking, go viral.

Understand, Flaherty is consumed with the uptake of "vaccination" and seemed hell-bent on removing ALL hesitancy. At one point in the discovery, we learn that even Facebook told them that if they keep removing EVERYTHING counter to the narrative, people will start to think—coverup.

Independent media was feverishly reporting on all of the possible issues with these shots, including @UncoverDC. At one point, someone even complained we focused TOO MUCH on this, but undeterred by all of the censorship, indie's pushed on. They use the management analogy in their filing, even saying Flaherty micromanaged down to INDIVIDUAL POSTS and their reach.

Flaherty used MSM reporting to berate social media companies' lack of censorship. This was the same circle we saw used in Russiagate by the Intelligence Community—launder something fake to the media, they report on it, circle it back into warrant requests, etc. It's weaponized goverment.

The entire time, through all of its filings, the government said (paraphrasing) "well, yea, we recommend things to social media companies based on THEIR TOS; we don't hold a gun to their head and MAKE them do anything." Their ENTIRE defense rests on this point.

We learned that the government had HELPED CRAFT the TOS for these companies, and we also learned that former high-level IC employees inhabit positions at ALL of these companies. Check this thread from Twitter for more. The defense has no defense. It's gone. This case will end up at SCOTUS, where it will be ruled on as a free speech issue brought by STATES. It will change everything. They won't lose.


You are going to want to bookmark this next one because it is SO GOOD, I can barely contain myself. God is working in SUCH mysterious and wonderful ways…

Flaherty notices that the "POTUS" Instagram account slows in gaining followers. So he contacts Instagram. Instagram checks into it and tells him it was an "internal issue they can't get into, but it's fixed now." Flaherty LOSES it, cursing at them and demanding an answer.

So, it turns out that after being constantly pressured and bombarded by the government to do more on censorship, IG implemented an algorithm to catch all accounts posting "far greater than normal" vaccine-related content. But they didn't distinguish the language IN the post.

Due to "over-enforcement" on this signal, the algorithm swept up the POTUS account in its censorship push. The WH was posting SO MUCH pro-vaccine content, they also didn't distinguish, and the WH was CENSORED. They were livid when it happened to THEM. The sweet, sweet irony...

The government went insane trying to block Psaki's deposition and, in doing so, revealed that they hadn't even ASKED HER who she was talking about when she made the statements about censorship in the presser, something they were required to do.

The end here is what the Plaintiffs want the judge to do. I am not going to belabor it, but I will detail some.

"The Court Should Order the Government to Supplement its Interrogatory Responses After Consulting with Psaki, But That Alone Is Not Enough."

"The Court Should Order the Government to Disclose the Identities of White House Officials Who Communicate with Social-Media Platforms About Misinformation and Censorship Within Three Days."

The government produced the Flaherty emails because they were under stern warning from the judge.

"The Court Should Order Defendants to Produce These White House Officials' Communications With Social-Media Platforms Within Fourteen Days."


Here it is, all summed up because remember, this is ALL because Psaki doesn't want to go under oath, the government doesn't want her to either, and it seems they are willing to do anything to stop it.

A few things in conclusion. The AGs love to give us as much as possible with their filings, so 99% of the time, they will include a full transcript, a full discovery set, or at least a LARGE portion. That is the case here, with 70 pages of Flaherty in Exhibit A.

There are certain cases that I latch on to because in every fiber of my being and from experience, I KNOW they will be life-altering cases for most Americans. This is one of those cases. It's just massive.

Get the latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

© 2024 UncoverDC