On October 24, 2023, Iowa Senator Charles (Chuck) Grassley sent a demand letter to Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray, instructing them to provide his Senate Committee on the Budget with all records and relevant information from an enumerated list of 15 items pertaining to the Biden family investigations into foreign entanglements and associated finances during the past five years. The deadline for AG Garland and Director Wray to respond is November 17, 2023.
The letter is a comprehensive review of findings from Grassley's various Committee investigation (Committees include Senate Judiciary, Senate Finance, Senate Commerce, Senate Budget, to name a few) into alleged Biden-family corruption, including numerous DOJ/FBI and IRS whistleblowers' testimonies, that have provided ample probable cause for opening and pursuing such investigations. Yet evidence shows varied investigations were summarily shut down by DOJ/FBI department superiors in multiple jurisdictions nationwide, under the auspices of “Russia disinformation,” from Willmington the Eastern District of New York, and from Pittsburgh to Seattle.
Evidence to the contrary debunks any “Russian disinformation” relative to suspicious activities by the Biden family, and Grassley is demanding the lawful and timely cooperation from these two apparent obfuscators. The in-depth, five-page letter can be read in its entirety here (Grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_justice_deptfbi1023followup.pdf). There are technical references that need a deeper dive by most of us, but it's high time we start applying the same standards of scrutiny to all public employees, regardless of political party affiliation. If we are unwilling to hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable, why on Earth should they police themselves? Employees respect what employers inspect.
SCOTUS Allows Government Agencies and Their NGOs to Resume Censorship of Americans Until Spring 2024
On October 20, 2023, SCOTUS lifted the injunction preventing several express federal government agencies from continuing to violate Americans' constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of Free Speech, until it hears the States Missouri & Louisiana v. Joseph Biden case next Spring. In other words, the majority of Justices – Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Coney-Barrett, and Brown-Jackson – unfathomably decided it prudent to allow the government's continued violative conduct for several more months, regardless of potential additional harm, with no explanation, whatsoever. Justice Alito wrote, and Justices Thomas, and Gorsuch joined, an unusually critical dissent of their fellow Justices' legally and meritoriously bereft ruling. Several of the dissent's enlightening paragraphs follow with a link to the majority ruling, including the entire dissension, all of which is deserving of a read.
From Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023) ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 23A243 (23–411)
VIVEK H. MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [October 20, 2023]:
“On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of 'a coordinated campaign' of unprecedented 'magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life … .'
“To stop this 'campaign,' the injunction, as it now stands, prohibits the covered officials from doing two things. First,they may not 'coerce' social media platforms to make 'content-moderation decisions.' Id., at *32. Second, they may not 'meaningfully control[l]' social media platforms’ 'content-moderation' efforts. Ibid. Displeased with these restrictions, the Government filed an emergency application asking us to stay the effect of this injunction pending certiorari … .'
“A stay is an 'extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.' Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 22 (2008)(discussing the similar standard for an injunction). Thus, the Government in this case must make a 'clear showing' of irreparable harm. And to do that, it is not enough to 'simply sho[w] some ‘possibility of irreparable injury.’ ' Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). A mere '‘possibility’ standard is too lenient.' Id., at 435 (quoting Winter, 555 U. S., at 22). Instead, the Government must prove that irreparable harm is 'likel[y].' Hollingsworth, 558 U. S., at 190. Here, the Government’s
attempts to demonstrate irreparable harm do not come close to clearing this high bar … .'
“Despite the Government’s conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm [by not granting the stay], the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified. The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts’ detailed findings of fact. But '[w]here an intermediate court reviews, and affirms, a trial court’s factual findings, this Court will not ‘lightly overturn’ the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.' Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234 (2001); see also Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 882 (2015); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275 (1949). And the majority suspends the relief afforded below without a word of explanation … .'
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.”
This SCOTUS majority ruling (with three dissenting votes by Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch) reversed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that upheld the lower District Court's decision to enjoin specified personnel from government agencies and their non-governmental organization (NGO) proxies among a host of defendants that include the DOJ/FBI; Health and Human Services including CDC, FDA, and Fauci's NIAID; Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the White House including Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; U.S. Commerce Department; U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Treasury; U.S. State Department; U.S. Election Assistance Commission; Election Integrity Partnership (EIP); and the Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Previously, in July of 2023, the Court had issued a Preliminary Injunction against the defendants which prohibited the Defendants from contacting social-media companies and taking specific actions for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. The Defendants (aka government agency personnel et al) immediately filed for a Motion to Stay at the Supreme Court, who just last week temporarily granted this Stay until the following Spring 2024, when SCOTUS will hear the full case that will hopefully permanently prevent these public sector oath-breakers from administratively violating constitutionally protected free speech with impunity, using private sector social media companies as proxy government actors. One of the bedrock rules of our constitutional republic is that government cannot engage in activities using private organizations that it cannot do on its own.
Plaintiffs are the States of Missouri and Louisiana v. Joseph Biden, 2023 WL 6425697, *27. Additional Plaintiffs include Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorf, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Jim Hoft, and Jill Hines (SupremeCourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf).
