[Header]
[[link removed]]


More Censorship Docs Uncovered!

Records Detail Federal-State Censorship Coordination in 2020 Election

[[link removed]]
We received
[[link removed]
pages
[[link removed]]
of heavily redacted records from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that
show state election officials in the days before and after the 2020
election flagging online content deemed “misinformation.”

They sent these online posts to the Center for Internet Security
(CIS), a DHS-funded nonprofit, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA), the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), and
others.

The records provide more disturbing evidence of a conspiracy by
federal, state, and “private” actors to censor Americans on social
media during a presidential campaign
Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to our lawsuit
[[link removed]]
for records
of communications between the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA), a division of DHS, and the Election Integrity
Partnership (EIP), which was created to suppress online election
content (_Judicial Watch Inc. vs. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:22-cv-03560 )). We filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia after DHS failed to respond to an October
2022 FOIA request.

The newly obtained records include a November 4, 2020,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
report from CIS “Misinformation Reports” to Brian Scully, head of
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Mis-,
Dis-, Malinformation (MDM) branch, a division of DHS. The report
originated in the Washington State secretary of state’s office and
states:

> I wanted to flag the following tweet: [handle redacted]. There is no
> evidence for the claim being made of a widespread mail-in fraud
> operation to benefit Democrats in swing states.
The flagged tweet reads:

> A note to ALL CONSERVATIVE media people projecting Trump victories
> in swing states:
>
> Yes, Republican turn out may be strong!
>
> Yes, that’s good news.
>
> From a mail in state veteran: The Democrats will wait to know how
> many votes they have to “find”, then, they will magically
> appear.
On November 12, 2020, Scully sends an
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
with subject line “Hammer and Scorecard Tweets” to individuals
whose names are redacted and have a @gmail email address a
@stanford.edu email address respectively. Scully introduces the
“program manager for the EIP” at Stanford University and who is
“a friend of Director Krebs” (former CISA Director
[[link removed]
Krebs
[[link removed]]).

The
[[link removed]
Integrity Partnership
[[link removed]]
(EIP), which was initially called the Election Misinformation
Partnership, was created in the days leading up to the November 3,
2020, election. It tasked staffers with monitoring online election
content 24 hours a day with a priority being “disinfo that is going
viral.”

On January 19, 2021, Scully receives
[[link removed]
email
[[link removed]]
with subject line “Draft: COVID-19 What to Expect and 60-Day Plan”
from an individual with a @stanford.edu email address (whose name is
redacted):

> [Redacted] and I wanted to pass along SIO’s [Stanford Internet
> Observatory
>
[[link removed]]]
> vaccine misinfo what-to-expect and 60-day plan draft whitepaper for
> your feedback, find it attached. Please feel free to tear it apart
> -- it is mainly based on our experience with EIP and the vaccine
> misinfo we've seen so far.
Two days later, a redacted sender from Stanford asks Scully to give
feedback on an attached document, “Virality Project Jan 19 Vaccine
Weekly Briefing,” which is not included with the responsive records
provided to Judicial Watch.

On November 2, 2020, a person at Facebook’s U.S. Politics and
Government Outreach whose name is redacted
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to “Misinformation Reports” at CIS, and CCs Scully, someone at
CISA Central, someone at CFITF (CISA’s Counter Foreign Influence
Task Force) and “[email protected]” with the
subject “Facebook post alleging submitting multiple ballots
fraudulently.” The Facebook official states: “On it now.
Thanks!” regarding review of a social media post reported by the
Iowa Secretary of State’s office. The Facebook post is redacted.

A November 4, 2020,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from Facebook is sent to “Misinformation Reports” at CIS, Scully,
CISA Central, CFITF and “[email protected].” It
states: “Received and looking into this,” regarding review of a
social media post reported by a government official in Kentucky. The
Facebook post is redacted.

In a separate November 4, 2020,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
regarding a social media post reported by a Kentucky government
official, a Facebook official writes: “Confirming that this has been
closed out and the SoS has been notified. Thanks!” The Facebook post
is redacted.

Your Judicial Watch will continue to expose the government’s
involvement in what is an ongoing and unprecedented attack on
Americans’ First Amendment rights.

JUDICIAL WATCH ASKS COURT TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE AUDIO OF
PRESIDENT BIDEN’S INTERVIEW WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL HUR

The Biden administration wants to destroy the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) to protect Joe Biden.

Judicial Watch just
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
a federal court to reject the Biden Justice Department’s request to
rewrite FOIA and that it ordered the release of the audio recordings
of President Biden’s interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur
within 14 days.

This lawsuit has already forced the Biden administration to
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
that
the transcripts of the audio recordings have been altered and are not
accurate.

Judicial Watch filed the first FOIA
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
and
is the lead plaintiff asking for the Biden audio recordings of his
interviews in Special Counsel Hur’s criminal investigation of
Biden’s theft and disclosure of classified records (_Judicial Watch,
Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00700)). The lawsuit helped force the release of a
redacted transcript of the Biden interview.

The Biden Justice Department,
[[link removed]
seeking
[[link removed]]
to keep the audio recordings secret, asked the court to ignore
precedent and rewrite FOIA law. The Biden agency demands that a law
enforcement/executive privilege exemption be rewritten to help Joe
Biden; wants to change FOIA law to protect (after 50 years of being a
politician) President Joe Biden’s privacy in his voice; and seeks to
potentially end FOIA with a new argument that the possible “AI”
alteration of the Hur recordings is reason to keep the keep the
recordings and any government record a secret from the public.

We argue that the recordings should be released “because an open
question remains about whether Special Counsel Hur’s conclusion that
President Biden should not be prosecuted for his mishandling of
classified records [and] is supported by the evidence.”

Further, the audio would educate the public about “whether Special
Counsel Hur appropriately pursued justice by recommending to the
attorney general that criminal charges should not be brought against
President Biden concerning his mishandling of classified
materials.” This question “is of even more import these days
because another special counsel (with approval by Attorney General
Garland) is currently prosecuting President Trump for allegedly
engaging in similar actions. In addition to President Trump being
both President Biden’s former political opponent and the current
Republican nominee in the upcoming Presidential election, President
Trump is the only former president or vice president to be prosecuted
for such actions.”

We also criticize the Biden Justice Department’s reliance on a case
that allowed the withholding of the audio of the dying cries of the
Challenger astronauts as simply “repugnant.”

On February 5, 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into
Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified
Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and
the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a
poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious
felony:”

> We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely
> present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as
> a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based
> on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is
> someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.
> It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict
> him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious
> felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
Prior to the finalization of the report, the White House issued
[[link removed]
letter
[[link removed]]
to the Special Counsel’s office attacking the report’s
“treatment of President Biden’s memory,” and added “there is
ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in
answering your questions …”

The White House
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to the court that the transcript of President Joe Biden’s testimony
to Special Counsel Robert Hur is not accurate and is missing “filler
words (such as ‘um’ or ‘uh’)” and words that “may have
been repeated when spoken (such as ‘I, I’ or ‘and, and’)”
which were sometimes “only listed a single time in the
transcripts.”

The Heritage Foundation and a CNN-led media coalition have recently
been joined
[[link removed]]
with our lawsuit.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR ATF RECORDS ON ARKANSAS RAID THAT LED TO
SHOOTING DEATH OF CLINTON NATIONAL AIRPORT OFFICIAL

There was a concerning Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) raid that led to death of an American citizen back in
March, and Judicial Watch immediately began investigating.

It led to our filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
against the ATF for records regarding the fatal shooting of Little
Rock, AR, resident and Executive Director of the Clinton National
Airport Bryan Malinowski (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01679)).

We sued on June 10, 2024, after the ATF failed to respond adequately
to an April 16 FOIA request for:

* All emails and text messages sent to and from ATF officials
regarding Little Rock resident Bryan Malinowski who died in an ATF
raid on March 19, 2024.
* All records related to the raid on the home of Bryan Malinowski,
including but not limited to, re-operational briefing documents, raid
plans, investigative reports, memoranda, warrants and audio and video
recordings.

Malinowski
[[link removed]
following an ATF raid
[[link removed]]
in March 2024. The ATF
[[link removed]
produced
[[link removed]]
heavily redacted search warrant court filings.

On April 22, 2024, Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, wrote
[[link removed]
letter
[[link removed]]
to ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, asking for details about “the
deadly pre-dawn raid conducted by ATF in Little Rock, Arkansas, while
executing a search warrant on the home of Bryan Malinowski, a local
airport executive.”

An
[[link removed]
[[link removed]],
which was unsealed after Malinowski’s death and
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to us, alleged he unlawfully sold guns without a license.
Malinowski’s family lawyer and former federal prosecutor, Bud
Cummins,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
described Malinowski’s gun sales as “a hobby and protected by the
Second Amendment.” In testimony before a subcommittee of the U.S.
House of Representatives, Cummins
[[link removed]
[[link removed]],
“Malinowski never broke any laws selling the way he did, even when a
handful of weapons turned up at crime scenes later.”

Video footage of the raid recently released
[[link removed]
X
[[link removed]]
and the
[[link removed]
Times_
[[link removed]],
shows that Malinowski’s wife thought that the law enforcement
officers raiding their home were intruders.

The Biden ATF’s deadly raid on Bryan Malinowski’s home, in what
was essentially a licensing dispute, screams out for a thorough
examination. Slow walking the release of basic information about this
raid suggests that the ATF has something to hide.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER DELETION OF ‘DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY’ FROM
WEST POINT MISSION STATEMENT

Judicial Watch just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
against the U.S. Department of Defense for records regarding the
deletion of the words “Duty, Honor, Country” from the United
States Military Academy at West Point’s mission statement (_Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01757)). “Duty, Honor, Country” is West Point’s
motto.

We sued after the Military Academy failed to respond to a March 2024
FOIA request for:

* All documents which form the basis upon which the decision was
made to remove the phrase “Duty, Honor, Country” from the United
States Military Academy Mission Statement, according to various
reports (such as
[[link removed]).
* All emails between the following USMA officials and other email
accounts ending in .mil or .gov regarding the removal of “Duty,
Honor, Country” from the USMA Mission Statement: Superintendent LTG
Steve Gilland, MG Lori Robinson, and BG Shane Reeves.

In a March 12, 2024, “Message from the 61st Superintendent
[[link removed]
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Steven Gilland announced the change,
referencing the Army’s continued commitment to “Duty, Honor and
Country” and then announces the new mission statement without
explaining why the words themselves were deleted:

> Duty, Honor, Country is foundational to the United States Military
> Academy's culture and will always remain our motto. It defines who
> we are as an institution and as graduates of West Point. These three
> hallowed words are the hallmark of the cadet experience and bind the
> Long Gray Line together across our great history.
>
> Our responsibility to produce leaders to fight and win our
> nation’s wars requires us to assess ourselves regularly. Thus,
> over the past year and a half, working with leaders from across West
> Point and external stakeholders, we reviewed our vision, mission,
> and strategy to serve this purpose. We believe our mission binds the
> Academy to the Army -- the Army in which our cadets will serve. As a
> result of this assessment, we recommended the following mission
> statement to our senior Army leadership:
>
> _To build, educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets to be
> commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and
> ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation._ [Emphasis
> in original]
>
> Both the Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff approved this
> recommendation….
Given the woke virus infecting West Point, deleting the words
“Duty, Honor, Country” from its mission statement has sparked
justified concern about what the Army’s rising leadership is being
taught at the United States Military Academy. And the unlawful
stonewalling of the release of records about the issue makes matters
worse.

Our lawsuits and FOIA requests on Critical Race Theory and other
leftist extremism are extensive.

In July 2023, we
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
records from the United States Air Force Academy, a component of the
United States Department of Defense, which included instructional
materials and emails that address topics such as Critical Race Theory,
“white privilege,” and Black Lives Matter.

In March 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from
the U.S. Department of Defense showed the U.S. Air Force Academy has
made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of
cadets.

In June 2022, we
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
Critical
Race Theory (CRT) instruction at the U.S. Military Academy, West
Point. One training slide contained a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY
SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]