The former IRS contractor who got a sweetheart plea agreement from the Biden administration after stealing and leaking the private tax information of President Donald Trump, will soon have to answer to Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee reports Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter “requesting that Charles E. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor who leaked tax information belonging to hundreds of thousands of Americans, including President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, appear before the Committee.”
“In February, the IRS informed the Committee that Littlejohn had leaked the private data of more than 400,000 taxpayers—nearly six times higher than the 70,000 figure initially reported by the Biden-Harris IRS,” the Committee reports, noting it “raised concerns related to the Department of Justice’s sweetheart plea deal Littlejohn received, which resulted in a light sentence despite the severity of the data breach.”
Despite pulling off what may be the greatest data theft in IRS history, which the presiding judge called “a threat to our democracy,” and exhibiting little remorse, Biden administration prosecutors allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one minor charge, giving him the lightest possible sentence.
Jordan’s letter reads, in part:
“Since the 118th Congress, the Committee has been conducting oversight into the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by your client, Charles E. Littlejohn. On January 29, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowed Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information for leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns,’ including President Trump’s tax information. Since then, the Committee has obtained information showing that the scope of the leak is much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration led the public to believe—affecting over 400,000 taxpayers. In light of this new information, Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony is critical to the Committee’s oversight efforts and advancement of potential legislative reforms. We therefore respectfully request his testimony.
“In 2017, Mr. Littlejohn applied to work as an IRS contractor with the expressed intention of accessing and disclosing President Trump’s tax returns. Not only did Mr. Littlejohn succeed in obtaining and leaking President Trump’s returns, he also disclosed ‘thousands of Americans’ federal tax returns and other private financial information’ to the New York Times and ProPublica, which together published more than 50 articles relying on the stolen information. Despite the Biden-Garland Justice Department referring to his unauthorized disclosures as ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history,’ it only charged Mr. Littlejohn with one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine. The judge who oversaw Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, admitted that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the plea agreement.
“After Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the IRS began notifying and assisting affected taxpayers. In May 2024, an IRS spokesman stated, ‘[m]ore than 70,000 people received the initial notice that their information was involved in the breach.’ However, in December 2024, the IRS issued a second wave of notifications to additional taxpayer victims. On February 14, 2025, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that it had ‘mailed notifications to 405,427 taxpayers whose taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed by Mr. Littlejohn’ and that ’89 [percent] of the[se] taxpayers are business entities.’
“In light of this new disclosure that Mr. Littlejohn leaked hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ information—not just ‘thousands’ as previously suggested—the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to charge him with just one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information is even more concerning. The Committee has jurisdiction over criminal law and federal law enforcement pursuant to House Rule X. As such, to develop effective legislation, such as reforms to DOJ procedures governing plea agreements and new statutory limits of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony is necessary.
“Accordingly, we write to request Mr. Littlejohn’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary as soon as practicable. Please confirm his appearance before the Committee as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2025. We will also work with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to facilitate his testimony in a timely manner.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Americans may know more about the man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, after a legal watchdog filed a federal lawsuit for documents being concealed by the Justice Department.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records regarding Thomas Matthew Crooks, who attempted to assassinate President Trump on July 13, 2024.”
“No more delays and excuses, the FBI should release what it has on the man who tried to kill President Trump a full year ago in Butler. Attorney General Pam Bondi should direct a full and immediate records response to this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch notes it sued after the FBI “failed to respond to a July 24, 2024, FOIA request for:”
All records, including but not limited to, investigative reports, interview summaries (Forms 1023), letterhead memoranda, photos, audio/visual recordings, database inquiries, interagency communications, and any other records, whether contained in the Central Records System or cross-referenced files, related to Thomas Matthew Crooks, born September 20, 2003 in Butler Township, PA and died on July 13, 2024, who attempted the assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024.
All records of communication in any form, including but not limited to emails, text messages, encrypted app communications and voice recordings, between FBI officials and/or FBI sources, contractors, and assets on the one hand, and Thomas Matthew Crooks on the other hand.
“On July 13, 2024, then-Republican presidential candidate Trump survived an assassination attempt while speaking at an open-air campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was shot and wounded in his upper right ear by 20-year-old Crooks, who fired eight rounds from his perch on top of a nearby building,” Judicial Watch explained, adding, “Crooks also killed one audience member, firefighter Corey Comperatore, and critically injured two others. Crooks was shot and killed by the counter sniper team of the United States Secret Service.”
Judicial Watch has been pursuing the information for nearly a year, noting:
In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA, during which there was an assassination attempt on President Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).
In September 2004, Judicial Watch sued the Department of Homeland Security for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to former President Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).
In August 2024, Judicial Watch obtained records from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force. On August 9, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
ANALYSIS – Everyone knows crime has exploded in New York City (NYC). This is especially true in the city’s subway system where aggressive mentally ill vagrants and homeless people abound.
But when a white, 24-year-old Marine veteran on the subway tries to subdue a “threatening” black, mentally ill man (with a rap sheet as long as his arm – including an outstanding warrant for felony assault) – the left can only see one thing – ‘racist murder.’
The Marine vet used a chokehold to subdue the aggressive 30-year-old homeless man, Jordan Neely on Monday.
The hold reportedly lasted 15 minutes. He was assisted in subduing Neely by at least two other riders, one of whom was black.
The apparent effort to protect passengers on the F train from Neely’s “threatening” behavior proved to be fatal. Sadly, Neely later died.
Many argue the Marine was justified. One witness told the New York Post that the man was screaming in a threatening manner.
“He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail,” said Juan Alberto Vazquez. “He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.”
But before the coroner had issued a cause of death, leftist agitators were calling it murder.
“NYC is not Gotham. We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequences. Or where the killer is justified & cheered,” City Comptroller Brad Lander tweeted Tuesday.
The next day, in response to a cautious and responsible statement from NYC mayor Erik Adams, where he said he was going to wait for more facts, Democrat NYC Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on a statement, calling the incident a “public murder,” and saying fellow Democrat Adams had reached “a new low” with his response.
This honestly feels like a new low: not being able to clearly condemn a public murder because the victim was of a social status some would deem “too low” to care about.
The last sentence is especially rich from an admin trying to cut the very services that could have helped him. https://t.co/0DtXl9DOO5
Adams, who was once a transit cop during his career with the NYPD, seemed to focus on the mentally ill Neely then also called on elected officials and advocacy groups to: “Join us in prioritizing getting people the care they need and not just allowing them to languish.”
The far-left Working Families Party ripped the initial response from Adams, calling the death “a modern-day public lynching,” said in a statement.
The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide Wednesday evening, though it needs to be clear that this does not equate to murder.
Homicides can be accidental or unintentional.
And even the conservative news outlet Daily Caller sensationalized the Marine’s action in their tweet:
While leftists tried to demonize the blonde, shaggy-haired Marine, and make Neely into an innocent victim, Newsweek reported that Neely had 42 prior arrests between 2013 and 2021, including four for assault.
And considering NYC’s violent subway crime wave, including people getting shoved in front of trains, subduing Neely seems reasonable.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that since 2019, the rate of violent crimes — murder, rape, felony assault and robbery — has more than doubled in the New York City subway system, even as ridership has dramatically decreased.
This fear was highlighted in January 2022 when Michelle Alyssa Go, a 40-year-old Asian-American woman who worked at the consulting firm Deloitte, was shoved in front of an R train in Times Square by a homeless man who police said had a history of crime and mental illness.
Meanwhile, the Soros-backed, ‘progressive,’ Manhattan District Attorney, or DA (yes, the same one gunning for Trump), Alvin Bragg, who is black, has said his office is now investigating the incident.
As part of our rigorous ongoing investigation, we will review the Medical Examiner’s report, assess all available video and photo footage, identify and interview as many witnesses as possible, and obtain additional medical records. This investigation is being handled by senior, experienced prosecutors and we will provide an update when there is additional public information to share.
Much more to come, but maybe not as quickly as some would like.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)
In a brutal blow to Hunter Biden, a judge has rejected his sweetheart plea deal. What comes next?
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)
In a stunning revelation, congressional investigators reveal the Central Intelligence Agency reviewed, approved and may have even recruited signers for an October 2020 public letter from 51 intelligence officials that falsely claimed damaging information against Democrat nominee Joe Biden had been “planted” the Russian government.
Specifically, the letter, produced with the help of the CIA, claims Russian agents faked the contents of a laptop computer, abandoned at a Delaware computer shop by Biden’s middle-aged son Hunter. Files, documents, and photograps on the laptop show Hunter Biden using drugs, frequenting prostitutes and engaged in shadowy business deals with foreign officials, which may also allegedly Joe Biden.
As part of a plan to assist Biden’s campaign and defeat President Donald Trump, 51 intelligence officials signed their name to a public letter claiming, without evidence, the laptop was planted by the Russian government.
That claim has since been proven to be a lie.
It is now also revealed the CIA had a hand in its production.
After an investigation, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) have released a report revealing
the CIA’s “Prepublication Classification Review Board” or “PCRB” “reviewed and approved the statement before its release.”
“Furthermore, evidence suggests that one CIA employee working at the PCRB may have shopped the letter to a former CIA officer who later agreed to add his name to the statement,” the lawmakers reveal in a statement.
The House Judiciary Committee, in a statement, further reveals:
On April 5, 2023, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell testified before the Committees that Secretary Blinken, then serving as a senior Biden campaign advisor, was the impetus of the public statement. Documents also revealed that Morell rushed the statement through the PCRB process in order for Vice President Biden to have a “talking point” to use during the October 22, 2020, presidential debate.
Additionally, evidence suggests that senior Biden campaign officials, including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken, now Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates, and now Counselor to the President Steve Ricchetti, took active measures to discredit the allegations about Hunter Biden by exploiting the national security credentials of former intelligence officials and coordinated efforts to disseminate the statement with members of the media. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the CIA’s PCRB reviewed and approved the statement before its release.
According to a written statement provided to the Committees by former CIA official David Cariens, the CIA—or at least an employee of the CIA—may have helped in the effort to solicit signatures for the statement. Cariens explained that he spoke with the PCRB in October 2020 regarding the review of his memoir and during that call the CIA employee “asked” him if he would sign the statement.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – While most of us don’t care much about what a deranged former porn star turned ‘Only Fans’ webcam model (‘cam girl’) says, it’s a sign of our times that this is news.
Mia Khalifa is a 30-year-old Lebanese American born in Beirut and raised Catholic. But her previous life choices and current words and actions are far from Christian.
Once PornHub’s highest-ranked adult star, Khalifa left the hard-core porn business to focus on ‘Only Fans.’
Khalifa, who has long called Israel an apartheid state, provoked outrage with her enthusiastic support for Hamas terrorists following their horrific surprise attack on Israel which has taken over 800 Israeli lives, mostly civilians.
Her support for the terrorists was shameless calling them ‘freedom fighters’ — even urging the brutal murderers to “flip their phones and film” their murderous rampage on Israel in the “horizontal.”
When criticized for her horizontal comment, she responded, “I just wanna make sure there’s 4k footage of my people breaking down the walls of the open air prison they’ve been forced out of their homes and into so we have good options for the history books that write about how how they freed themselves from apartheid.”
Fox News reported:
She also reposted a message that said, “Babe wake up Palestine is getting liberated,” and mocked video of Israelis fleeing from attackers. Khalifa reposted anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian messages throughout the multipronged terrorist attack that left hundreds dead. Khalifa celebrated as terrifying videos, which included footage of Hamas kidnapping women and children while groups of young partygoers were tied up and taken into Gaza, shocked most onlookers.
In a separate, apparently now-deleted post on X, Khalifa reportedly called a photo of Hamas terrorists in a pickup truck a “Renaissance painting.”
Her support for Islamists terrorists is ironic considering that the pornographic performer also made headlines for claiming she received ISIS death threats as recently as 2018 over a sex scene she filmed wearing a hijab.
Her current online rantings seem to also be hurting her pocketbook.
Earlier, Khalifa doubled down amidst the backlash: “I’d say supporting Palestine has lost me business opportunities, but I’m more angry at myself for not checking whether or not I was entering into business with Zionists. My bad,” she wrote.
But maybe the online backlash has finally caused her to backtrack, with the disgraced porn actress apparently shifting from being pro-Hamas, to simply being pro-Palestinian.
Hamas is not Palestine’s army, their actions do not reflect the Palestinian people. Hamas formed in 1987, 20 years AFTER the occupation, as a means of resistance to ethnic cleansing and apartheid. They are an extremist group calling on other extremist groups that also do not represent the masses of people.
While no one should really care what Khalifa says, she can be seen as a bellwether of certain online opinions. And it is important to read them and counter outrageous opinions like hers wherever we find them.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Team Biden colluded intimately with Big Tech social media companies to censor conservative Americans, the White House doubled down on violating the 1st Amendment.
As I wrote last week, on July 4th a federal judge blocked “federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.”
This, after a lawsuit against the Biden administration by three Republican state Attorney Generals (AGs).
According to the judge, Terry A. Doughty, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”
“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history,” Doughty wrote in his preliminary injunction against more than 40 administration officials.
“In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and particularly the defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”
Please note – ‘disinformation’ is any information the left and Team Biden don’t like.
This is serious constitutional stuff. One would think the White House might say, “ok, we overstepped a bit.”
But not Team Biden.
Using the Orwellian doublespeak, the left always uses to hide the truth, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said: “We are going to continue to promote responsible actions.”
She added: “That is something that we’re going to continue to do to make sure we protect public health and make sure there is safety and security.”
Using similar verbiage, the Department of Justice announced later that same day that it would appeal the decision, to protect public health, safety, and security.
Basically, Team Biden said, we don’t care, we want to keep violating the Constitution and censoring our opponents. And we are going to request an emergency order from the judge to do it.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry opposed the Biden administration’s attempt to stop the injunction in a court filing Sunday, writing the administration was essentially asking to “continue violating the First Amendment.”
“In essence, Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint,” they wrote in the court filing. “In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”
Thankfully, on Monday the same federal judge blocked Biden again, denying the administration’s attempt to pause the injunction.
The Washington Post reported that Judge Doughty noted again that the plaintiffs (the state AGs) would likely succeed in proving the government colluded with social media companies “to engage in viewpoint-based suppression of protected free speech.”
Responding to the hysteria surrounding his initial injunction, Doughty also wrote:
Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies 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.
Rejecting the administration’s argument that the order could chill law enforcement activity to protect national security, the judge added that It also contains numerous exceptions for communications related to criminal activity, explicit dangers to national security, and foreign election interference.
Meanwhile, this important battle will continue as the AGs’ lawsuit works its way through the legal system.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
