Supreme Court Should End ‘State Secrets’ Shield, by James Bovard | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/11/20/supreme-court-should-end-state-secrets-shield-by-james-bovard/

As it has evolved, the government can invoke the state secrets shield without having to subject the state secret to any kind of judicial review, leading to all sorts of infringements on individual liberties. From James Bovard at antiwar.com:

Supreme Court Should End ‘State Secrets’ Shield

“State Secrets” is often invoked to give federal agencies a free pass from justice, without having to explain why.

Will federal law enforcement agencies ever be forced to disclose their abuses of American citizens? The Supreme Court could answer that question in its decision on a potentially landmark case it heard last week regarding surveillance of Muslim communities in California. Though the case may be decided on narrow grounds, it involves a legal Pandora’s Box that has spawned and shielded the worst abuses of the post-9/11 era.

Beginning in 2006, the FBI sent Craig Monteilh, a former Drug Enforcement Administration informant, into mosques in southern California to gather evidence against Muslims at worship. His FBI handlers gave Monteilh permission to sleep with Muslim women he targeted and to secretly tape record their pillow talk. He also placed a recording device to covertly tape Muslim therapy sessions. National Public Radio noted the surveillance “yielded no results and proved a huge embarrassment to the bureau” after Monteilh went public in 2012 to denounce his own behavior and the FBI.

Monteilh encouraged mosque members to engage in bombing and other violence. He was part of an army of 15,000 FBI informants recruited after 9/11 who fueled pervasive entrapment operations. Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimated that only about 1 percent of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest.

The FBI has been able to trample Americans’ rights and privacy because it shrouds its abuses. The Supreme Court case hinges on the State Secrets doctrine—something that the Court created in a 1953 case involving the cover-up of the crash of a B-29 bomber. The Air Force said that any disclosure of the case would expose vital national security secrets, and the Court deferred to the military. Half a century later, the government declassified the official report which contained no national security secrets but proved that negligence caused the crash.

Continue reading→

ACLU says FBI raid of Project Veritas founder O’Keefe’s home threat to ‘press freedom’ – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/11/16/aclu-says-fbi-raid-of-project-veritas-founder-okeefes-home-threat-to-press-freedom/

Source: Sophie Mann

The ACLU has weighed in on the recent FBI raid of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe home in connection with the diary of Ashley Biden, daughter of President Joe Biden.

“Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures,” wrote senior American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Brian Hauss.

Project Veritas, an undercover journalism group, came into possession of the diary when Biden was running for president in 2020 but purportedly tried to return it to law enforcement because its authenticity couldn’t not be proved. O’Keefe has said he believed at the time the diary was not illegally obtained.

The group urged the court to “appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.”

O’Keefe and his attorneys have also requested a special master (typically a retired judge) to supervise the review of what was seized last weekend – O’Keefe’s cell phones.

At present, there is no public indication that the diary was stolen or that Project Veritas helped carry out its theft. A lawyer for O’Keefe told the court that sources of the organization said they had obtained the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a home in Delray Beach, Florida. Project Veritas, which has never published any material pertaining to the diary, ultimately turned over the document to the authorities before the 6 a.m. raid of O’Keefe’s home on Oct. 6.

Attorneys for O’Keefe complained to a federal judge that the predawn raid denied O’Keefe the usual legal protection afforded to journalists. One question is whether the courts view O’Keefe’s work as journalism.

“Reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all,” reads the ACLU statement in reference to some of the “disgraceful deceptions” in which Project Veritas has engaged.

Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland struggled before the Senate Judiciary Committee to define who qualifies as a journalist under Justice Department policies.

“It’s very difficult to make that kind of definition,” he said.

Kyle Rittenhouse, Project Veritas, and the Inability to Think in Terms of Principles | Aletho News

https://alethonews.com/2021/11/16/kyle-rittenhouse-project-veritas-and-the-inability-to-think-in-terms-of-principles/

By Glenn Greenwald | November 16, 2021

The FBI has executed a string of search warrants targeting the homes and cell phones of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and several others associated with that organization. It should require no effort to understand why it is a cause for concern that a Democratic administration is using the FBI to aggressively target an organization devoted to obtaining and reporting incriminating information about Democratic Party leaders and their liberal allies.

That does not mean the FBI investigation is inherently improper. Journalists are no more entitled than any other citizen to commit crimes. If there is reasonable cause to believe O’Keefe and his associates committed federal crimes, then an FBI investigation is warranted as it is for any other case. But there has been no evidence presented that O’Keefe or Project Veritas employees have done anything of the sort, nor any explanation provided to justify these invasive searches. That we should want and need that is self-evident: if the Trump-era FBI had executed search warrants inside the newsrooms of The New York Times and NBC News, we would be demanding evidence to prove it was legally justified. Yet virtually nothing has been provided to justify the FBI’s targeting of O’Keefe and his colleagues, and the little that has been disclosed by way of justifying this makes no sense.

The FBI investigation concerns the theft last year of the diary of Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley, yet Project Veritas, while admitting they received a copy from an anonymous source, chose not to publish that diary because they were unable to verify it. Nobody and nothing thus far suggests that Project Veritas played any role in its acquisition, legal or otherwise. There is a cryptic reference in the search warrant to transmitting stolen material across state lines, but it is not illegal for journalists to receive and use material illegally acquired by a source: the most mainstream organizations spent the last month touting documents pilfered from Facebook by their heroic “whistleblower” Frances Haugen.

On Monday night, we produced an in-depth video report examining the FBI’s targeting of O’Keefe and Project Veritas and the dangers it presents (as we do for all of our Rumble videos, the transcript will soon be made available to subscribers here; for now, you can watch the video at the Rumble link). One of the primary topics of our report was the authoritarian tactic that is typically used to justify governmental attacks on those who report news and disseminate information: namely, to decree that the target is not a real journalist and therefore has no entitlement to claim the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

This not-a-real-journalist tactic was and remains the primary theory used by those who justify the ongoing attempt to imprison Julian Assange. In demanding Assange’s prosecution under the Espionage Act, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote in The Wall Street Journal thatMr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions.” Yet the five-term Senator insisted: “but he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.”

This not-a-real-journalist slogan was also the one used by both the CIA and the corporate media against myself and my colleagues in both the Snowden reporting we did in 2013, as well as the failed attempt to criminally prosecute me in 2020 for the year-long Brazil exposés we did: punishing them is not an attack on press freedom because they are not journalists and what they did is not journalism.

What is most striking about this weapon is that — like the campaign to agitate for more censorship — it is led by journalists. It is the corporate media that most aggressively insists that those who are independent, those who are outsiders, those who do not submit to their institutional structures are not real journalists the way they are, and thus are not entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. In order to create a framework to deny Project Veritas’s status as journalists, The New York Times claimed last week that anyone who uses undercover investigations (as Veritas does) is automatically a non-journalist because that entails lying — even though, just two years earlier, the same paper heralded numerous news outlets such as Al Jazeera and Mother Jones for using undercover investigations to accomplish what they called “compelling” reporting.

I am very well-acquainted with this repressive tactic of trying to decree who is and is not a real journalist for purposes of constitutional protection. Many have forgotten — given the awards it ultimately ended up winning — that the NSA/Snowden reporting we did in 2013 was originally maligned as quasi-criminal not just by Obama national security officials such as James Clapper but also by The New York Times. The first profile the Paper of Record published about me the day after the reporting began referred to me in the headline as an “Anti-Surveillance Activist” and then, once backlash ensued, it was changed to “Blogger” (the original snide, disqualifying headline is still visible in the URL).

The Guardian, Jan. 29, 2014

As the New York Times‘ own Public Editor at the time objected, by purposely denying me the label “journalist,” the paper was knowingly increasing the risks that I could be prosecuted for my reporting. Indeed, recent reporting from Yahoo! News about CIA plots to kidnap or murder Julian Assange reported that denying Assange the label “journalist,” and then re-defining what I and my colleague Laura Poitras were doing from “journalist” to “information broker,” would enable the U.S. Government to spy on or even prosecute us without having to worry about that inconvenient “free press” guarantee of the First Amendment.

New York Times, June 6, 2013

All of this demonstrates how dangerous it is to invoke this very same not-a-real-journalist tactic against O’Keefe and Project Veritas. Yet, if one warns of the dangers of the FBI’s actions, that is precisely what one hears from liberals, from Democrats and from their allies in the media: the FBI’s targeting of Project Veritas has nothing to do with press freedoms since they’re not real journalists. They are invoking the authoritarian theory that maintains that the state (or, in this case, the FBI) is vested with the power to decree who is a “real journalist” — whatever that means — and who is not.

There are so many ironies to the use of this framework. So often, employees of media corporations who have never broken a major story in their lives (and never will) revel in accusing independent journalists who have broken numerous major stories (such as Assange) of not being real journalists. At the height of the Snowden reporting, I went on Meet the Press in July, 2013, only for the host, David Gregory, to suggest that I ought to be in prison alongside my source Edward Snowden because I was not really a journalist the way David Gregory was. At the time, Frank Rich, writing in New York Magazine, noted how bizarre it was that the TV personality David Gregory assumed he was a real journalist, whereas I was a non-journalist who belonged in prison for my reporting, given that Gregory — like most employees of large media corporations — had never broken any story in his life. Rich used a Q&A format to make the point this way:

On Sunday, Meet the Press host David Gregory all but accused the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald of aiding and abetting Edward Snowden’s fugitive travels, asking, “Why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” And, speaking to his larger point, do you see Greenwald as a journalist or an activist in this episode? And does it matter?

Is David Gregory a journalist? As a thought experiment, name one piece of news he has broken, one beat he’s covered with distinction, and any memorable interviews he’s conducted that were not with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer. Meet the Press has fallen behind CBS’s Face the Nation, much as Today has fallen to ABC’s Good Morning America, and my guess is that Gregory didn’t mean to sound like Joe McCarthy (with a splash of the oiliness of Roy Cohn) but was only playing the part to make some noise. In any case, his charge is preposterous. As a columnist who published Edward Snowden’s leaks, Greenwald was doing the job of a journalist — and the fact that he’s an “activist” journalist (i.e., an opinion journalist, like me and a zillion others) is irrelevant to that journalistic function. . . . [I]t’s easier for Gregory to go after Greenwald, a self-professed outsider who is not likely to attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and works for a news organization based in London. Presumably if Gregory had been around 40 years ago, he also would have accused the Times of aiding and abetting the enemy when it published Daniel Ellsberg’s massive leak of the Pentagon Papers. In any case, Greenwald demolished Gregory on air and on Twitter (“Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?”).

At the time — both in terms of that exchange with Gregory and my overall reporting on the NSA — I had significant support from the liberal-left (though it was far from universal, given that we were exposing mass, indiscriminate, illegal spying by the Obama administration). But few believed that I ought to be prosecuted on the grounds that, somehow, I was not a real journalist.

So why are so many of them now willing to endorse this same exact theory when it comes to O’Keefe and Project Veritas, or even to justify the prosecution of Julian Assange? The answer is obvious. They are unwilling and/or incapable of thinking in terms of principles, ones that apply universally to everyone regardless of their ideology. Their thought process never even arrives at that destination. When the subject of the FBI’s attacks on O’Keefe is raised, or the DOJ’s prosecution of Assange is discussed, they ask themselves one question and only one question, and that ends the inquiry. It is the exclusive and determinative factor: do I like James O’Keefe and his politics? Do I like Julian Assange and his politics?

This primitive, principle-free, personality-driven prism is the only way they are capable of understanding the world. Because they dislike O’Keefe and/or Assange, they instantly side with whoever is targeting them — the FBI, the DOJ, the security state services — and believe that anyone who defends them is defending a right-wing extremist rather than defending the non-ideological, universally applicable principle of press freedoms. They think only in terms of personalities, not principles.

The FBI’s actions against Project Veritas and O’Keefe are so blatantly alarming that press freedom groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Freedom of the Press Foundation (on whose Board I sit) have expressed grave concerns about it, including on their social media accounts for all to see. Even the ACLU — which these days is loathe to speak out in favor of any person or group disliked by their highly partisan liberal donor base — issued a very carefully hedged statement that made clear how much they despise Project Veritas but said: “Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom” (at least thus far, the ACLU has just quietly stuck this statement on its website and not uttered a word about it on its social media accounts, where most of its liberal donors track what they do, but the fact that they felt compelled to say anything in defense of this right-wing boogieman demonstrates how extreme the FBI’s actions are). The federal judge overseeing the warrants has temporarily enjoined the FBI from extracting any more information from the cell phones seized from O’Keefe and other Project Veritas employees pending a determination of their legal justification.

Committee to Protect Journalists, Nov. 15, 2021

The reason this is such a grave press freedom attack is two-fold. First, as indicated, any attempt to anoint oneself the arbiter of who is and is not a “real journalist” for purposes of First Amendment protection is inherently tyrannical. Which institutions are sufficiently trustworthy and competent to decree who is a real journalist meriting First Amendment protection and who falls outside as something else?

But there is a much more significant problem with this framework: namely, the question of who is and is not a real journalist is completely irrelevant to the First Amendment. None of the rights in the Constitution, including press freedom, was intended to apply only to a small, cloistered, credentialed, privileged group of citizens. The exact opposite was true: the only reason they are valuable as rights is because they enjoy universal application, protecting all citizens.

Indeed, one of the most passionate grievances of the American colonists was that nobody was permitted to use the press unless first licensed by the British Crown. Conversely, the most celebrated journalism of the time was undertaken by people like Thomas Paine — who never worked for an established journalistic outlet in his life — as he circulated the pamphlet Common Sense that railed against the abuses of the King. What was protected by the First Amendment was not a small, privileged caste bearing the special label “journalists,” but rather the activity of a free press. The proof of this is clear and ample, and is set forth in the video we produced on Monday night.

But none of this matters. If you express concern for the FBI’s targeting of O’Keefe, it will be instantly understood not as a concern about any of these underlying principles but instead as an endorsement of O’Keefe’s politics, journalism, and O’Keefe himself. The same is true for the discourse surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse. If you say that — after having actually watched the trial — you believe the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in light of his defense of self-defense, many will disbelieve your sincerity, will insist that your view is based not in some apolitical assessment of the evidence or legal principles about what the state must do in order to imprison a citizen, but rather that you must be a “supporter” of Rittenhouse himself, his ideology (whatever it is assumed to be), and the political movement with which he, in their minds, is associated.

On some level, this is pure projection: those who are incapable of assessing political or legal conflicts through a prism of principles rather than personalities assume that everyone is plagued by the same deficiency. Since they decide whether to support or oppose the FBI’s actions toward O’Keefe based on their personal view of O’Keefe rather than through reference to any principles, they assume that this is how everyone is determining their views of that situation. Similarly, since they base their views on whether Rittenhouse should be convicted or acquitted based on how they personally feel about Rittenhouse and his perceived politics rather than the evidence presented at the trial (which most of them have not watched), they assume that anyone advocating for an acquittal can be doing so only because they like Rittenhouse’s politics and believe that his actions were heroic.

In sum, those who view the world through a prism bereft of principles — either due to lack of intellectual capacity or ethics or both — assume everyone’s world view is similarly craven. It is this same stunted mindset that saddles our discourse with so much illogic and so many twisted presumptions, such as the inability to distinguish between defending someone’s right to express a particular opinion and agreement with that opinion. In a world in which ideology, partisan loyalty, tribal affiliations, in-group identity and personality-driven assessments predominate, there is no room for principles, universally applicable rights, or basic reason.

French politician wants asylum for Assange — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/540416-assange-france-asylum-melenchon/

France shouldn’t remain silent on Julian Assange, leftist leader
Jean-Luc Melenchon has said, after the imprisoned WikiLeaks
co-founder’s father suggested that Paris could offer asylum to his son.
The life of Assange – who
is being held in solitary confinement at London’s Belmarsh maximum
security prison while a British court considers an extradition request
by the US – is under threat, Melenchon wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

“For years, we’ve been calling for France to accept him,” the head of the leftist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) party said, insisting that “France shouldn’t remain silent.”

The
statement by Melenchon, who won 19.6% of the ballot in the first round
of the French presidential election in 2017, follows a visit by
Assange’s father, John Shipton, to the Whistleblower Meeting in Paris on
Monday.

During the event, Shipton told Sputnik news agency that it would be “an honorable thing” for the French government to grant his son asylum.

“I
feel that France hasn’t attacked Julian over the last 12 years and
consequently France is free to act in return for the information that
WikiLeaks and Julian brought to France,” he said, referring to the
website’s revelations of the US intelligence agencies spying on French
presidents and hacking into local banks.

Several
dozen French lawmakers have also recently called upon Paris to take
Assange in, with the Australian-born publisher’s legal team saying last
year that their client was hoping to find asylum on French soil.

Assange could face up to 175 years behind bars if he’s extradited to
the US, where he’s wanted on espionage charges over the release by
WikiLeaks of classified documents on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay,
and others.

He was placed in Belmarsh in April 2019 over breach of
bail, after being holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for
seven years.

The publisher had been fleeing an arrest warrant
issued over sexual assault allegations which he has always denied, and
which failed to result in any actual charges due to lack of evidence.

Assange’s
supporters insist that he has actually been persecuted over his
legitimate journalistic activities and revealing the truth to the
public.

The UK High Court is expected to rule on the appeal by the
US against a lower court decision to bar the WikiLeaks co-founder’s
extradition to America due to the 50-year-old’s poor health condition
and risk of suicide.

Assange’s team will then be able to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court if it’s not favorable.

After Cheerleading Censorship for Years, WaPo Now On Receiving End of It, And They’re Pissed

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/11/12/after-cheerleading-censorship-for-years-wapo-now-on-receiving-end-of-it-and-theyre-pissed/
By Matt Agorist In 2017, the Washington Post made an announcement that they were changing their newspaper’s slogan to “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” This slogan,…

After Cheerleading Censorship for…

Lawless FBI Raids Project Veritas and James O’Keefe’s Home Last Week — Then Leaks Private Documents to New York Times This Week – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/11/12/lawless-fbi-raids-project-veritas-and-james-okeefes-home-last-week-then-leaks-private-documents-to-new-york-times-this-week/

Source: Jim Hoft

James O’Keefe’s New York home was raided by FBI agents just 5 days ago on Saturday.

On Friday, the FBI conducted a raid of two New York addresses of people connected to Project Veritas as part of an investigation on how Ashley Biden’s diary was made public shortly before the 2020 election.

Project Veritas Founder James O’Keefe’s home was also raided by FBI agents as part of this “investigation”.

The New York Times was likely notified of the raid by the Stasi FBI.

“The F.B.I. carried out search warrants in New York as part of a Justice Department investigation into how pages from Ashley Biden’s journal came to be published by a right-wing website,” New York Times reported.

An hour after the raid was conducted, The New York Times contacted one of the reporters to ask for comment on this confidential investigation.

The New York Times was the first to break the story. They even reached out for comment, after his home was raided at 6 a.m.

In October 2020, Ashley Biden contacted the feds and reported several items were stolen in a burglary, including her diary.

Project Veritas never published pages of Ashley Biden’s diary, however, another conservative site did.

O’Keefe: The FBI took materials of current, and former, Veritas journalists despite the fact that our legal team previously contacted the Department of Justice and voluntarily conveyed unassailable facts that demonstrate Project Veritas’ lack of involvement in criminal activity and/or criminal intent.

Like any reporter, we regularly deal with the receipt of source information and take steps to verify its authenticity, legality, and newsworthiness. Our efforts were the stuff of responsible, ethical, journalism and we are in no doubt that Project Veritas acted properly at each and every step

O’Keefe “put himself at great risk” when he released a statement on the investigation of PV journalists. The FBI raided his home the very next day.

Now tonight, five days after the FBI raided his home, The New York Times released a new report on James O’Keefe with several private documents from Project Veritas.
It took Chris Wray’s FBI less than a week to leak O’Keefe’s documents to their cohorts at the NY Times.

The New York Times released a breaking report on James O’Keefe and Project Veritas on Thursday night. They admit in their report that they received

Hours after F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two former Project Veritas operatives last week, James O’Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend its work as “the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism.”

“We never break the law,” he said, railing against the F.B.I.’s investigation into members of his group for possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary kept by President Biden’s daughter, Ashley. “In fact, one of our ethical rules is to act as if there are 12 jurors on our shoulders all the time.”

Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.

The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.

The documents show, for example, Project Veritas operatives’ concern that an operation launched in 2018 to secretly record employees at the F.B.I., Justice Department and other agencies in the hope of exposing bias against President Donald J. Trump might violate the Espionage Act — the law passed at the height of World War I that has typically been used to prosecute spies.

“Because intent is relevant — and broadly defined — ensuring PV journalists’ intent is narrow and lawful would be paramount in any operation,” the group’s media lawyer, Benjamin Barr, wrote in response to questions from the group about using the dating app Tinder to have its operatives meet government employees, potentially including some with national security clearances.

In a separate July 2017 memorandum, Mr. Barr emailed a representative of the group that the criminal statute involving false statements to federal officials “continues to be an expansive, dangerous law that inhibits Veritas’s operations.”

The documents give new insight into the workings of the group at a time when it faces potential legal peril in the diary investigation — and has signaled that its defense will rely in part on casting itself as a journalistic organization protected by the First Amendment.

The F.B.I. last week searched the homes of Mr. O’Keefe and two former Project Veritas operatives — Eric Cochran and Spencer Meads — as part of the investigation into the reported theft of Ms. Biden’s diary. Mr. O’Keefe has acknowledged receiving a grand jury subpoena in the case.

Mr. O’Keefe said the F.B.I. took his phones, which had confidential donor and source information. He said that neither he nor his group had done anything wrong, and that the F.B.I. searches were an assault on the First Amendment.

The legal documents obtained by The Times were written several years ago, at a time when Project Veritas was remaking itself from a small operation running on a shoestring budget to a group more closely modeled on a small intelligence-gathering organization.

During the Trump administration, the group saw a flood of new donations from both private donors and conservative foundations, and hired former American and British intelligence and military operatives to train Project Veritas agents in spycraft.

In a statement issued by one of its lawyers, Project Veritas said it “stands behind these legal memos and is proud of the exhaustive work it does to ensure each of its journalism investigations complies with all applicable laws.”

VIDEO: Pfizer CEO Brags About Getting Briefed By the CIA, FBI On ‘The Spread Of Misinformation’ – Nwo Report

Comment by tonytran2015: Is it legal for CIA and FBI contact and communicate with a private pharmaceutical company on non-criminal matters? This looks like a power grab like when FBI’s J.B. Comey judged and exonerated H. Clinton.

https://nworeport.me/2021/11/11/video-pfizer-ceo-brags-about-getting-briefed-by-the-cia-fbi-on-the-spread-of-misinformation/

Why is the CIA involved with Pfizer?

Source:

Speaking to the globalist Atlantic Council in a virtual meeting, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted that his corporation is “getting briefings from the CIA and FBI” on the “spread of misinformation” relating to COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla strangely admitted that the major pharmaceutical corporation is getting briefed on “the spread of misinformation” of COVID-19 vaccines from “the CIA and FBI” while speaking to the globalist Atlantic Council.

After explaining to the council that Pfizer was being “targeted” by “dark organizations,” Bourla said that they “were getting briefings from the CIA and FBI” about cyber attacks. “But also about the spread of misinformation,” he added.

Bourla then went on to say people who spread vaccine “misinformation” are “criminals.”

This comes as the Biden regime is considering extending their COVID-19 vaccine mandate to small businesses, as National File previously reported. (READ MORE: Pfizer Board Member Reveals New ‘AY.4’ COVID ‘Delta Plus’ Variant, Which Could Require Even More Vaccines)

“OSHA left open the possibility of expanding the requirement to smaller businesses,” reported the Associated Press. “It asked for public comment on whether employers with fewer than 100 employees could handle vaccination or testing programs.”

As America begins vaccinating children, former Republican presidential candidate and expert neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson called the COVID-19 injections “a giant experiment,” adding that vaccinating America’s kids “makes no sense whatsoever” due to the extremely low mortality rate when it comes to coronavirus infection among children.

Burning of books and burying of scholars – Wikipedia

Comment by tonytran2015: Forgetting the place and the time, the description is almost a future projection of current events in USA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars

Punishment of the scholars

According to the Sima Qian‘s Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), after Qin Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BCE, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing intellectual discourse to unify thought and political opinion.

Chancellor Li Si said: “I, your servant, propose that all historians’ records other than those of Qin‘s be burned. With the exception of the academics whose duty includes possessing books, if anyone under heaven has copies of the Shi Jing [Classic of Poetry], the Shujing [Classic of History], or the writings of the hundred schools of philosophy, they shall deliver them (the books) to the governor or the commandant for burning. Anyone who dares to discuss the Shi Jing or the Classic of History
shall be publicly executed. Anyone who uses history to criticize the
present shall have his family executed. Any official who sees the
violations but fails to report them is equally guilty. Anyone who has
failed to burn the books after thirty days of this announcement shall be
subjected to tattooing and be sent to build the Great Wall.
The books that have exemption are those on medicine, divination,
agriculture, and forestry. Those who have interest in laws shall instead
study from officials.”[a]
Shiji Chapter 6. “The Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin” thirty-fourth year (213 BC)

Three categories of books were viewed by Li Si to be most dangerous politically. These were poetry (particularly the Shi Jing), history (Shujing
and especially historical records of other states than Qin), and
philosophy. The ancient collection of poetry and historical records
contained many stories concerning the ancient virtuous rulers. Li Si
believed that if the people were to read these works they were likely to
invoke the past and become dissatisfied with the present. The reason
for opposing various schools of philosophy was that they advocated
political ideas often incompatible with the totalitarian regime.[6]

Consequences

The extent of the damage…

Burial of the scholars

Killing the Scholars and Burning the Books, anonymous 18th century Chinese painted album leaf; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris

Tradition had it that after being deceived by two alchemists while seeking prolonged life, Qin Shi Huang ordered more than 460
scholars in the capital to be buried alive in the second year of the proscription. The belief was based on this passage in the Shiji [Sima Qian‘s Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji)] (chapter 6):

The first emperor therefore
directed the imperial censor to investigate the scholars one by one. The
scholars accused each other, and so the emperor personally determined
their fate. More than 460 of them were buried alive at Xianyang, and the event was announced to all under heaven for warning followers. More people were internally exiled to border regions.

UK Considering Legislation That Would Imprison Internet Trolls

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/11/08/uk-considering-legislation-that-would-imprison-internet-trolls/
UK Considering Legislation That Would Imprison Internet Trolls Authored by Brad Polumbo via FEE.org, If you ever need a reminder of how important freedom of speech is, all you need to do is look across the pond… The United Kingdom, which doesn’t have a First Amendment, has slowly seen citizens’ free speech rights eroded—and now…