Connect with us

Trending

CISA Covered-Up Domestic Censorship, Big Tech Collusion According to House Report

Published

on

According to an initial assessment issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, a federal agency created to safeguard vital infrastructure and cybersecurity attempted to hide its domestic censoring practices.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) relationship with major technology firms and publicly financed third parties was revealed in a report which was made public on Monday. A little-known division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is CISA.

Unknown, secret papers have come to light that show CISA went beyond its authority in order to monitor discourse on social media and conspired with Big Tech firms like Twitter and government-funded third parties to “censor by proxy.” The report’s messages reveal that CISA later attempted to hide its “plainly unconstitutional activities” from the general public.

The report accuses CISA of attempting to evade First Amendment protections by working with government-funded third parties to conspire with Big Tech firms to censor particular perspectives.

“CISA is not a law enforcement agency and is not authorized to act as an intelligence agency. But, in practice, that is how CISA has behaved, arrogating to itself the authority to conduct surveillance of Americans on social media,” the report states.

“CISA expanded its unconstitutional practice by developing an elaborate social media censorship apparatus spanning multiple organizations in order to facilitate the censorship of Americans’ political speech both directly and by proxy.”

The report brings attention to a number of especially troubling activities, including CISA’s consideration of creating a “rapid response” anti-misinformation team, relocation of censoring operations to a third-party organization in order to prevent unfavorable views, and agency plan to use the non-profit as a spokesperson in order to avoid charges of official propaganda.

What Is the CISA?

CISA sits within the Department of Homeland Security with the statutory mission to lead “cybersecurity and critical infrastructure security programs, operations, and associated policy.”

The agency was created to protect the electrical grid and other “critical infrastructure” sectors from cybersecurity threats. However, after the 2016 elections, former DHS secretary Jeh Johnson designated “election infrastructure” as a “critical infrastructure subsector.”

Furthermore, CISA director Jen Easterly argued in November 2021 that the term critical infrastructure, along with the agency’s remit, also included “cognitive infrastructure.”

“One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” Easterly said.

A committee called MDM was established by CISA to focus on false, misleading, and malicious information. Factual information that needs “context” to prevent it from being twisted into what CISA deemed a “harmful” narrative referred to as malinformation. This includes Twitter’s decision to suppress the New York Post’s report on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

CISA’s cybersecurity advisory board established a “Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation and Disinformation” subcommittee known as the “MDM Subcommittee.”

Misinformation specialists from the government, Big Tech, and academia were brought together in the MDM Subcommittee. This featured Suzanne Spaulding, a former assistant general counsel and legal advisor for the Central Intelligence Agency, Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, and Vijaya Gadde, former chief legal officer of Twitter.

Rapid Response Misinformation Team

The report highlighted one instance as a “particularly notable departure from [CISA’s] legal authority,” which occurred at an MDM meeting on June 14, 2022.

CISA proposed creating an anti-MDM “rapid response team” that would physically deploy around the United States, according to messages and meeting minutes. Attendees approved of the concept.

Geoff Hale, the director of CISA’s Election Security Initiative, commented that “this is a fascinating idea that takes CISA’s existing operational responsibilities to consider MDM as part of its core mission set.”

Twitter’s former head of legal, Vijaya Gadde, noted “that the idea of a rapid response team must include the ability to engage whether or not a cyber component is present.”

“Dr. Starbird agreed with Ms. Gadde’s point that threats to critical infrastructure are not limited to cyber threats,” meeting notes stated.

CISA has transformed into a domestic intelligence and speech-police agency, far exceeding its statutory authority,” the report states.

After Joe Biden took office, CISA admitted in a 2022 pamphlet titled, “Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials,” that it was also targeting MDM originating from domestic sources.

The report describes CISA’s involvement in policing MDM as “a direct and serious threat to First Amendment principles.”

According to the report, CISA’s MDM team at its height consisted of 15 devoted part- and full-time employees who concentrated on misinformation campaigns aimed at elections and crucial infrastructure.

Censorship by Proxy, Switchboarding

The research reveals instances of CISA outsourcing its operations to outside parties to facilitate so-called “misinformation reports” from all around the nation and send them to social media businesses during the 2020 and 2022 elections, shedding insight on the enormous censorship apparatus.

“CISA has transformed into a domestic intelligence and speech-police agency, far exceeding its statutory authority,” the report states.

The Center for Internet Security (CIS), a nonprofit organization, is funded by CISA. The operation of the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) and Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) will be funded with $27 million for the fiscal year 2024.

Election officials from all throughout the nation allegedly sent erroneous or deceptive internet information regarding the 2020 elections to social media giants by using EI-ISAC as a “single conduit”

Brian Scully, the manager of its MDM team, described CISA’s involvement in the 2020 election season as “switchboarding.” It took a lot of resources for CISA personnel to submit allegations of suspected disinformation to social media sites for blocking.

Scully stated during his deposition that EI-ISAC was hired to handle this procedure for the 2022 midterm elections as part of current litigation in federal court.

An uncut video of a county official was shared on Twitter in August 2022. A Loudoun County, Virginia, government official reported the post because it was “part of a wider attempt to undermine the word of” that person.

“The Loudon County official’s remark that the account she flagged ‘is connected to Parents Against Critical Race Theory’ reveals that her ‘misinformation report’ was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt,” the report states.

Messages show CISA officials implicitly and explicitly acknowledged on multiple occasions that the agency was not authorized to conduct the kind of surveillance and censorship.

Messages, meeting notes, and comments on documents obtained by the committees show Starbird, Twitter’s Gadde, and the CIA’s Spaulding discussing “ the limitation of CISA’s work regarding monitoring” of Americans’ speech.

On March 15, 2022, Starbird “posed how CISA could work with or otherwise support external groups, such as researchers and non-profits, to support MDM response and how this work would be funded in the future.”

Gadde, who was then Twitter’s chief legal officer, “highlighted the many sensitivities, beyond legal ones, in terms of the relationship between social media companies and government concerning media monitoring and the perception this plays globally.” She also noted the need for this government-social media partnership not to result in “any form of surveillance.”

Starbird responded that “this work should come from outside of government due to the sensitivities in this relationship.

“Rather than abandon the consideration of surveilling Americans, Starbird and Gadde attempted to find ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s strictures by outsourcing the ‘monitoring’ activity from the government to private entities,” the report states.

In the same meeting, Spaulding warned that “the government cannot ask an outside party to do something the Intelligence Community cannot do.” But further notes left by Spaulding on MDM’s June recommendation reveal that the MDM members were still considering relying “upon third parties” months later.

Covering Tracks

Before it was dismantled in May 2022, and following harsh criticism of the Disinformation Governance Board under the Biden administration in April 2022, CISA personnel voiced concern about the public’s impression of their work as “government propaganda.”

Meeting notes show that MDM officials Spaulding and Hale proposed outsourcing the censorship work to the EI-ISAC, making it a sort of “clearing house for trusted information.” The so-called switchboard operation concerned CISA’s Kim Wyman on July 26, 2022, “given the current lawsuit filed by Louisiana and Missouri against CISA over perceived suppression of free speech.”

On May 10, 2022, Starbird proposed changing the subcommittee’s name to prevent the public from confusing its activities with that of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board. Gadde concurred and gave the group the go-ahead to forgo any social listening suggestions at the quarterly meeting in June.

The MDM Subcommittee’s other members received an email from Starbird on May 19, 2022, informing them that she had “removed ‘monitoring’ from just about every place where it appeared” in the group’s June recommendations.

On May 20, 2022, Spaulding expressed her concerns about growing public attention in an email to Starbird, writing: “It’s only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work … I’m not sure this keeps until our public meeting in June.

“As CISA’s operational scope expanded further into unconstitutional territory, the agency and its advisors tried to cover their tracks and cover up CISA’s censorship of domestic speech and surveillance of American citizens’ social media activity,” the report states.

As public awareness of CISA’s role in government censorship increased, CISA scrubbed its website of references to domestic “misinformation” and “disinformation.” It previously stated under a section titled, “What is MDM?” in which it is written that “foreign and domestic threat actors use MDM campaigns to cause chaos, confusion, and division. These malign actors are seeking to interfere with and undermine our democratic institutions and national cohesiveness.”

“Now, the same URL redirects to a different page titled ‘Foreign Influence Operations and Disinformation,’ which omits any reference to ‘domestic’ MDM,” the report states.

The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the House Committee on the Judiciary are still looking into the matter. Its study is the result of two hearings on social media censorship held by the weaponization select subcommittee, which also revealed the Federal Trade Commission’s “politically motivated harassment campaign against Elon Musk’s Twitter” in an preliminary report.

Trending

NBC News: President Biden Knew in June He Would Pardon Son Hunter

Published

on

NBC News has reported that President Joe Biden’s public declarations about not pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, may have been part of a deliberate strategy to navigate the political and personal fallout of the situation. According to sources close to the matter, the president had been considering a pardon for Hunter as early as June, despite repeatedly and emphatically denying it.

Following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges in June, President Biden faced mounting questions about whether he would use his presidential pardon powers to shield his son from legal consequences. At the time, Biden’s response was clear and direct: “I will not pardon him.”

This stance was reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who told reporters as recently as last month that the president’s position had not wavered. “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she stated.

However, NBC News now reports that Biden privately discussed the possibility of a pardon with senior aides shortly after Hunter’s conviction. Two sources familiar with the internal conversations revealed that while the president maintained a public stance of non-intervention, the idea of a pardon “remained on the table.”

The report suggests that the public denials were not merely a refusal to answer the question but rather a calculated move. The president and his advisors reportedly decided that maintaining a hardline stance against a pardon was politically advantageous—even if it didn’t reflect the reality of their ongoing deliberations.

For Biden, the decision to publicly reject the idea of a pardon likely served dual purposes. First, it allowed him to distance himself from accusations of favoritism or nepotism at a time when Republicans were increasing scrutiny of his administration’s alleged “two-tier justice system.” Second, it bought time for his team to assess the fallout of such a decision, all while deflecting immediate criticism.

Now, with his term winding down and no re-election campaign to face, Biden has moved forward with the pardon—a choice some critics view as the culmination of a plan to shield his son while minimizing political costs.

The revelation that Biden’s public statements about the pardon were at odds with his private considerations has sparked fresh criticism. Opponents argue that the president’s actions erode public trust, painting him as willing to mislead the American people for personal gain.

“This is a betrayal of the public’s trust,” said one Republican lawmaker. “The president’s words were clear—until they weren’t. This raises questions about what else he may be misleading the country about.”

Supporters, however, argue that Biden’s decision reflects a father’s love and loyalty, underscoring the deeply personal nature of the issue. “This is a man standing by his son during a difficult time,” said one Democratic strategist. “People may not like it, but it’s human.”

With Hunter Biden now pardoned, the president faces the challenge of addressing the broader implications of his decision. For critics, this marks another chapter in what they see as a pattern of political favoritism. For allies, it’s a reminder of the personal challenges leaders face in balancing public duty and family loyalty.

Either way, the revelation that Biden’s public denials were part of a calculated plan is certain to fuel debates about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in the months to come.

SOURCE: NBC NEWS

Continue Reading

Politics

Adam Schiff Urges Senate to Block Kash Patel’s FBI Nomination

Published

on

In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.

Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.

As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.

Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.

The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.

For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.

Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.

The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.

Continue Reading

Trending

President Biden to Issue Pardon for Son Hunter Biden Ahead of Sentencing

Published

on

In a surprising turn of events, President Joe Biden has decided to grant a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, a move expected to be announced Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the matter. The decision marks a significant reversal for the president, who has previously stated on multiple occasions that he would not use his executive powers to pardon or commute his son’s sentences.

The pardon will encompass both Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges, for which he was convicted, and his guilty plea on federal tax evasion charges. The gun charge sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 12, with the tax evasion sentencing set for Dec. 16.

Sources within the administration revealed that President Biden made the decision over the weekend after extensive discussions with senior aides. The pardon comes as Biden, 82, nears the end of his presidency with no reelection campaign to consider. Publicly, the president has consistently distanced himself from the idea of granting clemency.

In June, following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges, Biden unequivocally stated, “I will not pardon him,” reiterating his commitment to letting the judicial process play out. First Lady Jill Biden echoed this sentiment during a June interview, emphasizing respect for the judicial system.

Behind Closed Doors

Despite these public assertions, insiders say the possibility of a pardon has been under consideration since Hunter’s June conviction. Two individuals familiar with the internal discussions noted that while Biden publicly denied the idea, the option remained on the table, with close aides advising against making any premature decisions.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre consistently reinforced the president’s stance during press briefings, most recently stating earlier this month that the position remained unchanged.

The pardon decision comes as Republicans continue to accuse the Biden family of corruption and allege preferential treatment by the Justice Department. GOP criticism escalated after a plea deal involving Hunter collapsed in July, leading Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the case.

The move to pardon Hunter Biden has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue it undermines the justice system, while supporters, including former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, argue it’s within the president’s constitutional authority. Eggleston told NBC News, “The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden pardon.”

The president’s relationship with Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction and legal troubles, has been a focal point of political attacks. Biden has often defended his son, describing him as “one of the brightest, most decent men I know.”

While the pardon eliminates the prospect of prison time for Hunter, it undoubtedly reignites political controversy, especially as Republicans scrutinize the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

As the announcement looms, the decision underscores the tension between personal loyalty and public accountability, setting the stage for heated debates in the weeks to come.

Continue Reading

Trending