#034 | Government's Influencing of Public Opinion: Unpacking the CIA Whistleblower Claims & White House First Amendment Violations
All of the top stories 📰 of the week in small bites.
It’s Meseidy is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber.
It’s FRIDAY, September 15! YAY
This week’s stories:
CIA Paid to Cover Up the Origins of COVID and the White House’s First Amendment Violation
Breaking Down the Biden Impeachment Inquiry: A Culture of Corruption?
Federal Judge Blocks New Mexico Governor's Controversial Firearm Ban
Federal Judge Declares DACA Illegal Yet Again: What Does This Mean for “Dreamers”?
Inflation's Relentless Surge Under Biden: From Food Prices to Falling Incomes
Biden Administration's Iran Prisoner Swap: The High Stakes of Releasing Assets and Detainees
Government's Influencing of Public Opinion: CIA Paid to Cover Up the Origins of COVID and White House’s First Amendment Violation
Whistleblower testimony claims that CIA officers were monetarily incentivized ( or bribed) to change their findings on (cover-up) the origins of COVID-19, another example of the continued trend of government intervention in free speech and the dissemination of information, a court ruled that the White House’s policing of social media content during the pandemic violated the First Amendment.
The CIA's Initial Stance: Low Confidence in Lab Origin
According to a letter from Ohio Republicans Rep. Brad Wenstrup and Rep. Mike Turner, to CIA Director William Burns, six out of seven members of the CIA's COVID Discovery Team had sufficient intelligence and scientific evidence to make a "low confidence assessment" that the virus emanated from a Wuhan lab. The team's seventh member, who was the most senior, differed and suggested that the virus had animal origins.
Monetary Incentives and Altered Opinions
The same congressional letter states that the whistleblower alleged that the other six team members were offered "a significant monetary incentive" to change their positions. That’s right, folks, attempts were made to bribe CIA agents to follow the accepted narrative instead of the truth—another example of how intelligence is handled and manipulated to affect public perception and policy.
"My informed assessment...has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense," Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe emphasized in April.
Demand for Transparency: Congress Steps In
Following these allegations, Wenstrup and Turner demanded that the CIA provide all related documents, communications, and payment information from the CIA’s COVID Discovery Team by September 26. The lawmakers emphasized that they would use "additional tools and authorities" to ensure compliance if the CIA fails to cooperate, such as subpoenas to testify before the subcommittee.
The White House's Social Media Policing: An Overstep of Boundaries
In the continued battle for the free exchange of information and speech, a blow has been dealt to the White House and its attempts to police social media content. A recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed that officials from the White House and other governmental agencies likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms to moderate content. This decision stemmed from a lawsuit led by Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who claimed the Biden administration had created a "federal censorship enterprise." The ruling suggested that veiled threats of regulatory liabilities and antitrust enforcement were used to "strong-arm" social media platforms.
"In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment," stated the three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents.
The Overlapping Threads: From Intelligence to Public Discourse
Both the whistleblower's allegations and the court’s ruling are simply more examples of government authorities attempting to shape the narrative to align with their views. While one case deals with covering up the origins of COVID-19, and the other concerns First Amendment rights, both point towards government-led censorship.
Legal and Ethical Implications: A Crisis of Trust
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling and the CIA whistleblower allegations demand attention. One raises questions regarding bribery. Were CIA agents bribed to cover up the origins of COVID from the American people, and if so, where did those funds come from? The other is a reminder of how the government actively censored free speech via coercion and threats.
Conclusion
The allegations against the CIA and the ruling against the White House's pressure on social media platforms aren't isolated incidents; they're pieces of a larger, troubling pattern of behavior. These instances of government censorship are evidence of the need for transparent, unbiased investigations and a renewed commitment by Americans to safeguard their constitutional freedoms.
News of the Week
Breaking Down the Biden Impeachment Inquiry: A Culture of Corruption?
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an official impeachment inquiry into President Biden on Tuesday, citing "serious and credible allegations" concerning Biden's alleged involvement in his son Hunter Biden's foreign business ventures. McCarthy claims, "these allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption" and accuses Biden of misleading the American public.
The Evidence at Hand
Much of the legacy media and the White House claim that the Republican House-led investigations into Biden have not provided any direct evidence that the president financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s career overseas. However, according to McCarthy, more than $20 million has flowed from countries like China, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine to the Biden family. He further alleges that eyewitnesses and recovered emails contradict Biden's earlier claims that he was never involved in his family's foreign businesses, such as the WhatsApp messages to executives of CEFC, a defunct Chinese energy company, making threats and demands while claiming to be with his father, which was corroborated by the metadata of photos of Hunter visiting his father’s home—also, the text message discovered on Hunter’s laptop was sent to his daughter.
“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter Biden said to daughter Naomi in January 2019. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.” Pop is Joe Biden.
The House Oversight Committee had set an August 31 deadline for the National Archives to hand over emails from Biden's vice-presidential tenure. This includes emails where Biden used the pseudonym Robert L. Peters or Robin Ware, the request went unmet.
Kevin McCarthy’s tweet on September 12, 2023: "I am directing our House committees to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Over the past several months, House Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct—a culture of corruption."
A Matter of Public Concern
"I do not make this decision lightly. Regardless of your party or who you voted for, these facts should concern all Americans," said McCarthy, emphasizing that the inquiry aims to uphold the integrity of public office. He further accused Biden's DOJ of giving his family special treatment, a charge he substantiates with whistleblower allegations related to Hunter Biden's ongoing tax fraud investigations.
What's Next in the Inquiry
The inquiry, to be led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, aims to answer critical questions such as:
What do Joe Biden's vice-presidential emails reveal?
What are Hunter Biden's bank records hiding?
Did Biden personally profit from his family's foreign income streams?
Potential Legal Complications
Interestingly, the ongoing inquiry has sparked some questions about the House's ability to enforce subpoenas for executive branch records. A senior Republican aide told the NYPost that the formal inquiry will strengthen the House's case in court if it comes to that. This is because the inquiry could help enforce subpoenas for records, as detailed in a 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service.
Political Reactions
In a tweet, White House spokesman Ian Sams dismissed the inquiry “House Republicans have been investigating the President for 9 months, and they’ve turned up no evidence of wrongdoing.” “He vowed to hold a vote to open impeachment, now he flip-flopped because he doesn’t have support,” Sams wrote.
A House leadership aide fired back, “Is that a criticism of how [former House Speaker] Pelosi handled impeachment?”
White House Drafts Letter to News Executives
The day after McCarthy announced the impeachment inquiry, the White House dispatched a memo to editorial leaders across various media organizations in the United States, including CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, and CBS News. The letter, penned by Ian Sams, a special assistant and senior adviser to the president, called for increased scrutiny of the impeachment process. According to Sams, the inquiry is "based on lies," media outlets owe it to the public to dig deeper into the legitimacy of the House Republicans' claims.
Sams' memo accused some media of providing inadequate coverage, focusing merely on the impeachment process rather than the substantive issues. He asserted, "Reporting that solely focuses on process rather than substance is woefully inadequate."
The White House memo didn't stop at calling for more detailed media coverage; it essentially told the press how to do their job. Simply regurgitating what the Republicans claim and how the White House reacts "is a disservice to the American public," said Sams.
“And in the modern media environment, where everyday liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing all their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people’s feeds, and obscure the truth,” Sams added.
The memo included a 14-page appendix aimed at fact-checking what it termed as "key lies" propagated by House Republicans.
Is this letter an attempt to set the record straight or direct the news organizations on how to report on the impeachment inquiry?
Conclusion
If impeached, Biden would be the fourth U.S. President to face such charges, following Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. However, with Democrats holding the Senate, his conviction seems unlikely unless explosive new evidence is uncovered.
Federal Judge Blocks New Mexico Governor's Controversial Firearm Ban
In a move that has triggered public debate, a federal judge temporarily halted an emergency order from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. The directive aimed to suspend the right to carry firearms in public, specifically in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. Issued on September 8, 2023, the order intended to curb gun violence for a span of 30 days.
Second Amendment vs. Public Health
US District Court Judge David Urias ruled against the governor, stating that the gun ban undermined the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This landmark decision emphasized that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. "They just want the right to carry their guns," Urias said.
Opposition from Law Enforcement: Constitutional Concerns
Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen openly opposed the governor’s order, labeling it "unconstitutional." Even New Mexico's State Attorney General Raúl Torrez refused to defend the ban, suggesting that gun violence shouldn't be rebranded as a public health emergency.
Impeachment Calls and Public Protests
The ban not only faced legal challenges but also political consequences. Republican state lawmakers began calling for impeachment proceedings against the governor. Furthermore, a New Mexico sheriff refused to enforce the order, warning it could incite political violence. A protest rally saw demonstrators openly carrying firearms, illustrating the depth of the public's dissent.
A Battle Against Gun Violence
Governor Lujan Grisham defended her stance, stating, "I refuse to be resigned to the status quo. As governor, I see the pain of families who lost their loved ones to gun violence every single day." Despite the temporary setback in court, the governor remains committed to her agenda.
Conclusion
The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until an October 3 court hearing. Meanwhile, other aspects of the governor's public health order, such as monthly inspections of firearm dealers, remain unchallenged.
Federal Judge Declares DACA Illegal Yet Again: What Does This Mean for “Dreamers”?
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen sided with Texas and eight other states, declaring a revised version of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program illegal. Despite the ruling, Hanen chose not to terminate the program immediately, leaving existing protections for DACA recipients, commonly known as "Dreamers," in place.
Judicial Overreach or Legislative Failure?
Judge Hanen expressed sympathy for DACA recipients but stressed that the program's legality is a matter for Congress to address. "The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution – even to fill a void," Hanen wrote. This decision sends the program’s fate to the U.S. Supreme Court for the third time, highlighting the ongoing judicial drama surrounding DACA.
States vs. DACA
The states that filed the lawsuit, including Texas, Alabama, and others, argue that the Obama administration lacked the authority to create DACA in 2012 because it bypassed Congress. They claim the program burdens them with hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare, education, and other costs. However, supporters of DACA argue that these states failed to show any direct harm caused by the program.
Advocates and Critics Weigh In
Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), criticized Judge Hanen's analysis and said higher courts would ultimately decide DACA’s legality. In contrast, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, representing the states, remained silent post-ruling.
Previous Legal Challenges
DACA's road to legalization has been a bumpy one. The Supreme Court deadlocked over the issue in 2016 and later ruled in 2020 that the Trump administration improperly ended the program. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen's earlier ruling declaring DACA illegal but sent the case back for further review.
What's Next?
The stakes are high, with 578,680 people enrolled in DACA as of March. President Biden and various advocacy groups continue to call for permanent legislative protections for Dreamers, but Congress has repeatedly failed to pass the DREAM Act.
The Biden administration is expected to appeal the recent ruling, adding yet another layer of uncertainty to the future of DACA and its recipients. As the case likely heads to the Supreme Court once more, Dreamers and critics of the program will be watching closely as the legislative battle continues.
Inflation's Relentless Surge Under Biden: From Food Prices to Falling Incomes
If you've been scratching your head, wondering why your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to, you're not alone. Recent data from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the US Census Bureau provide compelling evidence that the inflation worries aren't just pessimistic chatter. They're real, and they're hitting hard.
Inflation Stats That Can't Be Ignored
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), a reliable barometer for inflation, increased by 0.6% in August, a 3.7% rise over the last 12 months. This follows a 3.2% climb in July, marking two consecutive months of growing prices. To put this into perspective, the index level stood at 307.02, a far cry from the 262.65 level when Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021.
Staples became a “Luxury”
The situation worsens when you zoom in on food prices, which jumped 4.9% between July 2022 and July 2023. In August 2022 alone, food inflation surged by 11.4% compared to the previous year—levels not seen since May 1979. Under Trump, food prices remained relatively stable, rising no more than 4.5% even during the COVID-19 outbreak.
A Nosedive in American Living Standards
Data from the US Census Bureau underscores the deteriorating living conditions for Americans. The inflation-adjusted median household income fell to $74,580 in 2022, a 2.3% dip from $76,330 in 2021. This marks the third consecutive year under Biden that Americans have seen their living standards decline. In New York, for instance, residents are resorting to cheaper groceries, borrowing from family, and even contemplating a move to Canada to escape the stifling economic environment. However, the situation doesn’t appear to be better there, with increased social media posts from Canadians sharing their hardships due to rising costs.
Calculating the Cost
The Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers price data from 75 urban areas across the U.S. to calculate the CPI. The index includes the prices of goods and services and accounts for taxes directly associated with purchases. Despite the comprehensive methodology, the CPI's year-over-year change raises concerns about the Biden administration's economic policies.
Conclusion
So, is President Biden asleep at the wheel, or is this part of the greater economic strategy, Bidenomics? Either way, one thing is clear: inflation is looming over the American economy, affecting everything from food prices to household incomes. For many, the American Dream is increasingly looking like an unaffordable fantasy.
Biden Administration's Iran Prisoner Swap: The High Stakes of Releasing Assets and Detainees
Last week, the Biden administration inked a deal to exchange five Iranian prisoners and unfreeze $6 billion in assets to bring home five Americans detained in Iran. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to Congress officially announced this development on the 22nd anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, igniting a powder keg of controversies.
A Sanctions Waiver and Questionable Use of Funds
The U.S. government will grant waivers to South Korea and Qatar banks to facilitate this transaction. These financial institutions can then assist Iran in accessing billions without crossing the line on U.S. sanctions. The funds will land in Qatar's central bank, earmarked for "humanitarian goods"—or so it seemed.
State-Sponsored Terrorism and Broken Deals
It's crucial to remember that Iran has consistently sponsored terrorism, hence the U.S. sanctions. These sanctions gained momentum when former President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 over fears that it would pave the way for Iran to build nuclear weapons. Despite attempts to revive the deal, the Biden administration has stalled negotiations for months.
What Will the Unfrozen Assets Really Fund?
A conflicting narrative has arisen between U.S. and Iranian officials over the intended use of the $6 billion. While National Security Council Spokeswoman Adrienne Watson stated the money would be "restricted to humanitarian trade," Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi contradicted this claim in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt. Raisi stated, “This money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and naturally, we will decide to spend it wherever we need it.”
Conclusion
The Biden administration’s prisoner swap deal with Iran has pitfalls. While the administration claims that the funds belong to Iran and will only be used for humanitarian purposes, Iran’s president contradicts that statement. Along with the $6 billion, the U.S. will release five Iranian detainees in exchange for five American detainees. Could this potentially put future American’s traveling abroad at risk?