A federal judge ordered expedited discovery this week in a case by Missouri and Louisiana against President Joe Biden and other members of his administration accusing them of colluding with social media to suppress free speech.
The suit was filed in May, alleging that the Biden administration colluded with social media to suppress key information like the Hunter Biden laptop, the lab-leak origin of COVID-19, the efficiency of laptops, and election integrity, specifically mail-in voting.
Now, the states are seeking a faster discovery process, and a judge has seen fit to grant their request. Biden and his cronies are going to have to pony up all kinds of interesting information in an attempt to see whether they were asking or telling social media companies to suppress the information.
In particular, it has been shown through post-election polls that former President Donald Trump would likely have been re-elected for a second term if the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was deemed authentic in March of this year, had not been suppressed.
At the time, alternative media sources like the New York Post reported that emails on the laptop suggested that President Joe Biden lied about being involved in his son’s overseas business dealings.
He met with Chinese business associates at least once, and allegedly got a 10% cut of one deal, if testimony that he was “the big guy” mentioned in multiple emails is true.
When voters were asked a month after the election if they would have voted for Biden if they had known about the laptop and its contents, 9% of those who had voted for Biden said no. This would have been enough to re-elect Trump with 311 electoral votes, according to the poll.
It is unknown exactly what remedy the civil suit is asking for; the original court documents do not ask for any monetary damages, but instead reference a “review or repeal of an agency decision.”
Preventing this from happening again is extremely important, but the path to doing so remains murky at this time.
The media and social media have become so used to covering for Democrats that they seem to almost do it automatically now, even when they are not explicitly asked to do so. Unless there are specific rules put in place, even a conviction in this case will not mean much.
Not to mention, maybe impeaching Biden over taking payouts from China once Republicans get congressional majorities back.
It’s evident the plaintiffs do not want to give up the requested information, in any case; they have filed two different motions to dismiss the case since the ruling.