David PS
Member
They continue to walk back their lies.
View: https://twitter.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1583544905271369728
View: https://twitter.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1583544905271369728
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
In support of its pending motion for a preliminary injunction, Missouri wants to take the expedited depositions of Tony Fauci (NIH), Rob Flaherty (White House), Andy Slavitt (White House), Jen Psaki (White House), Elvis Chan (FBI), Jen Easterly (CISA), Lauren Protenis (CISA), Vivek Murthy (Surgeon General), Carol Crawford (CDC), and Daniel Kimmage (State Dept.).1) the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; 2) speech about the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; 3) speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; 4) speech about election integrity and the security of voting by mail; 5) censorship and suppression of speech by Plaintiffs Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration; 6) censorship and suppression of Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit, on social-media platforms; and 7) censorship and suppression of Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana and Reopen Louisiana on social-media platforms.
Note the Court’s use of the word, “prove,” above. The judge wasn’t just saying Missouri’d “alleged” Fauci was involved in censorship. Instead, the Court said the publicly-available emails “prove” it. That’s a galaxy of difference.…the Court is aware of a number of substantive reasons why Dr. Fauci’s deposition should be taken. The first is the publicly available emails that prove that Dr. Fauci was communicating and acting as an intermediary for others in order to censor information from being shared across multiple social-media outlets…. [and] the Court has no doubt that Dr. Fauci was engaging in communications with high-ranking social-media officials, which is extremely relevant in the matter at hand.