If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.
KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers. The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results. However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.
This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate? The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government. Please do not overlook the dates here.
Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why? Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}
In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration. The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues. Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.
Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’. Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense? [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]
The Twitter lawsuit against the government wound its way through the lower courts and various levels of appeal. Each lower court ruled against the release of the information, forbidding Twitter from releasing the information. Why? Because the executive branch, in this example Obama DHS/FBI, have unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a “national security” issue. If DHS/FBI says the issue is a “national security” threat, the judicial branch is not prepared to challenge that definition.
Ultimately the lawsuit ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to engage the question thereby supporting the rulings of the lower court. You can read about THAT PART HERE. However, there’s another layer to this story that needs to be accurately understood, because this deference by the judicial branch to the executive branch is part of how the system is weaponized.
You might remember this 11th circuit court of appeals ruling against Trump; it essentially encapsulates the issue:
These rulings are essentially correct, as following the process within a constitutional republic. However, here’s the rub. The weaponized Deep State are using this deference, as a tool in their Lawfare arsenal.
If the Deep State can unilaterally determine what constitutes “national security,” and if the judicial branch is not going to review or challenge those determinations, then the executive branch can target people, target institutions, and/or conduct domestic surveillance while hiding their conduct behind the shield of national security.
That’s exactly what the weaponized institutions (DHS, DOJ, FBI) have been doing.
That’s exactly the process that Barack Obama and Eric Holder created.
That’s exactly the motive for Eric Holder creating the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).
Now, can you see the bigger issue, as presented by the Twitter case against government, that was just highlighted by the Supreme Court decision not to get involved.
The DOJ-NSD is the targeting mechanism for corrupt interests in our government to target us. The Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI unite in the process and provide the results to the DOJ-NSD for action against the targets. The collaboration then uses “national security” as the technique to stop those being abused by the targeting system from ever finding out, and the judicial branch cannot provide oversight.
Hopefully, this helps people put the scale of the ‘weaponization of government’ issue into a context.
That’s how they are carrying out Lawfare. That’s why there’s no process to impede them within the ordinary structures of constitutional protection.
Their ability to use “national security” as the justification for all of the corrupt targeting and surveillance is ultimately the source of power for the Fourth Branch of Government.
