Biden's Now-Disbanded "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" Plotted to Cultivate a Network of Spies Among Government School Teachers Who Would Inform on Parents and Children Who Resisted Their Trans and DEI Agendas

Dark thoughts.

They weren't just hoping to recruit spies among teachers. They hoped to also recruit AWFL mothers to inform on their family members.

Miranda Divine:

The Biden administration's since-disbanded "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" planned an insidious influence operation to persuade mothers and teachers to inform on dissident parents and students suspected of "domestic extremism," internal documents obtained by The Post show.

The panel, created in September of last year to ostensibly "provide advice and perspectives on intelligence and national security efforts," included Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan and ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, both of whom flaunted their intelligence credentials on the eve of the 2020 election to falsely claim The Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.

But conservative non-profit America First Legal (AFL) alleged in a November 2023 lawsuit that the group was stacked with Democrat partisans and violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act because of its "lack of balance, the Biden Administration's inappropriate influence over it, and its lack of public notice and participation."

DHS agreed to disband the group and to provide AFL with its internal records as part of an out-of-court settlement in May.

Now, the records have been obtained and provide a chilling insight into the ambitions of this shadowy organization.

In notes from a September 2023 meeting, the Brennan-Clapper group discussed ways for DHS to increase efforts to collect intelligence on Americans across the country, and "get into local communities in a non-threatening way."

Members noted that "Americans have an ambivalent feeling of telling on each other," citing the failure of the post-9/11 "See Something, Say Something" campaign.

The problem, one attendee summarized, was: "How do people safely report a concern about their neighbors?"

One solution proposed at the meeting was to reclassify political dissent as a "public health" crisis to encourage Americans to report family members or neighbors to the federal government if they displayed "concerning" behavior.

"To get a mother or teacher to come forward, it needs to be a public health catcher's mitt," one participant was quoted as saying.

If DHS could not convince mothers and teachers to become informants, one member of the group suggested, the feds should turn to corporate America as a resource of intelligence on their employees.

"There is an industry ecosystem, companies are internally collecting open sources," this person mused. "Are you able to engage and use those products?"

...

The plans have strong echoes of East Germany's secret police agency, the Stasi, which relied on a network of unofficial informants to report friends, family, and neighbors as potential dissidents to the socialist regime between 1950 and 1990.

You say you want to recruit spies and agents of influence in corporations, ay?

How about professional associations which professionals are forced to join just to practice their trade?

Does that grab you, Communist John Brennan?

The Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) issued a warning Friday to public officials who speak out against former President Donald Trump's prosecution.

During his Manhattan trial, Trump often read aloud remarks against his prosecution made by lawyers and media pundits outside the courtroom in avoidance of violating his gag order. Leadership from the CBA railed against "unsubstantiated and reckless" defenses of Trump by lawyers, saying in the statement that "such statements can promote acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch."

"Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more," the statement reads. "In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a 'sham,' a 'hoax,' and 'rigged'; our justice system is 'corrupt and rigged'; the judge was 'corrupt' and 'highly unethical'; and, that the jury was 'partisan' and 'precooked.' Others claimed the trial was 'America's first communist show trial'--a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats."

The CBA leadership acknowledged that "free speech includes criticism." The statement, however, claimed that "headlines' grabbing, baseless allegations" made by public officials against Trump's prosecution "have no place in the public discourse."

It's not all bad news. The nation's worst censorship group, funded by US taxpayers without their consent or knowledge by the corrupt State Department and "intelligence" service, claims it is out of the "election integrity" business now that exposure has dried up their illegal government funding.

Over the last 18 months, Public has extensively documented the mass censorship effort led by the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) for the United States government. Accounts vary, but either the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked SIO to lead the effort or SIO's ostensible leader, Alex Stamos, proposed the idea.

The brains of the SIO operation was Renée DiResta, an ostensibly "former" CIA employee. Senate Democrats, the New York Times, and other news media close to the Intelligence Community (IC) heavily promoted DiResta starting in 2018, when she spread disinformation exaggerating the influence of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. In 2020 and 2021, DiResta and SIO led a DHS effort that successfully pressured social media platforms to censor disfavored views of Covid and interfere in the 2020 elections.

Now, in a major victory for free speech advocates, SIO has decided not to renew its contracts with DiResta and Stamos, who have both left the organization. A blog called "Platformer," which is sympathetic to SIO's censorship efforts, reported yesterday that "the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future."

Yes I don't believe them, but at least this CIA front group will have to be more careful and more stealthy about its taxpayer-funded election rigging operations.

The dismissal of DiResta and Stamos is unlikely to be sufficient to stop them from continuing their censorship advocacy, as DiResta's book shows. DiResta and Stamos are two of the top censorship visionaries in the United States and may find resources to continue their lobbying in some other institution. DiResta continues to enjoy fawning coverage from partisan news outlets, such as The Atlantic, which demand ever-more censorship for ideological and financial reasons. And the Supreme Court is likely to allow the kind of third-party censorship pioneered by DiResta and Stamos in a critical free speech case, Murthy v. Missouri.

But Stanford's repudiation of DiResta and Stamos suggests that the university's leadership realizes the reputational damage that DiResta and Stamos caused the institution. Stanford has distanced itself from the two for reasons that had nothing to do with money. Indeed, the two showed themselves adept at raising money. SIO raised $5 million from Craig Newmark Philanthropies, "which allowed Stamos and DiResta to recruit nearly a dozen staff members," notes Platformer. "Eventually, groups like the William D. Flora Hewlett Foundation and the National Science Foundation added their support."

And SIO was the lead group of the four groups in total that advocated censorship on behalf of DHS in 2020 and 2021. "By 2022," notes Platformer, "SIO had become the most visible research institute" engaged in censorship advocacy in the US. "Its staff members published a combined 10 journal articles and 22 op-eds. According to a 2022 annual report, SIO was cited in the media 5,400 times -- a staggering number for a new and relatively small team."

In 2021, DiResta advocated for creating a government censorship center, which she euphemistically described a "Center of Excellence," within the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security acted on DiResta's proposal to create a censorship center, calling it "Disinformation Governance Board," which the agency announced publicly in April 2022.

An intern at the Standford Information Observatory -- sounds so much more scienc-y than "Depraved CIA-Funded Psyops Functionaries" -- writes of her experience there.

My First Job, at the Stanford Internet Observatory

The research center, which is shutting its doors, was supposed to tackle "misinformation." Instead, they hired a bunch of interns to flag social media posts.

...

Like a zillion other bright-eyed Stanford undergrads, I was drawn to work at a place that promised to "learn about the abuse of the internet in real time, to develop a novel curriculum on trust and safety that is a first in computer science, and to translate our research discoveries into training and policy innovations for the public good." To me, that meant ending internet abuse like the glamorization of anorexia on social media or financial scams that steal billions every year. But mostly I worked on the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which SIO ran during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The purpose of that project was to identify so-called "fake news" spreading on social media.

In actuality, SIO hired a load of interns to scan social media for posts deemed to be mis- and disinformation. It turns out that the posts we students flagged were often sent along to moderators at Twitter (now X), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, which took them down in order to quash dissenting viewpoints--viewpoints that sometimes ended up being right, as in the case of Covid likely being the result of a lab leak, or Hunter Biden's hard drive being his actual hard drive--not Russian disinformation.

Note the SIO is not closing down. They just claim they're ending their election-rigging efforts.

But those efforts will be taken up by the next "Government-Private Partnership But It's Totally a Third-Party Effort for Legal Purposes" censorship organization Renee DiResta starts up.

By the way, the "former" CIA agent who had been in charge of the SIO is Renee DiResta, and she just released a book about her fight against the "Invisible Rulers" who control us.

Of course, Renee DiResta has rigged elections from the shadows for years, all the while being paid by the taxpayers against their will, so she of course is one of the actual "Invisible Rulers" she claims to oppose.

Although Amazon is deleting negative comments and throttling negative reviews, you can give a boost to one serious negative review by reading it and honestly marking it as "helpful" in your book-buying decision.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:00 PM

| Access Comments