Aaron Cariotti

is that the legal mastermind in our case, former Solicitor General of Missouri, a man by the name of John Sauer, who is a tornado in the courtroom and an absolutely brilliant litigator, has just been tapped to be the United States Solicitor General. That is the highest litigator in the land.

is that the legal mastermind in our case, former Solicitor General of Missouri, a man by the name of John Sauer, who is a tornado in the courtroom and an absolutely brilliant litigator, has just been tapped to be the United States Solicitor General. That is the highest litigator in the land.

you could say so uh so we have two people from our case that will be taking up positions of considerable influence in the next administration so that's very exciting the case itself continues of course John is not going to argue again. He's going to have to recuse himself if this case goes back to the Supreme Court. Usually it would be the Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the government.

you could say so uh so we have two people from our case that will be taking up positions of considerable influence in the next administration so that's very exciting the case itself continues of course John is not going to argue again. He's going to have to recuse himself if this case goes back to the Supreme Court. Usually it would be the Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the government.

But of course, he was involved in the case earlier and he's very sympathetic to our side. So I'm not sure how much of a defense the government's going to be able to mount at this point. They'll probably have to get a replacement lawyer. But the case is back at the district court. The Supreme Court earlier in January set a very high threshold for a legal requirement called standing.

But of course, he was involved in the case earlier and he's very sympathetic to our side. So I'm not sure how much of a defense the government's going to be able to mount at this point. They'll probably have to get a replacement lawyer. But the case is back at the district court. The Supreme Court earlier in January set a very high threshold for a legal requirement called standing.

Basically, the ability for us to prove that it was the government, not social media companies, that censored us. And so according to that strict criteria, we petitioned.

Basically, the ability for us to prove that it was the government, not social media companies, that censored us. And so according to that strict criteria, we petitioned.

the court again for additional discovery that means we're gonna we're gonna learn a lot more information we're gonna have more depositions of defendants we're gonna have more documents that we recover um that are were previously you know private communications between government and social media companies so and the court granted that request for additional discovery to try to help us establish standing and so that is going to basically break things open even more and

the court again for additional discovery that means we're gonna we're gonna learn a lot more information we're gonna have more depositions of defendants we're gonna have more documents that we recover um that are were previously you know private communications between government and social media companies so and the court granted that request for additional discovery to try to help us establish standing and so that is going to basically break things open even more and

Regardless of the final outcome in this case, the case is serving the purpose of shining a very bright spotlight on the nature of government censorship. And I think this next stage of the case where we're going to get additional discovery is going to continue to sort of blow this thing open and publicize what happened. There was a very important moment, too.

Regardless of the final outcome in this case, the case is serving the purpose of shining a very bright spotlight on the nature of government censorship. And I think this next stage of the case where we're going to get additional discovery is going to continue to sort of blow this thing open and publicize what happened. There was a very important moment, too.

in the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, the very last question that they put to Vance, which was, what about January 6? Isn't Trump a threat to democracy? And while acknowledging that there were obviously problems on January 6th, Vance said that the real threat to democracy is the government-sponsored censorship that has been happening on an industrial scale for the last several years.

in the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, the very last question that they put to Vance, which was, what about January 6? Isn't Trump a threat to democracy? And while acknowledging that there were obviously problems on January 6th, Vance said that the real threat to democracy is the government-sponsored censorship that has been happening on an industrial scale for the last several years.

And that was a clear reference to the information that's been uncovered in our case. So the next administration is very aware of the censorship issue. They've said publicly they want to dismantle the government's

And that was a clear reference to the information that's been uncovered in our case. So the next administration is very aware of the censorship issue. They've said publicly they want to dismantle the government's

censorship machinery i like to tell people this is not a partisan issue they shouldn't see it as a partisan issue maybe you don't want donald trump to be president fine i don't want donald trump or joe biden or obama or any other future president

censorship machinery i like to tell people this is not a partisan issue they shouldn't see it as a partisan issue maybe you don't want donald trump to be president fine i don't want donald trump or joe biden or obama or any other future president

left right republican democrat to have access to this kind of control over speech so it's not a partisan issue it's a constitutional issue regardless of who's in power you do not want to give them the ability to censor people online and that's i think that's why this case continues

left right republican democrat to have access to this kind of control over speech so it's not a partisan issue it's a constitutional issue regardless of who's in power you do not want to give them the ability to censor people online and that's i think that's why this case continues