We need your help! Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to ad-free Revolver. Or give a one-time or recurring donation during this critical time.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) claims it’s on a mission to tackle so-called “disinformation” leading up to the 2020 election. Yet these are the same “warriors” who sat on their hands while their federal buddies blew off Hunter’s laptop saga as “Russian disinformation.” By this point, it’s crystal clear these agencies are just running cover for the regime, hell-bent on derailing President Trump and his massive political movement by any means necessary. Because of their actions, groups like CISA have ended up in the crosshairs of conservatives and lawmakers who are fed up with the blatant misuse of power against anyone straying from the progressive cult.

Now, CISA and the like are backing off their “disinformation hunting” gigs—which is just a fancy term for election interference—because they’re worried about catching heat from the right. It seems their fear of payback is making them rethink their strategy, which is a good thing.

Politico:

Some of the country’s top cybersecurity experts who’ve been helping protect critical networks say they’re quietly retreating from a highly touted government partnership, citing frustrations with its management and pressure from conservative critics.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency launched the initiative — known as the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative — in 2021 to enlist outside tech pros in the fight against cybercrime gangs and state-backed hacking outfits following a series of high-profile breaches.

[…]

But five external computer security professionals involved in the JCDC (Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative) told POLITICO they and many colleagues have stopped contributing or have significantly pared back their involvement.

The JCDC “has been dead for a while now,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior technical analyst at SentinelOne, a billion-dollar security firm that participates in the program.

While many of their complaints stem from how the program is organized, the discontent also represents another indirect impact of Donald Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims, now threatening to hamper largely apolitical cybersecurity work: CISA’s efforts to combat disinformation ahead of the 2020 election has made it a favorite target of conservatives, who accuse it of trying to censor their views online.

Even though the JCDC plays no role in online content moderation, the amped-up scrutiny of CISA has increasingly ensnared the agency’s external partners, making JCDC participants fearful they could be caught in the crosshairs.

“There is a huge chilling effect going on,” said Marc Rogers, the founder of a nonprofit cyber defense group, the CTI-League, that worked with the agency before the formation of the JCDC. “There is a big worry now in the cybersecurity industry that there is a witch hunt going on against us.

The real story behind why they’re scaling back probably has more to do with how disorganized their operation is. But why not bow out, playing the victim card and pointing fingers at the right, just to snag a few headlines? These types fancy themselves as crusaders of truth, but let’s call it like it is: they’re political operatives through and through, dead set on quashing any form of political dissent. The Politico piece goes on:

But a growing conservative backlash to CISA’s separate work has participants in JCDC worried. A case before the Supreme Court initiated by Republican attorneys general accuses CISA of First Amendment violations for its efforts to fight disinformation largely during the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, when it forwarded tips about hoaxes it received from state and local election authorities to companies such as Facebook and X.

Three Stanford University researchers who helped CISA address disinformation have faced legal challenges and online harassment. In December, the CTI-League’s founders, including Rogers, received death threats after media reports claimed they helped hone CISA’s alleged censorship strategy — a charge the group denies.

The reports prompted a pair of hearings in the conservative-led House and a wave of harassing emails, texts and social media posts against the group’s founders and volunteers.

CISA did not offer any support to the CTI-League in the wake of the backlash, CTI-League members say, even though the vast majority of the group’s work was focused on protecting hospitals and emergency rooms from cyberattacks — not fighting disinformation.

That left some outside partners uneasy about what would happen if conservative activists targeted them.

“While CISA has loved to name-drop private working group names for street cred, the lack of any statement about the CTI-League has given me a lot of hesitation about a future working relationship,” said Silas Cutler, a cyber threat analyst who participates independently in the JCDC and works for security startup Stairwell.

Meanwhile, “fact-checking” has become a thing of the past under Biden. Why? This further proves that this is a weaponized plot to silence dissent.

The Hill:

Fact-checking under President Trump was a bustling business. Seemingly every day, and sometimes by the hour, the 45th president’s every word was scrutinized, which all comes with the job.

But under President Biden, fact checkers are enjoying what feels like extended vacations or have simply checked out in terms of scrutinizing the many ways that he is misleading the public.

Take CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale as a prime example of apathy around holding the current president accountable.

From June 2019 until November 2020, Dale appeared or was mentioned on CNN more than once per day, on average, according to Mediaite. Estimating conservatively,

that’s more than 500 appearances or mentions on a national network in the span of just 16 months.

But Dale has become the fact-checker version of Edward Snowden under Biden. He’s almost impossible to find these days. In fact, Dale has not conducted even one fact-check of the president since June.

Of course, Biden supporters will insist that Dale simply doesn’t have any material to work with. But that’s not true. In August, Biden declared that inflation in July was zero, despite the number being near a 40-year high at 8.3 percent.

Last week, Biden claimed the Inflation Reduction Act, which numerous studies have concluded will do almost nothing to reduce inflation, had already “helped reduce inflation at the kitchen table.” In a related story, food prices rose again in August, with the Consumer Price Index up 10.6 percent year-over-year.

There are many other examples from the summer, but you get the point: The most powerful man in the country needs to be held accountable for his words and actions, particularly in an election year, when each side is attempting to shape the narrative through the press. But fact-checkers at mainstream outlets refuse to do it.

The situation is worse when it comes to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She has been fact-checked only once by Politifact since June.

What’s interesting is that stepping back from the disinformation hunt shouldn’t affect the other stuff these agencies are up to. If anything, it ought to free up more bandwidth for them to concentrate on the real threat: safeguarding us from foreign hacks. The problem isn’t their legit security work; it’s the relentless drive by politically biased groups to slap the “disinformation” label on anything that doesn’t align with their twisted views. If they’re getting cold feet about continuing that unconstitutional and unjust trend, then chalk it up as a win for our side.

SUPPORT REVOLVER — DONATE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER