URGENT: Berenson v Biden is about to get serious. Will the Trump White House stand with me and free speech... or with Pfizer?

The heat just turned up in Berenson v Biden.

Yesterday, federal judge Jessica G.L. Clarke ordered a hearing for oral arguments on the defense motions to dismiss Berenson v Biden — my claim against Biden administration and Pfizer officials for their 2021 conspiracy to make Twitter ban me.

Clarke set the hearing for next Wednesday in Manhattan. But big news is coming even sooner.

Clarke also gave the Justice Department until midnight tomorrow to decide whether to apply to delay the hearing. Why might the Trump administration want a delay? Possibly to change its position — and stop defending the Biden administration’s unconstitutional efforts to censor me.

—

(Now, more than ever, I need your help.)

—

The Trump administration has made ending censorship on social media a core principle, devoting one of its first executive orders on Inauguration Day to the topic.

In his firecracker speech in Munich two months ago — a speech the legacy media falsely called an attack on European democracy — Vice President JD Vance spoke out strongly against the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts.

And Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who along with me was the top target of those efforts, understands them as viscerally as anyone.

So why wouldn’t the Trump administration take my side in Berenson v Biden, which I filed two years ago and details the desperate efforts by White House and Pfizer officials to work together to force Twitter to ban me for speaking out against the mRNA shots in 2021?¹

Well, here’s one reason: doing so would very much upset Pfizer and its chairman Dr. Albert Bourla, who is personally named as a defendant in Berenson v. Biden.

And Bourla has already spent a fortune in time and money to get Donald Trump’s ear.

—

(April 16? That’s soon, right?)

—

I’m not exaggerating about Bourla’s desperate, pathetic attempts to kiss up to Trump.

In November and again in December, Bourla had dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. In early January, he came back - with other Pfizer executives - for a “planning meeting” that lasted several days and no doubt was very expensive.

Two weeks later, he was in Washington for the inauguration.

A month after that, Bourla came back to the White House for a Black History Month event — at which the crowd booed when Trump introduced him.

So Bourla begged for Trump’s favor at least FIVE TIMES in three months. And those are only the events we know about publicly.

Of course, however much Bourla tries to make nice to Trump, he will never be able to outrun the allegations that Pfizer sat on the results of its Covid vaccine trial until just after Election Day 2020.

The shot’s apparent success led to a massive stock market rally and positive headlines worldwide. If Pfizer had put them out before the election, Trump would likely have won millions more votes.

Guess Bourla is hoping that enough dinners with Trump might help Trump forget that November surprise. I doubt it, but we will see.

—

(Is it just me or does Dr. Bourla look like a man with something to hide? Eh, probably just me.)

—

What exactly are Bourla and Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb — another defendant in Berenson v Biden — trying to conceal about their meetings and interactions with the Biden Administration in 2021? This lawsuit is our best and likely only chance to find out.

I can’t wait to learn. I hope the Trump White House agrees.

I don’t have millions of dollars to lobby, or a team of absurdly expensive lawyers. All I have is the truth (and the amazing James Lawrence). I’ll have to hope that’s enough.

I’ll leave you with this, from Vance’s incredible speech to the Munich Security Conference two months ago:

I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation —misinformation like, for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leaped fr—leaked from a laboratory in China. Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth…

So, I come here today not just with an observation but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.

In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town. And under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree.

I hope the new sheriff stands with me.

We’ll find out soon.