[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-145 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
CHRIS STEWART, Utah STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MATT GAETZ, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOHN GARAMENDI, California
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida DAN GOLDMAN, New York
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, July 20, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio. 1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the Virgin Islands........................................ 3
WITNESSES
The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Attorney
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Testimony............................................. 12
Emma-Jo Morris, Journalist, Breitbart News
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Testimony............................................. 24
D. John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Testimony............................................. 28
Maya Wiley, President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 42
Prepared Testimony............................................. 44
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee
on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below 88
Materials submitted by the Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking
Member of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
Federal Government from the Virgin Islands, for the record
An excerpt from a transcribed interview with Laura Dehmlow,
from the Committee on the Judiciary, Jul. 17, 2023
An article entitled, ``An Anti-Vaccine Film Targeted To Black
Americans SpreadsFalse Information,'' Jun. 8, 2021, NPR
A letter to McCarthy Denning Limited from Lewis Silkin LLP,
Sept. 20, 2021
An article entitled, ``Pro-RFK Jr. Super PAC Has Deep Ties to
Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos,'' Jun. 23, 2023,
Rolling Stone
An excerpt from a transcribed interview of Laura Dehmlow, Jul.
17, 2023, submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Ohio, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Dan Goldman, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government of New York, for the record
A pages from a transcribed interview with Laura Dehmlow, from
the Committee on the Judiciary, Jul. 17, 2023
An article entitled, ``New York Post Published Hunter Biden
Report Amid Newsrooms Doubts,'' Sept. 13, 2021, New York
Times
A link to a video showing the Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
discussing the COVID-19 vaccine
A Decloration from John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff,
in the case of Peter Strzok v. Attorney General Merrick
Garland, United States District Court, District of Columbia,
submitted by the Honorable Stephen Lynch, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Massachusetts, for the record
An appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Jul. 14, 2023, submitted by the Honorable Linda
Sanchez, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
California, for the record
An article entitled, ``Shock Poll: 8 in 10 Think Biden Laptop
Cover-Up Changed Election,'' Aug. 24, 2022, Tipp Insights,
submitted by the Honorable Elise M. Stefanik, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of New York, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of
the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Kentucky
A document entitled, ``New insights into genetic
susceptibility of COVID-19: An ACE2 and TMPRSS2
polymorphism analysis,'' 2020, BMC Medicine
A study entitled, ``FDA Review of Efficacy and Safety of
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use
Authorization Request,'' Dec. 10, 2020, Vaccines and
Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting,
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
An Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit Administrative stay from the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Missouri v. Biden, Jul. 17, 2023, submitted by the
Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on
the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
Louisiana, for the record
An article entitled, ``New York Post Published Hunter Biden
Report Amid Newsroom Doubts,'' Sept. 13, 2021, The New York
Times, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of
the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Texas, for the record
APPENDIX
A statement submitted by the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member
of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Virginia, Jul. 20, 2023, for the
record
VOTE
RC #1--Vote on Motion to Table--Passed, 10 ayes and 8 noes
THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Thursday, July 20, 2023
House of Representatives
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan, Massie, Stewart, Stefanik,
Johnson, Gaetz, Armstrong, Steube, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman,
Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly,
Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
Also present: Representative Roy.
Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida to
lead us all in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I thank the lady for leading us.
Without objection, Mr. Roy will be permitted to participate
in this hearing. The Chair now recognizes himself for an
opening statement.
On the third day of this administration, January 23, 2021,
the White House sent an email to Twitter. The email said this:
``WANTED TO FLAG THE BELOW TWEET, AND I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN
GET MOVING ON THE PROCESS FOR HAVING IT REMOVED ASAP,'' in all
caps.
That third day, what did that tweet say? A tweet from Mr.
Kennedy said this:
Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious
deaths among elderly closely following administration of the
vaccine. He received the vaccine on January 5th to inspire
other Black Americans to get the vaccine.
Now, what's interesting about the email that the White House
sent to Twitter is the subject line says: ``Flagging Hank Aaron
misinformation.''
Now, misinformation is when you don't have the facts right;
you're saying things that aren't true. When you look at Mr.
Kennedy's tweet, there was nothing in there that was factually
inaccurate. Hank Aaron, real person, great American, passed
away after he got the vaccine. Pointing out--just pointing out
facts. Yet, the White House, on the third day, was trying--
actually 1:04 a.m. on January 23, 2021, 37 hours into the
administration, they were trying to censor Mr. Kennedy. I find
that interesting. The irony here trying to censor the guy who
is actually their Democrat primary opponent. Go figure.
Three months earlier, the FBI helps censor our second
witness, Ms. Morris' story, her story in the New York Post
about emails on the Hunter Biden laptop. We know the FBI
censored her because of work this Committee has done to uncover
what happened and because of our third witness, Mr. Sauer, the
lawsuit that he argued on behalf of Florida--excuse me,
Louisiana and Missouri in Federal Court in a case that they got
the amazing ruling from on July 4th, just two weeks ago.
Go back to the course of that investigation, course of that
lawsuit from Missouri and Louisiana, Yoel Roth, former head of
site integrity at Twitter, in his sworn declarations brought
out in this lawsuit, in sworn declaration in from of the
Federal Election Commission, he said this:
During weekly meetings, Federal law enforcement agencies
communicated that they expected hack-and-leak operations before
the 2020 Presidential election, likely in October.
These expectations discussed throughout 2020--were discussed
throughout 2020.
I also learned in these meetings that a hack-and-leak
operation would involve Hunter Biden. Now, think about it.
Weekly meetings throughout 2020 hack-and-leak operation, in
October involving Hunter Biden. Five key things they pointed
out throughout that year. Guess what? It all happens. It
happens just like they predicted. How did they know? How did
they know it was going to happen like that? Because they had
the laptop. They had the laptop for 10 months before Ms.
Morris' story on October 14th.
Her story breaks that day. That same day, October 14, 2020,
Twitter meets with the FBI, specifically the Foreign Influence
Task Force at the FBI. Later that same day, again the day her
story comes out, Facebook also meets with the FBI. The head of
the Foreign Influence Task Force now is Laura Dehmlow, and this
Committee interviewed her just three days ago. What an
interesting interview that was. We asked her about these
meetings, she stated, in the first meeting--the FBI and Twitter
in that first meeting she said someone from Twitter asked, is
the laptop real? They asked a fundamental--that story broke; it
was big news. Twitter asked the FBI--they are right there in
front of them; they've been preparing them for a year--they
asked the FBI, ``is the laptop real?'' Ms. Dehmlow conveyed to
the Committee this week an FBI agent answered, ``yes, it is.''
Another FBI agent, a lawyer, very quickly followed up with
``no further comment.'' So, again, here's the scenario: The
story breaks. Twitter is meeting with the FBI later that same
day. Someone from Twitter asks, is this story real? Is the
laptop real? The FBI answers, yes, and then quickly followed
by--again, all this conveyed by Ms. Dehmlow--the FBI lawyer
says: ``No further comment.''
In the later meeting with Facebook, again that same day,
the FBI was asked the same question, and this time the FBI gets
their story straight, and Ms. Dehmlow is the only one who
comments. She says: ``No comment.''
Obviously, by the second meeting, the FBI had coordinated,
and she conveyed this in her deposition that they had
deliberated what they were going to respond when that question
was asked. So, think about this: After being repeatedly told a
hack-and-leak Russian info operation is coming for a whole
year, it arrives on October 14th in the form of Ms. Morris'
story, an accurate story. Our government knows the laptop is
real. They know it's not a Russian information op, and they
know the story is true. When directly asked, they say: ``No
comment.''
Of course, Ms. Morris' story is censored. Visibility
filtered the term that the tech companies use. No, you can't
direct this--you can't send it, keeping the American people
from valuable information just days before the most important
election we have, an election for Commander in Chief, election
for the Presidency of the United States. That's why Ms. Morris
is here today. She knows what it's like to be censored. It's
why Louisiana and Missouri filed the case. It's why Mr. Sauer
argued the case. Frankly, it's why Mr. Kennedy is running for
President. It's to stop--help us expose and stop what's going
on. This aligns Big Government pressuring private entities to
censor Americans.
In Ms. Morris' testimony, which I read this morning, Big
Tech, Big Government, working together, Big Media working all
together to censor American speech.
So, we look forward to your testimony over the next few
hours, but I will tell you this: Just get ready, I think these
guys--Ms. Morris, get ready--the last time we had a journalist
sitting there, they were trying to get them to divulge their
sources, so be ready. I know you can handle it. We appreciate
your willingness to come forward. We appreciate your
willingness to fight for the First Amendment.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening
statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to
everyone. I just have some administrative matters first.
I wanted to introduce into the record page 55 from the
Committee's interview with FBI employee Laura Dehmlow, who you
just spoke about, which took place on July 17, 2023. In that
line she says--the question was asked:
Okay. So if someone were to leave here today, were to leave
this interview and were to suggest or imply or state that when
you said ``the laptop was real,'' that it meant that the FBI
had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the laptop
belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to Hunter
Biden, that the contents had not been manipulated in some way,
they would be misrepresenting what you said, correct?
Answer by Ms. Dehmlow:
They would be misrepresentng what I said because I don't have
much knowledge of that.
Because this Committee likes to misrepresent or leave off
complete sentences of what individuals said, I'd like to
introduce this into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
As to ``no comment'' by the FBI, that's usually what they
say when there's an ongoing investigation, particularly when
it's a couple of days before an election.
Why are we here? Why? That's been the question that quite a
number of people have been asking me: Why are you having this
hearing? What does this have it to do with inflation? What does
this have to do with the cost of living? What does this have to
do with the everyday lives of Americans, the thing that the
Republican Party said that they would focus on if they had
control of the House?
Why would the Republican leadership and the Committee
majority give a hearing and a platform to the witnesses today?
Specifically, to Mr. Kennedy. A man who has recently
claimed that COVID-19 has targeted to attack Caucasians and
Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews
and Chinese. Before that, in his film ``Medical Racism: The New
Apartheid,'' that film stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not
work for Black children because of their, quote,
. . . kick-ass kind of immune system, that hyper super human,
subhuman kind of language.
He also said:
Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps to
Switzerland. You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank--to
imply Jews in Nazi Germany had more freedoms than unvaccinated
Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, many of my Republican colleagues across the dais will
rush to cover that they have Mr. Kennedy here because they want
to protect his free speech, that they do not believe in
American censorship.
This is not the kind of free speech that I know of; the
free speech that is protected by the Constitution's First
Amendment. Free speech is not an absolute. The Supreme Court
has stated that. Others' free speech that is allowed, hateful
abusive rhetoric, does not need to be promoted in the halls of
the people's House.
This Republican charge of free speech is being used by
Republican Members to promote quasi science, things such as the
replacement theory that says that Brown people are replacing
good White Americans here in this country. Let's not remember
that this country first belonged to Brown Native American
people. It's a rallying cry for bigotry and hate.
There are Members of the Republican Conference who also
frequently suggest that Americans have to deal with COVID rules
is the same as oppression of Nazi Germany. Indeed, some have
even questioned whether the Holocaust took place. We have
staffers who openly follow White supremacy without any
condemnation of the Republican Conference. Some give it
chuckles, slaps on the back, shrugs, all under the mantra of
free speech. It's a free country. You absolutely have a right
to say what you believe. You don't have the right to a
platform, public or private. We don't have to give one of the
largest platforms of our democracy, Congress, this hearing. Our
right does not mean that we as Americans are not free from
accountability. That's what's distressing about this hearing,
even knowing what they know about Mr. Kennedy's hateful,
evidence-free rhetoric, and even though they've invited any
number of witnesses to make their point, Speaker McCarthy,
Chair Jordan, affirmatively chose to give this a platform. They
intentionally choose to elevate this rhetoric to give these
harmful, dangerous views a platform in the halls of the U.S.
Congress. That's endorsing that speech. That's not just
supporting free speech. They have cosigned on idiotic, bigoted
messaging. It's a conscious choice.
There's no doubt as to why they are making the choice. It's
not to guard free speech or to ensure equality for all. All of
this, as you'll hear throughout this hearing, is to show us by
their conduct over and over again that any attack on Joe Biden
to get Donald Trump back in the White House is what they need
to do. They think that by hurting the Biden Administration, by
putting Mr. Kennedy on display, they have said that he's only
running for censorship. I think people run for the President of
the United States because they want to advance the American
people.
Over the last eight months, the extreme MAGA majority has
spent its time, not to mention tons of taxpayer money,
something that they are always so cautious about on baseless
investigations that have gone nowhere, all in an effort to
serve as a legislative arm of the Trump campaign and to
discredit any agency that dares to hold the President or those
that work with him or who have the same ideals that he has
accountable for those that are such as White supremacy, such as
election deniers, such as inciters and those who engaged in the
riots of January 6th.
Truth be told, I've no idea whether the Chair actually
believes any of this stuff, I don't. That's not a question I've
asked him or one that's necessarily even important. It's clear
that one aim of this investigation is to bully tech and media
companies into turning a blind eye to right-wing extremist
conspiracies, from QAnon to the great replacement theory, as
they spread across their platforms, even when those theories
violate very basic terms of service about deliberate
disinformation and promoting violence. Let's not even think
about what happens in 2024 with Russian trolls, Iran, China
trying to interfere in our elections.
The bullying extends far beyond tech companies. Witness
after witness have testified to the treatment that they
received from Chair Jordan and his team. One of our earliest
witnesses Nina Jankowicz told the Committee about receiving
thousands of death threats and being told to go into hiding
while she was pregnant with her first child after Chair Jordan
first posted a doctored video of her.
When Politico asked Chair Jordan about the threats, his
office responded: ``She deserves to be held accountable.''
Anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view deserves
whatever hatred and threats are thrown at them.
Now, I'm across the hall from Chair Jordan and several
months ago, I saw somebody who seemed to be threatening to his
office and the Capitol Police were moving them away. I was
grateful that they were doing that because I don't want anyone
to harm him or his staff for their rhetoric, for the things
that they say. That's inappropriate. That's unconscionable.
Another witness, this one a current member of Federal law
enforcement, who spent years protecting Americans from harm,
described receiving threatening mail not just to her work
office but to her home address. Someone out there has figured
out where this person lives and is targeting them based on
disinformation this Committee itself spread. She summed it up
in a single sentence: ``I'm frankly scared.''
Why does the Chair send this movement to intimidate
witnesses? To change their behavior of course, to make it less
safe for law enforcement officers to enforce the law and less
likely that researchers and companies will combat the spread of
hate and violence online. One witness, an academic whose
organization help identify disinformation threats to election
processes and procedures, described the threats sent to him and
his family in detail. When the Republican staff asked him if he
would consider performing the same research for 2024 elections,
he said, quote:
Since this investigation has cost the university now
approaching seven figures in legal fees, it's been pretty
successful I think in discouraging us from making it worthwhile
for us to do a study for 2024.
Another witness, a researcher who analyzed massive data
sets to assess the way that rumors spread online, was explicit
and personal about the effects of the threats on her life:
I mean quite frankly I don't have kids. And, if I did, I would
no longer be doing this work. I'm worried about my students. I
know they are worried about doing this kind of work because of
these kinds of threats and what they see that I'm going
through. And, at the same time, I just think the work is so
important, and I want to make sure it keeps going. So, I don't
want to step off that stage. I don't want--I think with we
have, like, special skills that can be really useful and
helpful and help our country grow stronger and this is having a
chilling effect. And it's not just me. Other researchers are
experiencing the same thing.
These are the fruits of this Committee's majority
investigations.
If MAGA Republicans agree with you, you're given a platform
to spread any conspiracy theories, no matter how harmful. If
they disagree with you, you get death threats until you have to
go away. These folks have a plan: They want to force social
media companies to promote conspiracy theories because they
think that's the only way their candidate can win in the 2024
election. They want to bully the experts into abandoning their
work on disinformation to pave the way. They want to give
expression to the most vile sorts of speech here in this
Committee room because it prepares the ground for their own
conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. They apparently don't
care how many people are hurt or die as a consequence of their
actions, either through lies about vaccines or threats to the
safety of witnesses, because nothing--nothing--is more
important to them than power.
It's a free country. Both Chair Jordan and Mr. Kennedy are
free to say whatever they want. It's the Chair's right to
promote any of the views he wants to promote. That freedom
doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see what they are doing
and demand something better from our Representatives, from my
colleagues, from this Congress. Be better than the witnesses,
my colleagues, let's be better. Let's get about the business,
the real business of the American people and stop the division,
the divisiveness that is being promoted through this Committee.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record from
page 29 of Ms. Dehmlow's testimony from three days ago.
Question: Do you recall whether any of these social media
companies you were meeting with asked you any questions about
the laptop story?
Answer: I do.
Question: And what is your recollection? Who--
Answer: So I remember having a conversation with or being
involved in a13 conversation with Twitter, and I honestly can't
recall if this was repeated to me--I might14 have been a few
minutes late to the meeting--or if--or if I was--I actually
overheard it.15 But it was--it was relayed to me later that
somebody from Twitter--I don't recall16 who. I'm not sure who.
Somebody from Twitter essentially asked whether the laptop17
was real. And one of the FBI folks who was on the call did
confirm that, yes, it was18 before another participant jumped
in and said no further comment.
Question: Do you recall who from the FBI said it was real?
Answer: I do.
Question: And who was that?
Answer: It's a non-SES employee. I'd have to take that back.
Without objection, we'll enter that into the record.
We now want to introduce our witnesses.
I want to start with Ms. Emma-Jo Morris. Ms. Morris is a
Politics Editor at Breitbart News. She previously served as the
Deputy Politics Editor the New York Post, where she authored
the Post coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents
in 2020.
Ms. Maya Wiley is the President and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She previously served as
Counsel to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, at the American
Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund.
Welcome you as well, Ms. Wiley.
Mr. John Sauer is a Special Assistant Attorney General for
the Louisiana Department of Justice. He is one of the lead
lawyers in the Missouri v. Biden case that I referenced in my
opening statement. He previously served as Deputy Attorney
General for special litigation with the Missouri Attorney
General's Office and Solicitor General of Missouri. He clerked
for Judge Michael Luttig and Justice Antonin Scalia.
Then our final witness is Mr. Kennedy. I will turn to our
colleague Mr. Roy, a Member of the Judiciary Committee and
waived onto the Subcommittee to introduce Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the son of a former Attorney
General, Robert F. Kennedy, and the nephew of America's 35th
President, John F. Kennedy, the third of 11 children. He
graduated from Harvard University. We won't hold that against
him because he went on to receive his law degree from the
University of Virginia School of Law, my alma mater, as an
undergraduate. So, I am viewing Mr. Kennedy through his last
name. That does a tremendous disservice to his life's work,
whether you agree with it or not.
Out of law school, Mr. Kennedy built his career as an
environmental lawyer, representing New York City
environmentalists and environmentalists across the globe in
numerous legal battles. His work culminated in the landmark New
York City watershed agreement focused on cleaning of New York
City's waterways.
After the 2008 election, Politico reported that President-
elect Obama strongly considered Mr. Kennedy to head the
Environmental Protection Agency. He went on to found Children's
Health Defense, a national organization intended to address
childhood chronic disease and toxic exposures. I assume that
being a father of seven, in addition to being one of 11
children himself, fuels his interest in children's health.
Following the 2016 election, Mr. Kennedy met with then
President-elect Trump to discuss his potential for a committee
to examine vaccine safety and scientific integrity. Their
conversation also touched on the CDC and ways to increase
independence from financial conflicts.
Most recently, Mr. Kennedy announced his campaign for
President of the United States. During his campaign
announcement, he stated, quote:
My mission over the next 18 months of this campaign and
throughout my Presidency will be to end of corrupt merger of
State and corporate power that is threatening to impose a new
kind of corporate feudalism in our country.
It is for this that Mr. Kennedy finds himself receiving the
scorn of both the political left and right, because, if one
dares challenge the orthodoxy of the powers that be, then one
is their enemy.
As a graduate of the University of Virginia, Mr. Kennedy no
doubt knows the following quote: ``For here we are not afraid
to follow truth wherever it may lead.'' Thomas Jefferson.
That truism was lost during the COVID pandemic: Individuals
receiving scorn simply for asking questions. People being
silenced for challenging the status quo. These are the kinds of
questions that should have been publicly debated in this
hearing.
Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. This hearing is focused on that truth, and we
welcome Mr. Kennedy.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kennedy, we're glad you're here.
We will now proceed with opening statements. Before I do, I
want to introduce the guy sitting behind you, Mr. Kennedy, who
was a former colleague of ours and, maybe more importantly for
me, a good friend of mine, Dennis Kucinich, who served in the
U.S. Congress for 14 years I believe and a great Buckeye.
So, we welcome Dennis, and I know Elizabeth is here as
well.
We appreciate your service, Dennis, and your commitment to
the First Amendment.
We'll now go with opening testimony.
Mr. Kennedy, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, are you going to swear in the
witnesses?
Chair Jordan. If you will please stand and raise your right
hand.
Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you. You may be seated.
Mr. Kennedy, you are now recognized for your opening
statement, and then we'll go right down the line.
Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, point of order. I know that the
witnesses normally have five minutes. I see 10 minutes on the
board. Is it going to be 10 minutes?
Chair Jordan. We will give you five minutes, but we're
pretty lax with this. We will let him go for--
Ms. Plaskett. We are?
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. I've seen you gavel down on quite a number of
witnesses.
Chair Jordan. I have given Senators and former Democrat
Members of Congress and all kinds of folks--
Ms. Plaskett. He's neither, he's neither.
Chair Jordan. I'm just saying in past history.
Ms. Plaskett. OK, OK.
Chair Jordan. In the Committee.
Ms. Plaskett. OK, OK.
Chair Jordan. We'll give--
Ms. Plaskett. Let's just watch the time for all the
witnesses then.
Chair Jordan. If you want to cut him off and censor him
some more, you're welcome to do it.
Ms. Plaskett. Oh, that's not my job. That's your job. Why
don't you threaten the witness so that they cannot want to be a
witness?
Chair Jordan. Mr. Kennedy is recognized for his opening
statement. We will give him five minutes more or less, and then
we'll move to the next one.
Mr. Kennedy, go right ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, maybe we could put five
minutes on the clock then, not 10.
Chair Jordan. Put five on the clock and start--
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start--I want to put aside my written statement
for a moment and address one of the points that was brought up,
I think an important point, by the Ranking Member that this
body ought to be concerning itself with the issues that impact
directly to the American people, the rising price of groceries
76 percent over the past two years for basic food stuff, the
war in Ukraine, the inflation issues, the border issues, many,
many other issues that concern us all as a Nation. We can't do
that without the First Amendment, without debate.
When I gave my speech, my announcement speech in Boston two
months ago, YouTube--I talked about all those issues. I focused
on groceries. I focused on the fact that working class people
can no longer afford to live in this country. I talked about
inflation, all the issues that deeply concern you and that
you've devoted your career to alleviating those issues. Five
minutes into my speech, when I was talking about Paul Revere,
YouTube deplatformed me. I didn't talk about facts in that
speech. I didn't talk about anything that would be a verboten
subject. I just was talking about my campaign and the things
that in conversation we should be having with each as
Americans, but I was shut down. That is why the First
Amendment's important. Debate, congenial respectful debate is
the fertilizer. It's the water. It's the sunlight for our
democracy. We need to be talking to each other.
This is a letter that many of you have signed, many of my
fellow Democrats. I've spent my life in this party. I've
devoted my life to the values of this party. This, 102 people
signed this. This itself is evidence of the problem that this
hearing was continuing to address. This is an attempt to censor
a censorship hearing. The charges in this--and by the way,
censorship is antithetical to our party. It was appalling to my
father, to my uncle, to FDR, Harry Truman, and Thomas
Jefferson. As the Chair referred to, is the basis for
democracy. It sets us apart from all the previous forms of
government. We need to be able to talk--and the First Amendment
was not written for easy speech. It was written for the speech
that nobody likes you for.
I was censored not just by the Democratic Administration; I
was censored by the Trump Administration. I was the first
person censored, as the Chair pointed out, by the Biden
Administration two days after it came into office to order to
truthful--and by the way, they had to invent a new word called
``malinformation'' to censor people like me. There was no
misinformation on my Instagram account.
Everything I put on that account was cited and sourced,
from peer-reviewed publications or government data bases.
Nobody has ever pointed to a single piece of misinformation
that I published.
I was removed for something they called malinformation.
Malinformation is information that is true, but is inconvenient
to the government, that they don't want people to hear. That is
antithetical to the values of our country.
After I announced my Presidency, it became more difficult
for people to censor me outright. So, now I'm subject to this
new form of censorship, which is called targeted propaganda
where people apply pejoratives, like anti-vax--I've never been
an anti-vaccine, but everybody in this room probably believes
that I have been because that's the prevailing narrative.
Antisemitism, racism, these are the most appalling, disgusting
pejoratives, and they are applied to me to silence me because
people don't want me to have that conversation about the war,
about groceries, about inflation, about the war on the middle
class in this country that we need to be having.
By the way, I want to say this, while I'm on the record,
that in my entire life--and why while I'm under oath--in my
entire life, I have never uttered a phrase that was either
racist or antisemitic. I have spent my life fighting, my
professional career fighting for Israel, for the protection of
Israel. I have a better record on Israel than anybody in this
Chamber today. I'm the only person who has publicly objected to
the $2 billion payout that the Biden Administration is now
making to Iran, which is a genocidal program. I'm the only one
who's objected to that. I fought more ferociously for Israel
than anybody.
I am being censored here through this target, through
smears, through misinterpretations of what I said, through
lies, through association, which is a tactic that we all
thought had been discredited and dispensed with after the Army-
McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. Those same weapons are now
being deployed against me to silence me.
I know many of the people who wrote this letter. I don't
believe there's a single person who signed this letter who
believes I'm antisemitic. I do not believe that. There is no
evidence of that.
I want to say something. I think it's more important, and
it goes directly to what you talked about, Ranking Member,
which is the need to defeat this toxic polarization that is
destroying our country today. How do we deal with that? We are
more--this kind of division is more dangerous for our country
than anytime since the American Civil War. How do we deal with
that? How are we--every Democrat on this Committee believes
that we need to end that polarization. Do you think you can do
that by censoring people? I'm telling you, you cannot. That
only aggregates and amplifies the problem. We need to start
being kind to each other. We need to start being respectful to
each other. We need to start restoring the comity to this
Chamber and to the rest of America, but it has to start here.
My uncle, Edward Kennedy, had more legislation with his
name on it than any Senator in United States' history. Why is
this? Because he was able to reach across the aisle, because he
didn't deal in insults, because he didn't try to censor people.
He brought home people who were antithetical to what he
believed in. He came home almost every weekend with people like
Orrin Hatch to our house at the compound in Hyannis Port. At
that time, Orrin Hatch to me was like Darth Vader, because I
was an environmentalist, and I was saying: Why, why is Teddy
bringing this guy home?
He knew, he was effective because he understood that comity
and respect and kindness and compassion and empathy for other
people is the way that we--the only way to restore the function
in this Chamber. More importantly, today we need to give an
example in the leadership of our country of being respectful to
each other. If you think I said something that's antisemitic,
let's talk about the details.
I'm telling you all the things that I'm accused of right
now by you. In this letter are distortions, they are
misrepresentations. I didn't say those things. There are
fragments that I said, but I denounce anybody who uses the
words that I have said to imply something that is negative
about people who are Jewish. I never said those things.
I want to point out also that the Chair pointed to Dennis
Kucinich, who is right behind me. There is no two people in the
country who feel differently about--more differently about
American politics than these two people, and yet they were
friends. Dennis attended his children's basketball games,
attended his daughter's wedding. This is what we need, how we
need to start treating each other in this country. We have to
stop trying to destroy each other, to marginalize, to vilify,
to gaslight each other. We have to find a place inside of
ourselves, a light of empathy, of compassion. Above all, we
need to elevate the Constitution of the United States, which
was written for hard times, and that has to be the premier
compass for all our activities.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair I'd like to
raise--I'd like to raise a point of order.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady will State her point of order.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Point of order, pursuant to House
Rule XI, clause 2, which Mr. Kennedy is violative of, I move
that we move into Executive Session because Mr. Kennedy has
repeatedly made despicable, antisemitic and anti-Asian comments
as recently as last week.
Rule XI, clause 2, says,
Whenever there is asserted by a Member of the Committee that
the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame,
degrade, or incriminate any person or it is asserted by a
witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would
give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
the witness,
and it goes on.
Mr. Kennedy, among many other things, has said:
I know a lot now about bioweapons. We put out hundreds of
millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The
Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, COVID-19, there was
an argument that it was ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks
certain races disproportionately. The races that are most
immune to COVID-19 are . . .
Chair Jordan. Is the gentlelady making a motion or a
speech?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I hadn't--I've made a motion to move
into Executive Session because Mr. Kennedy's testimony--
Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I move to table the motion.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky has moved to
table.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I ask for a roll call
vote on the motion to table.
Chair Jordan. Well, let me ask the question. The question
is on the motion to table. The gentlelady has asked for a roll
call vote. The clerk will have to--we'll have you step back for
a second. The clerk will have to come in, and we'll call the
roll on the motion to table, and then we can get back to
testimony.
Ms. Plaskett. I think the witnesses can sit in the Chairs
sitting behind.
Chair Jordan. I'll leave that up to the clerks. If the
clerks are comfortable with that. Yes, why don't we do that?
Maybe we can go right down here--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, point of order.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is it the custom of this
Committee to censor viewpoints that we disagree with from
witnesses?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I have a motion on the
table.
Mr. Goldman. That's not a point of order.
Chair Jordan. There is a motion and the votes--
Ms. Plaskett.
[Inaudible.]
Chair Jordan. We're waiting for the--we're waiting for the
clerks.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is violative of Rule XI--
Chair Jordan. We're waiting for the clerks. The clerk will
call the roll.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan?
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Yes, to not censor.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie votes yes.
Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Stewart votes yes.
Ms. Stefanik?
Ms. Stefanik. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Stefanik votes yes.
Mr. Gaetz?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes.
Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Steube?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop votes yes.
Ms. Cammack?
Ms. Cammack. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Cammack votes yes.
Ms. Hageman?
Ms. Hageman. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Hageman votes yes.
Ms. Plaskett?
Ms. Plaskett. No. I want to follow the rules that the
Republicans made at the beginning of this conference with these
House Rules, so no.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Plaskett votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. No, because it is violative of the rules.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Sanchez votes no.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No to allowing a witness to
degrade--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This is not speech time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --and violate the rules and not have
his testimony and degradation amplified rather than given in
Executive Session.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair--
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No, to--
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Garamendi votes no.
Mr. Allred?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia?
Ms. Garcia. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No to hate speech.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Gaetz?
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz?
Mr. Gaetz. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
Chair Jordan. The clerk will report.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Chair, there are 10 ayes and 8 noes.
Chair Jordan. The motion to table is agreed to.
We will now move to our second witness.
Ms. Morris, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMMA-JO MORRIS
Ms. Morris. Thank you. Thanks so much for inviting me.
My name is Emma-Jo Morris, Politics Editor at Breitbart.
I'm here today because I published a series of news stories
three years ago in October 2020 about Hunter Biden's now
infamous laptop, also known as the laptop from hell, which is
seen as some of the most scandalous reporting of the last
decade.
What was more scandalous than the reporting itself, though,
was the fact that it exposed the unholy alliance between the
intelligence community, social media platforms, and legacy
media outlets.
At the time, I was Deputy Politics Editor at the New York
Post and my reporting showed that despite then candidate Joe
Biden's repeated and furious denials, he was apparently
involved in the foreign business deals of his family.
Over several days, just weeks before Americans would vote
for their next President, I revealed verified authentic emails
from the Biden scion's hard drive showing Ukrainian business
partners receiving leaks from the Obama White House. I
documented an off-the-books meeting between then Vice President
Biden and a Ukrainian energy executive and introduced the world
to the big guy who got action on a deal with CEFC China Energy
company.
The Post published exactly how the material for the
reporting was obtained, even identifying our sources, as well
as a Federal subpoena showing the FBI was in possession of the
material and the story was based on and had been since December
2019. When the stories appeared on social media that morning,
the venue where millions of Americans go to find their news and
editors to get their angles, within hours, the reporting was
censored on all major platforms on the basis of being called
hacked or Russian disinformation.
Twitter refused to allow users to share the link to the
stories, banned the links from being shared in private
messages, a policy, by the way, that's used to clamp down on
child porn and locked the Post out of its verified account.
Facebook said it would curb distribution and reach of the links
on its platform.
However, the stories were not based on hacked materials,
nor were they Russian disinformation. Despite those claims
appearing to come out of thin air at the time, we would
eventually learn that they actually didn't come out of thin air
at all. On October 19th, five days after the Post began
publishing, Politico ran a story headline: ``Hunter Biden's
story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials
say''--God, I can't even say that with a straight face--
Politico printed a letter completely uncritically from veteran
members of the U.S. intelligence community falsely claiming the
Post expose has, quote, ``all the classic earmarks of a Russian
information operation.'' My God.
Most notable among the signatories of that letter were Jim
Clapper from--former DNI; Michael Hayden, former CIA; John
Brennan, former CIA, despite having such damaged credibility
following their participation in the Russia collusion
conspiracy theory.
A few days later, on October 22nd, when Biden appeared in
the second Presidential debate and was confronted with the
facts of the Post reporting he said to Trump: ``Fifty former
national intelligence professionals said this,'' what he's
accusing me of is a Russian plot.
It was not, and he knew that.
Now, fast forward to this year, three years later, just
last spring, House investigators revealed it was a call by now
Secretary of State Antony Blinken to former acting CIA Director
Michael Morell that prompted the spy letter published by
Politico, which bypassed the agency approval processes that
would have been normally applied.
It is also now known that, ahead of my reporting, Federal
agencies were priming social media companies to execute an
operation to discredit it. According to internal documents
released by Elon Musk on his acquisition of Twitter, the FBI
and other intelligence community members essentially directed
the platform censorship operation in part externally by working
with top management and in part internally by social media
companies hiring eye-popping numbers of agency alumni.
Journalist Michael Shellenberger reported, based on
documents he obtained from Musk, that during all 2020, the FBI
and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Twitter
executives to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden's laptop as a
Russian hack-and-leak operation, Feds arranged for top secret
security clearances to be granted to Twitter management, and
even had encrypted messaging networks set up, which they dubbed
a virtual war room.
To this day, hundreds of people from the intelligence
community work at social media companies. Over the last few
years, my reporting has been confirmed by virtually every
mainstream news outlet, from The Washington Post to The New
York Times to Politico, when the stakes were nothing, by the
way, two years later. No one denies that the laptop is real,
that the origin story is exactly what I told you it was in the
first place.
This elaborate censorship conspiracy wasn't because the
information being reported on was false. It was because it was
true, and it was a threat to the power centers in this country.
What this relationship between the U.S. Government officials
and American corporations represents is an unprecedented push
to undermine the First Amendment, the right to think, write,
read, say whatever we want. How we respond will determine
whether we see a free press as inalienable or as optional.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Morris.
Mr. Sauer, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF D. JOHN SAUER
Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee.
On July 4, 2023, Independence day, Judge Terry A. Doughty
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana entered a historic injunction against the White House
and other Federal officials. This injunction prevents them
from, quote,
. . . urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of
content containing protected free speech posted on social media
platforms.
Judge Doughty's opinion contains 82 pages of detailed factual
findings supported by 577 citations of the evidence which is
drawn from roughly 20,000 pages of the Federal Government's own
emails and communications with social media platforms in six
full-length depositions.
In its recently filed stay motions, the government is
hardly bothered to dispute any of these factual findings. The
court of appeals has entered a, quote,
. . . temporary administrative stay of this injunction and
granted expedited argument and briefing an argument on August
10th.
Contrary to some recent suggestions, a temporary administrative
stay is, quote, ``routine practice in the Fifth Circuit.''
That's a direct quote from a recent decision in re Abbott. It
does not reflect any judgment of the merits.
Today, I want to offer seven observations drawn from the
Louisiana opinion. First, a Louisiana court found, based on
overwhelming evidence, that Federal officials are the cause of
the censorship of the viewpoints they disfavor. The government
likes to claim that social media platforms acting on their own
would apply their policies and censor all this content anyway.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Again and again, the Louisiana
court found that the platforms would not have suppressed this
speech but for the fact that the Federal officials were pushing
for it. The deplatforming of Alex Berenson, the throttling of
Tucker Carlson's content, the silencing of the so-called
disinformation dozen, which includes Mr. Kennedy, the
suppression of much of the so-called borderline which is,
quote,
. . . often true content on Facebook's platforms, the
censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and much more; all
these were suppressed because of the efforts of Federal
officials.
Second, the scope and reach of Federal censorship is
staggering. As the Louisiana court repeatedly found, it
affects, quote, ``millions of social media posts and speakers
all across America.'' It affects virtually every American who
reads, listens, engages on posts on social media about great
disputed political and social questions that Federal censors
have stuck their fingers into.
Third, Federal censorship is ongoing, and it shows no signs
of relenting. Federal officials' censorship efforts are in full
swing, and they are expanding to new frontiers. Left unchecked,
Federal censorship will reach virtually any disputed social and
political question over which Federal officials want to impose
their power.
Fourth, the Louisiana Opinion shows that Federal officials
are most eager, most focused on silencing truthful speech and
to muzzle the most influential critics of the administration
and its policies. Tucker Carlson, Alex Berenson, and many
others were targeted not because what they were saying was
necessarily false, but because it was the most effective
criticism of the narrative line that the administration was
pushing at the time. Censorship is not about truth. It is about
power, preserving and expanding the power of the censors and
the political narratives they prefer.
Fifth, Federal officials are deeply intertwined with what
other witnesses have called the censorship industrial complex.
The Louisiana court made very detailed findings about the close
connections between many Federal officials in that mass
surveillance and mass censorship enterprise that calls itself
the election integrity partnership and The Virality Project.
Not just CISA officials, but White House, State Department, and
surgeon general officials have deep ties to that enterprise. As
the Louisiana court found, CISA and the EIP were completely
intertwined.
Sixth, Federal officials don't just dictate the outcomes of
specific content moderation decisions. They also directly
induce changes to the content moderation policies, policies of
major social media platforms to ban disfavored viewpoints in
advance.
Seventh, the Federal censorship enterprise has succeeded in
transforming online discourse by rendering entire viewpoints
virtually unspeakable on social media, which is the modern
public square. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental
American freedom, the right to free speech is intolerable under
the First Amendment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John Sauer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Sauer.
Ms. Wiley, you're recognized.
Microphone.
STATEMENT OF MAYA WILEY
Ms. Wiley. I'm usually quite loud, but thank you for
pointing that out.
Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, Members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for having me here today.
I have introduced written testimony. I did have a summary
of my oral testimony, and I am going to depart from it after
listening to the openings in these proceedings.
This week began the sentencing of Robert Bowers who
murdered 11 people, wounded six others because their faith was
Judaism and because they were in a synagogue to worship. Robert
Bowers expressed on social media for a very long time deeply
antisemitic, hateful statements. He did it and used Gab, which
is a platform that was deplatformed by Twitter because of its
constant space it provided to hate, that has actually become
embodied in the most violent antisemitic act we know to have
happened on our shores in the history of this country.
I will tell you, as a Black woman who lived through COVID
in New York City, where we watched too many images of
refrigerated trucks with the bodies of loved ones because there
were too many deaths to accommodate in morgues, that surpassed,
surpassed the deaths during the Spanish flu and where in this
country we have lost over one million of our loved ones. For
the Black community, for the Native American community, for so
many communities of color, in particular, where our rates of
death were three to four times those of some other groups,
three to four times.
I want to agree with Mr. Kennedy. I want to agree that it
is incredibly important for us to be kind and respectful to one
another. It is incredibly important for us to be able to
understand our experiences across our differences and to have a
platform for those communications. It is deeply vital that they
be based in fact, not fiction, and without regard to the intent
or what is in the mind of anyone, which I cannot say, including
what is in the mind of any of those who are testifying here
today.
What I can say is, when you make a statement that suggests
that based on race, based on religion, based on anything other
than facts, that you may have somehow not been targeted but
other racial groups have. That by definition feeds into
something very dangerous in this country, that is actually
impacting lives and, in some instances taking them.
Now, what I will say about the opinion in this case, and I
came here to talk about Missouri v. Biden, is that, in this
case, we can talk all day about the very specific facts, and
there is factual inaccuracy in some of the fact statements in
Judge Doughty's Opinion, but the most important one is the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals widely, widely believed by all
for very good reason, to not be out of step with Conservative
ideology vacated that preliminary injunction.
I want to point to something else, because one of things
that this injunction said was that our government, responsible
for public health, responsible for national security, which, by
the way, even under the Trump Administration, the Department of
Homeland Security said it is domestic terrorism that is our
greatest national threat, that even that it had in the
injunction a statement that the Federal Government could not
collaborate or partner or jointly work with institutes,
researchers, including the Stanford Internet Observatory, could
not in terms of identifying, understanding or even talking
about the deletion or removal of anything even if, even if that
research actually demonstrated that those social media
companies were violating their own policy in a way that was
dangerous for people and for our democracy. So, yes, let's be
kind, let's be respectful and let's descend into a real
discussion of facts where we can disagree about their meaning
but not about their existence.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wiley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
We will now turn to five minute questions.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Bishop, for five minutes.
We will go a couple rounds here, I think, and then we--they
have called votes. So, we will get to votes pretty quick.
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to focus on the testimony the Chair made
reference to and that the Ranking Member was so concerned with
damage control that she opened her comments about it. I'd ask
staff to put the blowups on the screen as we proceed.
Ms. Morris--and begin with No. 1 while I'm getting my first
question out. Ms. Morris, in your statement, you had an
interesting term or phrase. You said that no one denies that
the laptop is real. What an interesting turn of phrase because
that's exactly what Twitter was asking about the day your story
appeared, and it was interacting still further with Twitter and
with Facebook.
Ms. Dehmlow testified--here it is on the screen for those
who are visual learners like me:
Question: Are you familiar with the October 2020 New York Post
story on Hunter Biden's laptop?
Answer: I am.
This is Ms. Dehmlow under oath.
Question: Do you recall whether any of these social media
companies you were meeting with asked you any questions about
it?
Answer: I do.
Please proceed to the next slide. Here's how--on the same page:
Answer: But, it was relayed to me later that somebody from
Twitter--I don't recall who. I'm not sure who. Somebody from
Twitter essentially asked whether the laptop was real. And one
of the FBI folks who was on the call did confirm that, yes, it
was before another participant jumped in and said, ``No further
comment.''
Proceed to the next slide. So, you said here was one example.
Do you recall other social media companies?''
Proceed to the next slide. Ms. Dehmlow says:
I believe Facebook--we met with Facebook soon thereafter. Can't
remember if it was the same day or within a couple of days.
And they also asked, and I said, ``No comment.'' That was the
decision we made in those post-meeting deliberations, which is
pretty typical. It was an ongoing investigation, and we don't
generally comment on ongoing investigative matters when asked.
So, Ms. Morris, to your point, I think this shows one thing
for sure. You credited Michael Shellenberger and some of his
reporting. One of the things that he asked in one of his
Twitter file stories was whether the Foreign Influence Task
Force, people, the FBI folks who were interfacing with the
social media companies, whether they knew about the Hunter
Biden laptop contents that the FBI had since September 2019.
So, now we know. Right? The Foreign Influence Task Force knew
it was real, and it wasn't just a few people. It was common
knowledge. An analyst on that telephone call before they got
their act together admitted that it was real.
We also know that the social media companies wanted to know
if it was real. Of course, they did because the FBI had been
telling them for months to be prepared for a hack-and-leak
operation and, also, to be prepared for something involving
Hunter Biden. Of course, they wanted to know.
So, what do you think about the fact that the FBI, in
response to Twitter, told them it was real, then they covered
that up or stopped, no further comment, and to Facebook, with
its billions of users, said, ``No comment,'' and we're not
going to tell you?
Ms. Morris. Yes. We know that the FBI knew that it was
real. They knew it was real since, not just December 2019,
which is when the subpoena that I published is from, which was
in the original story, the ``thanks for the meeting with your
father from Ukraine'' story. We published the subpoena. They
had already confirmed, though, which we would learn later, they
had already confirmed that the laptop was real and, the, quote,
``not manipulated in any way,'' in November 2019, a month
before they actually obtained the laptop to keep, which is when
they gave that subpoena to John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of
the Mac store where Hunter Biden forgot the laptop. I think
that something that gets glazed over in this reporting--I'm so
familiar with it, it's nauseating--which is that Jim Baker was
the Deputy Counsel at Twitter. If that name doesn't sound
familiar, I'll remind you all who that is. He's the former
Deputy Counsel of the FBI. Like, are we supposed to all sit
here and pretend that he didn't know what that subpoena was
when he saw it in the New York Post? I mean, let's not insult
our intelligence here and the intelligence of the American
people. Obviously, he knew what it was.
Mr. Bishop. Point well taken, Ms. Morris.
My time has expired. What we have always understood in all
likelihood was true, yet we now have yet one more piece of
evidence from the folks at the FBI that they interfered. Comey
interfered in 2016. Was it Director Wray himself who interfered
in 2020? We still need to know.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes. I
think we'll do Ranking Member and one more, and then we'll have
to take a break.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know that we talked earlier about a post that Mr. Kennedy
had at the beginning of the Biden Administration. I just want
the record to reflect that this post has not been taken down,
so I'm wondering about the extent of censorship when the post
is still there.
More importantly, again, I go back to just the fact that we
are creating a platform for this kind of discussion, not about
the censorship, not about free speech, but the content of some
of that speech that we are amplifying in this room.
I'm appalled and just so troubled by colleagues that I have
to work with that these are individuals who would bring a
witness who's promoted a video that compared the COVID vaccine
to the Tuskegee trials. The Tuskegee trials were a very
difficult time in Black America where individuals who were
already sick with the disease were then reviewed, experimented
on, who already had a disease, to see how far that disease went
and making the comparison that manipulates and preys on Black
people's feelings about the atrocities of the past to prevent
them from seeking life-saving vaccines in the present and
knowing that this is dangerous.
I cannot also be unaware that this comes from an individual
who, by Mr. Roy's introduction, is very smart and understands
the implications of this.
Mr. Kennedy's own family decries his stance on vaccines,
and families disagree on a lot of things. I've got family
members that--we all disagree. So, that doesn't mean anything.
The fact that he has famously sent a request to a party guest
that they had to be vaccinated to come to his party--and I
would like to introduce into the record a letter from Lewis
Silkin, a law firm representing Mr. Kennedy, which states, as
he has stated repeatedly, ``he vaccinated all his children.'' I
would like that to be introduced into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Plaskett. Tells the Black community and myself, a
mother of five Black children, that I should really be careful
and not necessarily have the same safeguards to protect my
family, my children from a virus that has killed millions of
people because I'm Black.
There's no secret that this is an amplification of his own
platform. I'm not going to talk about the money that's received
from the Children's Health Defense, from his anti-vaccine
organization that's responsible for a majority of the false
information out there about COVID and the notoriety that's
gained from it by manipulating Black and other vulnerable
communities to propagate these pseudosciences.
Ms. Wiley, are you aware of the phrase ``super human, yet
subhumanization''?
Ms. Wiley. I can't say I'm aware of the phrase. I am aware
of the viewpoint.
Ms. Plaskett. Can you share what you believe that to mean
when it comes to Black people?
Ms. Wiley. Well, sadly and unfortunately, we have a history
in this country where Black people were both, by law and by
social view, viewed as inferior and subhuman and that there
were stereotypes attached to that includes all kinds of myths
about the ability to disregard both the health needs, health
conditions, and disparities that exist for Black people and in
Black communities to the detriment not only of the health of
people who are Black, but also to public health by not taking
good sound positions.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes. In chattel slavery, you don't have to
feed them the same way because they can take it. They can
handle that. They don't need as much.
Now with COVID, they've got superhuman genes that they
don't need to get the same vaccines, and they may be more
susceptible if you get vaccines.
Ms. Wiley, why do you think someone might choose to target
the Black community for false health information about
vaccines?
Ms. Wiley. Well, I can't say that I can sit in a position
to explain anyone would do that. I can only say that, for those
who wished to prevent people from getting a vaccine, it was
very clear that one of the ways in which you could convince
people not to is to play on fears that have basis in historic
experience sadly. Frankly--and I can say this personally
speaking from having conversations with friends, with people I
worked with--
Ms. Plaskett. From family members.
Ms. Wiley. --who were terrified of whether or not there
might be some adverse consequences for them because of the
Tuskegee experiments, explicitly referring to times in which
Black people had been tested on without their permission, or
denied access to medical intervention despite awareness that it
would be detrimental to their health. That distrust has
historical fact.
We have come to a point where in terms of the COVID vaccine
and what we were being told by scientists, including the ways
in which both the CDC, the World Health Organization, and
others were examining, were actually putting out factual
information both about the degree to which testing in trials
before approval had included people who were Black, people who
were Asian and, therefore, had more basis in fact to be able to
State scientifically that the vaccine was safe.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to yield my time to Representative Massie.
Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota.
Wow, the irony and cognitive dissidents from the other side
of the aisle is deafening. You could cut it with a knife. They
are at the same time denying that censorship is occurring but
suggesting that there's more material that needs to be
censored.
This is a hearing on censorship that began with an effort,
with a formal motion from the other side of the aisle to censor
Mr. Kennedy. They do not want him to speak. Yet, that is the
topic of this hearing. They have kept him from speaking, a
collusion between the government and private organizations.
Mr. Kennedy, in your opening statement, you introduced us
to this word ``malinformation.'' Can you tell us more about
this made-up word, what it means, and some of the things that
you've said or tried to say that you've been censored for
that's been characterized as malinformation?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Congressman Massie. By your leave, I
would just like to respond very briefly--
Mr. Massie. Please.
Mr. Kennedy. --to some of the, what I would call
defamations that have been just applied to me by the Ranking
Member.
I'm happy to talk to you about my opinions on these issues.
What you have stated and tried to associate me with, through
guilt by association is simply inaccurate. Virtually
everything, every statement that you just made about me is
inaccurate.
I have never advised Black Americans not to receive
vaccines. At one point, you say I'm antivax, and that's a bad
thing. The other moment, you point out that all my children are
vaxed. I'm fully compliant with the vaccine schedule myself,
except for COVID. I took flu vaccines for 20 years straight. I
have never been antivax. I have never told anybody--I have
never told the public to avoid vaccination. The only thing I've
asked for--and my views are constantly misrepresented, so that
the truth of what I believe is not allowed to have a
conversation about with the American people, which I believe
that vaccines should be tested with the same rigor as other
medicines and medications.
You tried to associate me a moment ago with a replacement
theory, which is racism--
Ms. Plaskett. No, I did not say you--
Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Kentucky.
Mr. Kennedy. I denounce that theory. It is racist, and I
have never endorsed it or had any association with it. Our film
on ``Medical''--
Ms. Plaskett. ``Medical Apartheid''?
Mr. Kennedy. By the way, Bill Buxton, Bill Buxton, who is
the Black CDC official, who ultimately exposed the Tuskegee
experiment, tried for years and years to appeal to the CDC to
stop it, for 40 years. Finally, he got relief by walking into
my uncle's office in the building next door. Teddy held
hearings and ended the experiment. I remember that very well.
To say that I created a film that encourages Blacks not to
get adequate medical care is just completely abhorrent. If
the--
Ms. Plaskett. Don't misuse my words there.
Mr. Massie. It's the witness' time. Do not censor the
witness.
Ms. Plaskett. I'm not censoring the witness. I'm not
censoring the witness. He's still talking.
Mr. Massie. It's my time, and I've given it to the witness.
Do not censor him.
Ms. Plaskett. I'm not censoring him.
Mr. Kennedy. If the views that you and others have applied
to me, have attributed to me, if they were actually true, I can
see why I shouldn't be able to testify here today. Those are
not true. These are defamations and malignancies that are used
to censor me to prevent people from listening to the actual
things that I'm saying.
I think, Ranking Member, that we should have a real
conversation rather than an exchange of ad hominem attacks.
In answer very quickly to your question, the term
``malinfor-
mation'' was coined to describe information that Facebook and
Twitter and the other social media sites understood was true,
but that the White House and other Federal agencies wanted
censored anyway for political reasons because it challenged
official orthodoxies.
I'll give you one example. There was a--I was included in a
group called the disinformation dozen. Facebook and others were
asked to censor us, which they did. by the way, my post, it was
taken down. My whole Instagram account with 900,000 people was
taken down because of that. Oh, they knew. Facebook knew that
the disinformation dozen claim--and what they said was
disinformation came from this very shady group called The
Center for Preventing Digital Hate in England that was funded
by dark money that should be looked into. They claimed that 65
percent of the vaccine misinformation on the internet was
generated by those 12 people. Facebook itself said that is
impossible. That is false information. We know that not to be
true. Yet, when the White House asked them to censor this
disinformation dozen, including me, they did it anyway when
they knew it to be untrue.
Mr. Massie. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent motion
before we head to votes.
Chair Jordan. UC from the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Goldman. I would like to introduce page two of the
transcript of Laura Dehmlow where specifically she says--if
someone--she's asked:
Question: If someone were to leave here today, were to leave
this interview and were to suggest or imply or State that when
you said, quote, ``the laptop was real,'' that it meant that
the FBI had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the
laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to
Hunter Biden, that the contents had not been manipulated in
some way, they would be misrepresenting what you said. Correct?
Answer: They would be misrepresenting what I said because I
don't have much knowledge of that.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. I think that's already
been introduced. Without objection, we'll do it again.
Chair Jordan. We stand in recess for approximately five
minutes, and we'll be right back at it. Thank you all.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for five
minutes.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Mr. Gaetz. Yield to Mr. Roy.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady can State her point of order.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I just missed two votes on the House floor
because we were not given--we did not recess on time. I think
many of my colleagues--
Chair Jordan. That's not a properly stated point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Ms. Garcia. The point of order is, what is the intent of
the Chair in future recesses so that we can avoid the
censorship of the voice of my constituents because I was not
able to voice their views on important items on the agenda.
Chair Jordan. Oh, that's right. Actually, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for his five
minutes. I apologize.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, may I introduce--ask unanimous
consent to introduce an article from NPR, June 8, 2021,
discussing the film ``Medical Racism,'' where viewers are
warned that in Black communities something is very sinister and
the same thing that happened in the 1930s during the eugenics
movement is happening again.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, it will be entered in the
record.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, one of the saddest parts of this fabricated
circus of outrage is the drumbeat of attacks that I have seen
against the men and women of the Department of Justice and the
FBI, many of them Armed Service veterans who in their early
careers actually put on the uniform for this country and served
honorably, as well as attacks against the Department of
Homeland Security, CDC, and Health & Human Services.
As evidenced at today's hearing, the Republicans are
continuing to go to great lengths to invoke wild and seemingly
race-based conspiracy theories, disinformation, and propaganda
to allege that those same men and women who at one point served
our country in uniform are now somehow targeting the American
people.
Meanwhile, this same Subcommittee on Weaponization has
turned completely a blind eye to the actual and well-
documented, blatant, and egregious weaponization of the Federal
Government undertaken by the previous President. We are, in
fact, still receiving reports of actual weaponization committed
by President Trump. In fact, we now have a recent sworn
declaration from former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
indicating that President Trump suggested utilizing the IRS and
other Federal agencies to investigate his perceived enemies,
who at the time happened to be two FBI agents who were
examining his conduct.
I ask for unanimous consent--
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Lynch. --that this record--this sworn statement to be
entered into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Lynch. We also have another recent disclosure from
Miles Taylor, former Chief of Staff of the Department of
Homeland Security, reporting that President Trump sought to
wiretap the phones of his own White House aids to detect any
leaks.
To the great detriment of the American people, however, we
are not investigating any actual Weaponization of the Federal
Government. Worse yet, this Committee has come to embody
weapon-
ization itself, misusing Congressional oversight to protect
Donald Trump, an attempt to divert attention from the multiple
Federal and State criminal investigations surrounding President
Trump's misconduct in office.
In the midst of the ongoing State prosecution in New York
of President Trump, Chair Jordan has repeatedly sought to
interfere and influence that case, threatening to subpoena Mr.
Bragg, and even holding a field hearing on Mr. Bragg's
prosecutorial record blocks from his Lower Manhattan office,
deliberately interfering in the rule of law being applied in
that case.
The Republican Members of this Committee have also followed
the shameful example set by the former President in targeting
the independent Federal law enforcement personnel that have
sought to hold Donald Trump accountable. These are the good and
patriotic Americans trying to uphold the rule of law within the
FBI and the Department of Justice.
In the same vein, as President Trump describing the
Department of Justice and the FBI, my colleagues have
described--my Republican colleagues have described these
individuals as scoundrels, quote, ``vicious monsters.'' The
Chair and the other Republican Members of this Committee have
continually described these agencies as, quote, ``corrupt, out
of control, and rotten to the core.'' These are the men and
women who are serving our country in the Department of Justice
trying to uphold the rule of law.
Ms. Wiley, what is the underlying threat to American
democracy and the rule of law to baselessly claim that the
Federal agency and the individual personnel at the Department
of Justice and FBI are being weaponized to attack everyday
Americans? What's the impact of that on our democracy?
Ms. Wiley. Unfortunately, there's more than one--
Mr. Lynch. You're mike. Yes.
Ms. Wiley. OK. Unfortunately, Congressman, there's more
than one impact. One impact that's very clear and obvious,
sadly, for far too many is that foreign governments who have
deep interests in sowing distrust in the American people
against our own government and our own civil servants utilize
that to generate and propagate mis-and disinformation that then
it puts out under disguise on social media platforms to help
incite and spread the notion seemingly, in a way that suggests
that it is not coming from a foreign government so that it is
sowing the seeds not just of distrust. Fundamentally, in any
democratic country, it is critically important that we be able
to have a relationship with our government and with law
enforcement to make sure that people are coming forward to law
enforcement, sharing information truthfully with law
enforcement and that law enforcement can engage in
investigations into any version of potential crimes that have
been committed in violation of our own laws without
interference and without the refusal or inability to do so in a
manner that also holds the privacy and protection of people's
rights, by also keeping that quiet, which is centrally
important to the investigations.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts
has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Yield to Mr. Roy.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Roy is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlemen from Florida. I thank the
Chair.
Mr. Kennedy, first, your father served as the Attorney
General of the United States. I'm a former Assistant United
States Attorney. Do you believe that it is a proper function
and role for Congress and for all of us to question whoever
happens to be in the seat at the Office of the Attorney General
or in the FBI or in upper levels of government generally to
seek the truth, wherever it may lead?
Mr. Kennedy. It is the function--
Mr. Roy. Make sure your mike is on, your microphone.
Mr. Kennedy. That is exactly the function that the United
States Constitution assigned to the people of--to the Members
of Congress. I would say this. I don't want President Trump
misusing the FBI. I don't want President Biden--
Mr. Roy. Amen.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't want anybody.
Mr. Roy. Amen. I agree with that completely.
Let me characterize my understanding of something and get
your perspective on it. Following the 2016 election, Dr. Fauci,
Dr. Collins, and Peter Marks met with you, to the best of my
understanding, regarding vaccine safety, in part as a result--
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Roy. --of your engagement with President Trump.
At that meeting, you requested evidence of a vaccine
undergoing placebo-controlled trial safety tests prior to
licensing. After making a show of looking for the document, Dr.
Fauci informed you, to the best of my understanding, that the
document was back in Bethesda and that he would eventually send
the document to you.
The document, to the best of my knowledge, was never sent
and that you sued HHS for documents showing and trying to
figure out the truth of the matter, and that you found that not
one study was done on prelicensing safety testing for COVID
vaccines. After a year, HHS finally sent you a letter stating
basically: We don't have any.
This means, to the best of my understanding, that nobody
knows the risk profiles for these products or whether they
avert more harm than they cause. As a result, there's no real
science behind these statements, but rather guesswork.
Is that a fair characterization of what you've experienced?
Mr. Kennedy. That is a fair characterization. We have
looked for many years to find a prelicensing safety trial of
any of the 72 vaccine doses that are now essentially mandated--
they're recommended, but that's effectively mandated--for
American children, and we have not been able to find any. Every
other medication requires prior to licensing by FDA that the
company perform a safety trial that compares health outcomes in
a placebo group and a similarly situated vaccine group.
My assumption was that was done for vaccines. We found out
that it hadn't been, that it was not. They were exempt. I made
that statement publicly. Dr. Fauci contradicted me, and when
President Trump ordered him to meet with me, him and Francis
Collins and a group of my colleagues, I said to him at that
time: You said publicly that I've been dishonest about that.
Can you show us a single prelicensing safety trial, placebo-
controlled safety trial, for any of the 72 vaccines required
for American children?
He made that show of looking through a file, and he said:
``Oh, they're back in Bethesda.''
I said: ``Will you send them to me?'' I never heard for him
again, so we sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Law.
After a year of litigation, they sent us a letter, which is
posted on CHD's website, that acknowledges that they are now
not able to locate a single prelicensing safety trial, placebo-
controlled, for any of the vaccines that are now mandated for
children. These are zero-liability vaccines.
Mr. Roy. So, if I might interject, just limited time--and I
hope you can expand on that further. I know my friend from
Kentucky, Mr. Massie, will probably expand on this later. Your
uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, was a pretty strong opponent of
sweeping immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines.
Did he not introduce an amendment to repeal the so-called PREP
Act, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, when
he was a Senator?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, he did. The immunity, which was passed in
1986, neither the Republicans or Democrats wanted it. Ronald
Reagan at that time, who signed the bill, said--and Wyeth was
the company that was pushing it, and they were saying that they
were losing $20 in downstream liabilities for every dollar that
they made in profits from vaccines. They were going to get out
of the business if they were not granted immunity.
Ronald Reagan said to them at that time: ``Why don't you
make the vaccines safe?''
Wyeth said: ``Because they're unavoidably unsafe, which is
true of most medicines.''
I'm not anti-vaccine, but I think we need to be honest, and
we need to have good science. That's all I've ever argued.
Mr. Roy. In closing out my time here, I will just say this:
My father had polio. I understand the ravages of that disease.
I'm grateful that we have the opportunity to have the polio
vaccine, but I also want the truth being sought. I want to know
the health impacts of the polio vaccine going forward and every
other vaccine that's being administered.
I'll just close by saying and asking, I know that this is
informed by a great deal of conversations you've had with
mothers and moms who came up to you. If you could expand on
that, I'll yield back.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I was dragged kicking and screaming into
this space because I was confronted by--I was touring the
country suing companies about mercury and fish. By the way,
people--I spent 30 years trying to get mercury out of the fish
in this country, and nobody ever called me anti-fish. At that
time, we were trying to get mercury out of vaccines. These
mothers were coming and saying: My child was injured by the
vaccine.
These were many, many, hundreds literally, of mothers with
children with intellectual disabilities. They said: ``Nobody is
listening to us. The Democrats aren't listening to us. The
Republicans aren't listening to us.''
I felt like I should listen to them and actually read the
science. That is what got me down into the--and, by the way,
it's the worst career decision I have ever made.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlelady from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member Plaskett.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-Asian hate
and violence skyrocketed as some racists blamed a virus coming
out of China on all Asian Americans. Since March 2020, Stop
AAPI Hate, a nonprofit organization aimed at tracking and
addressing anti-Asian hate, reported more than 11,000 anti-
Asian acts of hate and violence. This same report found that 49
percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have
experienced some form of discrimination. These acts of hate
include Asian Americans being beaten, spit on, screamed at, and
even killed. The increases in these types of attacks during
COVID accompanied a slew of anti-Chinese sentiments related to
the virus, like calling it the, quote, ``China virus'' and even
disgustingly, quote, ``Kung Flu.''
Many Asian Americans were harassed, physically accosted,
and told that they, quote, ``created the virus.'' Yet, one of
our Republican witnesses encourages this appalling rhetoric and
promotes anti-Asian hate with dangerous and unfounded claims.
Just last week, Mr. Kennedy suggested COVID-19 was a
bioweapon and said it was, quote, ``targeted to attack
Caucasians and Black people,'' end quote, and that, quote,
``the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and
Chinese,'' end quote, suggesting that the Chinese people didn't
suffer like others during the pandemic. Despite asserting that
he should become their President, Mr. Kennedy seems to
disregard the correlation between anti-Asian rhetoric and
violence.
Ms. Wiley, do you frequently work with minority
communities, including Chinese-American or other Asian-American
communities?
Ms. Wiley. I do.
Ms. Sanchez. Do you think Mr. Kennedy's theory is racist?
Ms. Wiley. I think that Mr. Kennedy's statements fuel the
theories that suggest that there's a biology to race and that,
therefore, we can actually identify people in communities as
possibly either being benefited by or being people who are not
sharing the same interests and needs as the rest of us. Yes,
that has served to drive hate and bias and, sadly, including
violent incidents.
Ms. Sanchez. Now, it was said earlier in this hearing that
Mr. Kennedy is a smart man. Now, so far as I know, he does not
have any specific education or training in medicine. He is not
an epidemiologist, one who studies infectious diseases. He has
never conducted clinical trials in a professional setting. He
has never done scientific research in a professional laboratory
and published scientific findings in a peer-reviewed
publication.
Ms. Wiley, what kind of harm does someone with absolutely
no medical training or knowledge do when they espouse unfounded
anti-Asian vaccine theories during a fraught time like COVID?
Ms. Wiley. One of the things that happened in this historic
pandemic was that there was certainly a need to get on top of
very quickly what the science said. I am not a scientist
either, and so what social media platforms did was go and speak
to government agencies because their own policies and their own
user agreements required them to look and figure out what the
facts were so that they could assess what was responsible and
what was not responsible to post.
I say that because it was incredibly important to ensure
that people were getting real-time information as possible, but
also ones that really demonstrated what all of us need, rather
than where and how we should ascribe blame or where and how we
should consider who benefits and who doesn't, because we were
all harmed.
I say this in part because it was the social media
platforms themselves that reached out to government agencies,
including Health & Human Services and CDC, to get that
information.
Under the vacated, the vacated opinion, which it's really
important to understand--it has been vacated by the Fifth
Circuit, this preliminary injunction on all these incidents
we're talking about, because one of the things it would do, in
my view, just in my legal view, is that it was actually saying
that the government could not respond to such requests under
this injunction, which is incredibly overbroad, dangerous, and
doesn't allow government agencies to do what they are chartered
to do.
Ms. Sanchez. Now, I'm an attorney by training, and one of
the things I learned very early on in Constitutional law is
that no right given to the people of the United States is
absolute, and that includes the right to free speech, because
you do not have the right to shout ``fire'' in a crowded
theatre because it could produce harm and death of people by
being false.
These social media platforms have user policies to try to
prevent that kind of harm. Is that not correct, Ms. Wiley?
Ms. Wiley. That is correct.
Ms. Sanchez. So, we are not trying to censor speech; we are
simply trying to create factually correct information to
prevent harm to people, including death. That's what we were
trying to do during COVID. Is that not correct?
Ms. Wiley. Legally speaking, absolutely. I say that as a
matter of law, which is that court cases say that the
government has the--in fact, it's its role to ask for
compliance with policies. The policies on the books of social
media platforms were violated and they said those--
Chair Jordan. The time--
Ms. Sanchez. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but the last questioner
got an additional extra minute. I'm at 35 seconds over. I would
just ask for her to finish her sentence.
Ms. Stefanik. Point of order, Mr. Chair. The Democrats
beforehand got an extra minute.
Chair Jordan. I'm trying to be generous, even when the
response is that the government determines the truth. I'm
trying to be generous.
Ms. Sanchez. I would like for her to be able to finish her
sentence, Mr. Chair. Then I will yield back.
Chair Jordan. OK. Ms. Wiley, you can finish your sentence.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Ms. Wiley. I am not sure I remember the sentence, but thank
you. I just think the point was--
Chair Jordan. I do.
Ms. Wiley. --it was the--
Chair Jordan. You were saying the government should be the
arbiter of what's true.
Ms. Sanchez. Could you please not put words in the mouth of
the witness and let her respond? It's her answer.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New York.
The gentlelady from California's time has expired.
Ms. Sanchez. I love how you follow the rules, Mr. Chair.
It's really indicative of what a kangaroo court this is and
what a circus it is.
Ms. Garcia. It's censorship by the Chair.
Chair Jordan. Oh, Lord.
The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Morris, isn't it true that your October 2020, ``Hunter
Biden's Laptop from Hell'' story has been proven to be 100
percent factually accurate?
Ms. Morris. I was 27 when I published that story. It better
have been.
Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it true that the FBI obtained Hunter
Biden's laptop a full 10 months before your story broke?
Ms. Morris. That's correct, according to the subpoena that
I published.
Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it also true that we now know that the
FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force coerced social media
companies into an alleged forthcoming Russian, quote, ``hack-
and-leak operation and, as a result, illegally censored the
Hunter Biden laptop story''? Isn't that true?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. This for forced censorship by government
agencies like the FBI was paid for by the taxpayers, since the
taxpayers fund the FBI. Isn't that true?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. Hunter Biden's laptop from hell, it has
everything. It's a hell hole and cesspool of corruption and
criminal conduct. It has hard drugs, prostitution, pornography,
and money laundering. It has Biden family shell companies,
Communist Chinese, corrupt foreign government deals from tens
of millions of dollars in exchange for access to the Biden
family. The Hunter Biden laptop from hell has all of this.
Correct?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. The American people are smart. They know that
this was not a hack and dump. This was illegal government
censorship to protect and prop up Joe Biden on the eve of the
2020 election. According to polling, of people who were now
made of aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53 percent
would have changed their vote, including 61 percent of
Democrats.
So, do you agree that the censorship of the Hunter Biden
laptop story was determinative in the 2020 election, Ms.
Morris?
Ms. Morris. Yes. There are various polls that say that
there would have been a change in the outcome of the election.
Obviously, it's immediately relevant to a decision on who to
vote for, so obviously.
Ms. Stefanik. Do you believe that this government
censorship was election interference?
Ms. Morris. Yes. Any censorship of speech prevents your
ability to think clearly. Yes, of course, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Kennedy, I want to turn to you. You've
heard me lay out this example of egregious and illegal
government censorship. You've been censored yourself.
Do you believe that government censorship is a form of
election interference?
Mr. Kennedy. I think democracy is dependent on the free
flow of information. If that information is distorted, if the
public is lied to and it interferes with election--and, by the
way, it interferes with public health, and the Wall Street
Journal did an article a couple of weeks ago suggesting that
the censorship of important health information cost American
lives.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Kennedy, I want to ask you specifically
about the Hunter Biden laptop story. The total blackout on all
social media outlets, as well as telecom, you couldn't text the
link to the Hunter Biden laptop story, this specifically was a
form of election interference by the U.S. Government in the
2020 election.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't know enough about it. I know that
there was censorship on that story and other stories that
presumably could have changed people's minds about the
election.
Ms. Stefanik. We know the polling demonstrates that now.
People have said they would have changed their vote had they
been made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Kennedy. I'm not aware of that, but I'm not surprised.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Sauer, I want to turn to you. I want your
reflection on this form of government censorship, specifically
in the 2020 election, as a form of election interference and
what I believe is some of the most egregious political scandals
that I will live through in my lifetime.
Mr. Sauer, what are your reflections?
Mr. Sauer. I strongly agree with your characterization of
that form of censorship as election interference. The evidence
in our case strongly supports that. It strongly supports--
actually, we have judicial findings now that the suppression of
the Hunter Biden laptop story was done at the instigation of
Federal officials in the FBI at a very high level of that
organization. It was an orchestrated campaign of deception that
was anticipatory. It was planned in advance. It was consummated
with the testimony that I hadn't seen before that's been put up
today from Ms. Dehmlow characterizing how, at the very end, the
FBI then clammed up at the last minute after spending months of
seeding the record in these endless ceaseless meetings with
social media platforms about: ``There's a hack-and-dump coming.
It's going to involve Hunter Biden.''
When it actually came, they said: ``Whoop, no comment.''
Our judge focused on that particular issue as kind of the
coup de grace in this form of election interference.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, point of order.
Ms. Sanchez. I have a unanimous consent request.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from California is recognized
for a unanimous consent.
Ms. Sanchez. My majority counterparts have repeatedly cited
a District Court Opinion from Louisiana, and I would like to
introduce for the record the Fifth Circuit order staying that
opinion almost as soon as it was issued.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida.
Mr. Goldman. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. The distinguished gentlelady from New York
mentioned a poll. I would just ask that she identify what poll
that is, and if we could enter it into the record.
Chair Jordan. I'm sure she will be happy to do that.
Ms. Stefanik. We will submit it for the record.
Mr. Goldman. Can you identify what it is?
Ms. Stefanik. Sure. I will submit it for the record, and
you will be able to review it.
Chair Jordan. We'll get it.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we respectfully requested that you rescind Mr.
Kennedy's invitation to appear here due to his repeated and
very recent statements that spread dangerous antisemitic and
anti-Asian conspiracy theories and attempted to move into
Executive Session because House rules prohibit public testimony
that degrades or defames people.
His reckless rhetoric helped fuel antisemitic incidents,
which for the record are at the highest level in the United
States since 1970. They have nearly tripled in the last 6
years.
Since you gave Mr. Kennedy a megaphone today, I want to
give him a chance to correct his statements and repair some of
the harm that he's helped caused.
Mr. Kennedy, you're well educated, so yes or no, please.
Are you aware that for centuries Jews have been scapegoat and
blamed for like causing illnesses like Black Plague and more
recently COVID?
Mr. Kennedy. Those are known as blood libel, and they are
one of the worst and most disturbing parts of human history.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. I'm glad to know that you
acknowledge that.
Of course, it's true and well documented that this
pernicious form of anti-Semitism led to centuries of
discrimination, even horrific pogroms and massacres, and it
still fuels deadly violence today. Yet, last week you floated a
baseless conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was
bioengineered to target Caucasians and Black people, but to
spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.
Mr. Kennedy, your bizarre, unproven claim echoes that same
historic slander of labeling Jews and Chinese people as a race
and that Jews and, in this case, Chinese people somehow managed
to avoid a deadly illness that targets other groups for death.
You do see that? Yes or no?
Mr. Kennedy. You're misstating--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, no. I quoted what you said
earlier, and it is directly what you said. So, just answer me
yes or no.
Mr. Kennedy. I was describing an NIH-funded study--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, no. You didn't cite any--
Mr. Kennedy. I was describing an NIH-funded study by
Cleveland Clinic scientists that--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my
time, you did not reference.
Mr. Kennedy. Published in--there.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, the time is mine. I'm
reclaiming it. Please ask the witness to stop talking.
Mr. Kennedy. You asked me a question. Allow me to answer my
question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I would like about 10
seconds.
Chair Jordan. The time belongs--
Mr. Kennedy. You are slandering me incorrectly. Also
dishonest, and I need an opportunity to defend myself.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I would like 15 seconds
back.
Chair Jordan. We will be happy to give you that back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
You did not cite any study like you're citing here now.
During that conversation, you referenced no study at all. You
simply labeled Jews and Chinese people as a race, and you also
said that somehow, they managed to avoid a deadly illness that
targets other groups for death.
You don't see that? You're trying to rewrite history here.
A few months ago, Mr. Kennedy, you compared COVID public
health policies to barbaric murderous tactics of Nazi Germany,
saying that Jewish people in Nazi Germany had more freedom than
Americans facing COVID health restrictions.
In hindsight, Mr. Kennedy, do you reject this absurd and
deeply hurtful and harmful comparison, or do you still stand by
it?
Mr. Kennedy. Congressman, what you're saying is a lie.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm a Congresswoman. You said it.
It's--
Mr. Kennedy. No, I did not. I never ever compared COVID--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Mr. Chair, I would be happy to
enter into the record when Mr. Kennedy said that. I reclaim my
time.
In discussing COVID public health measures, you made light
of the genocide against Jewish people by saying, and I quote:
Even Hitler's Germany you could cross the Alps to Switzerland.
You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did.
Mr. Kennedy, do you think it was easy for Jewish people to
escape systematic slaughter of Nazis? Yes or no?
Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Good.
Mr. Kennedy, do you think it was just as hard to wear a
mask during COVID as it was to hide under floorboards or false
walls, so you weren't murdered or dragged to a concentration
camp? Yes or no?
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That's a question. Yes or no?
Mr. Kennedy. I didn't hear your question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I said, do you think it was just
as hard to wear a mask during COVID as it was to hide under
floorboards or false walls, so you weren't murdered or dragged
to a concentration camp?
Mr. Kennedy. Of course not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. That's a comparison that you
made.
Mr. Kennedy. I did not make that comparison.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Were the measures taken to contain
the spread and fatalities related to COVID in any way at all
comparable to the murder of six million Jews? Yes or no?
Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Let's be very clear here.
There's no legitimate comparison to the Holocaust. It doesn't
matter if you're talking about AI, vaccine mandates, or
anything else, there's no comparison. If this were a slip of
the tongue, Mr. Kennedy, or a one-off comment, we would all
move on, but there's a deeply disturbing pattern.
In 2015, you apologized to all those, quote: ``Whom I
offended by my use of the word `holocaust' to describe the
autism epidemic.''
When discussing efforts to encourage others to get
vaccinated for COVID-19, you said ``Nazis did that in the camps
in World War II; they tested vaccines on gypsies and Jews.''
That was a quote.
Like before you apologized for invoking the Holocaust
saying, quote: ``To the extent my remarks caused hurt, I am
truly and deeply sorry.''
These are not real statements of contrition or remorse.
They are passive aggressive nonapologies that blame the
listener for reacting to the lie you just spread.
I'm deeply saddened that this is a conversation we're
having today. I have deep respect for what Mr. Kennedy's family
did and still does to make life better for all Americans. What
you are doing now, Mr. Kennedy, and the forces you aligned
yourself are reckless, dangerous, and disturbing by echoing
dangerous claims such as, quote: ``Jews don't really suffer as
much as we do,'' which you said.
Your rhetoric creates a climate of mistrust, antagonism,
and even hatred or violence against Jewish people. My own
children have been the targets of brutal anti-Semitism on
social media. You fan those flames and jeopardize their safety.
You've marginalized other groups too, like Asian Americans and
the LGBTQ+ communities. Worse you don't seem to care or brush
it all off to misquotes and misunderstandings. Frankly it's
disgusting.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for
UC.
Mr. Massie. I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the
record a study that Mr. Kennedy just referenced, ``New Insights
into Genetic Susceptibility of COVID-19.'' The main body said
that they investigated genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 by
examining DNA polymorphisms and ACE2 and TMPRSS 2--those are
receptors for COVID--in 81,000 human genomes, and they found
unique genetics susceptibility across different populations.
I have another document that I would like to ask unanimous
consent--to submit.
This is from the FDA, ``FDA Review of Efficacy and Safety
of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.'' This is dated December
10, 2020, and it shows that the Pfizer trial and the USDA broke
down the effectiveness of the vaccine into seven different
racial categories because this was also a concern of theirs. It
would, frankly, be delinquent not to study the effects across
the--
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Kennedy said it was
bioengineered to target Blacks and Caucasians.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese
people. That is different--
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Kennedy, you've had some accusations thrown at you
today. I'm going to ask my questions briefly and give you a
chance to respond to that at the end of my time here.
Ms. Wiley, if I could talk to you.
Ms. Wiley. Sure.
Mr. Stewart. Maybe you're busy with something else there,
but do you trust the government to determine what facts and
views the American people should be exposed to?
Ms. Wiley. I trust that we have a process whereby we can
interrogate what we hear and learn from the government, but
certainly I expect the government to share facts and
information.
Mr. Stewart. That wasn't my question. I didn't say ``share
facts and information.'' I said, do you trust the government to
determine what facts and views the American people should be
exposed to and which ones they should not?
Ms. Wiley. Well, I think I'm struggling with the question
because that is not the facts of the case in Missouri--
Mr. Stewart. Simple question, simple question.
Ms. Wiley. --in Missouri v. Biden--
Mr. Stewart. I'm not talking about Missouri. Hey, hey, hey.
I'm not talking about Missouri. This is a very simple question:
Do you trust the government to determine what facts and views
the American people are exposed to?
Ms. Wiley. I am not aware of any action of the government--
Mr. Stewart. OK. I'm going to take that--
Ms. Wiley. --that tells the American public what facts they
should be exposed to.
Mr. Stewart. You're not aware of that?
Ms. Wiley. No, I am not.
Mr. Stewart. Oh, my gosh. Where have you lived for the last
three years?
Ms. Wiley. In the United States of America.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Let me tell you--let me ask you. China
suppresses free speech. Is that a good thing?
Ms. Wiley. No, of course not.
Mr. Stewart. Iran, mullahs there, they suppress free
speech. Is that a good thing?
Ms. Wiley. No, of course not.
Mr. Stewart. Vladimir Putin suppresses it. Is that a good
thing?
Ms. Wiley. No. We all agree we should not suppress free
speech.
Mr. Stewart. OK. We agree then that the government should
not--government leaders should not suppress free speech. We
agree with that?
Ms. Wiley. Oh, that's a different question. Yes, it is
unconstitutional for the government to pass laws which would
abridge free speech.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Or not pass laws, but to create pressure
that would suppress free speech. They don't--Vladimir Putin
doesn't pass a law. He exerts his force and influence to
suppress free speech.
Ms. Wiley. Yes. The case law says that the government
cannot coerce private entities--
Mr. Stewart. We agree that's a bad idea, don't we?
Ms. Wiley. Yes. I would absolutely agree when Donald
Trump--
Mr. Stewart. We agree then the government shouldn't--wait,
wait--
Ms. Wiley. --when Donald Trump threatened social media
companies with the Federal regulation shutdown, that was
coercion.
Mr. Stewart. That's not my question.
Ms. Wiley. Oh, I know, but I think it was consistent to
show that we agree--
Mr. Stewart. Here's my question for you. We agree the
government shouldn't be responsible for restricting views that
the American people are exposed to. We agree on that. Right?
You wouldn't answer it at first, but it's clear that you do
agree with that, because when--
Ms. Wiley. That's a different question.
Mr. Stewart. OK. So, to my question, do you agree with it
or not?
Ms. Wiley. I agree that the government should not violate
our Constitution.
Mr. Stewart. Do you agree with my question?
Ms. Wiley. Your question is--
Mr. Stewart. Should the government--
Ms. Wiley. --whether or not the government--
Mr. Stewart. This is so simple.
Ms. Wiley. No, it is not so simple because--
Mr. Stewart. I am going to ask it one time, and it is so
simple a seventh grader could understand this question. Should
the government be responsible for the views and the facts that
the American people are exposed to?
Ms. Wiley. The problem I have is that I don't know any
facts with which the government tells us what--
Mr. Stewart. I'm going to say that you're unable to answer
the question, which for me is fairly shocking as an American
citizen.
Let me ask you now then, having concluded that you're
unaware of suppression of free speech in the last several
years, what about for--
Ms. Wiley. That's not actually what I said, but thank you.
Mr. Stewart. Do you think it was appropriate for the FBI to
pressure private companies to censor and take down posts that
the government disagreed with? Was that appropriate?
I'll give you an example that you were unaware of. I'm glad
you're aware of it now. Was that appropriate for the government
to do that?
Ms. Wiley. Sir, the only thing that is appropriate for the
government to do is what it is lawfully allowed to do both
under the Constitution and the laws of this country.
Mr. Stewart. Which is?
Ms. Wiley. Which is to conduct its criminal investigations
appropriately to our laws and to our policies.
Mr. Stewart. So, they didn't have the ability, then, to go
to these private companies and to say they can't--
Ms. Wiley. There are instances, in which, to protect the
integrity of a criminal prosecution, they may ask. Sometimes
news agencies and others--
Mr. Stewart. I certainly agree with that. Was that the case
here? Were there any criminal prosecutions involved with these
cases? Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Wiley. There were criminal--criminal investigations are
not prosecutions and also the integrity of--
Mr. Stewart. --were there any criminal investigations
regarding these examples?
Ms. Wiley. Which examples are those, sir?
Mr. Stewart. For example, anything regarding the Hunter
Biden laptop?
Ms. Wiley. Well, there are lots of things that have been
said in the public media about Hunter Biden's laptop. There was
a criminal investigation, in fact, a plea in that case.
Mr. Stewart. Does it bother you that 51 former intelligence
officials made a determination that the Hunter Biden laptop was
Russian disinformation? Which they admit, by the way, they have
no evidence at all that this was true, zero evidence that this
was true. Does that bother you they did that?
Ms. Wiley. What bothers me tremendously is that, while
there are a lot of things we should be talking about with
regard to whether or not the government at times exceeds its
authority, that includes whether or not government exceeds its
authority when it tries to censor or interfere with research or
research institutions, where any White House official, such as
Donald Trump, actually threatens the full power of the Federal
Government, including the threat to shut down social media
because they put a fact-check label on a tweet--
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
Ms. Stefanik. I'd like to submit for the record a tip
insight to New Jersey-based Institute of Policy and Politics
Poll conducted of over 1,000 adults between August 2-4, 2022,
showed that 8 in 10 voters, if they were made aware of the
Biden laptop, that would have been determinative in changing
the outcome of the election. It also demonstrates that 61
percent of Democrats included in this poll would have changed
their vote. Submit it for the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been in this Congress 15 years, and I never thought we
would descend to this level or Orwellian dystopia. Suddenly,
the tools of the trade are not to get at the truth but to
distract, distort, deflect, and dissemble.
To disagree is censorship. To try to correct the facts is
to infringe on my right of free speech. It only works one way.
The name of Dr. Fauci has been invoked. I'd love to have him
here as a witness to describe his travail in being censored. Of
course, with that right-wing censorship comes intimidation and
threat and the intimations of violence and a wink-blink that,
by the way, violence can be justified. The violence, for
example, here on January 6th has been explicitly excused by
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as a bunch
of tourists who got a little out of hand, a little overexcited.
Five are dead, including my constituent, a Capitol Hill police
officer, who died the next day from the trauma and shock of
that experience. Ironically, talk about free speech and duty,
he voted for Donald Trump. His duty was to be here that day,
Officer Sicknick.
Somehow my freedom to harm with the words I use is
considered further evidence of censorship. We know words have
power, and that's why we take care with the words that we use.
We have mass killings in America. We buried people recently
in Pittsburgh because of their identity. Hate speech has
consequences. Distortion of the truth has consequences. It's
not censorship to try to correct that rhetoric.
Vaccination denial would have cost millions of more lives
in America: 1.1 million fellow Americans are dead today because
of the pandemic, and millions are saved because of a vaccine
that was developed in record time, and we ought to be
celebrating that, not caviling about it.
Protective measures were taken to take down disinformation
about vaccines and about the nature of the virus and about
protective measures we could take, including masks, including
social distancing. It was not Big Brother government trying to
exercise its will on an innocent population. It was public
health measures to protect lives, again, something that should
be celebrated. No, there's an opportunity to have a conspiracy
theory here. There's an opportunity to make political points.
No matter what you may think, Mr. Kennedy--and I revere
your name--you're not here to propound your case for
censorship. You are here for cynical reasons to be used
politically by that side of the aisle to embarrass the current
President of the United States, and you're an enabler in that
effort today. It brings shame on a storied name that I revere.
I began my political interest with your father, and it makes me
profoundly sad to see where we have descended today in this
hearing.
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia.
We don't have a lot of time to dig into questions, but I
would just note for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle who are former prosecutors, you well know that the
opinions of a journalist don't amount to actual evidence of
anything. It is a sign of the desperate attempt to satisfy your
conspiracy theories that you're bringing a fringe-right
reporter to provide evidence for your investigation.
Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentleman's out of time.
Mr. Goldman. I yield back.
Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson from Louisiana for--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm so grateful for that segue
from Mr. Goldman, because we are about to talk about hard
evidence here.
It's really ironic this hearing is covering the left's
censorship of opposing viewpoints, and you've all seen it on
display all day long. They've been doing exactly that. They've
been trying to bully and defame our witnesses and try to cover
up their opinions. They actually began the hearing with a
motion to prevent them from testifying. You can't make this
stuff up. It's on broad display for everybody.
They did the same thing yesterday in the hearing with the
IRS whistleblowers. You know why? Because the Democrats are
panicked right now. They're panicked because it's impossible to
cover up the inescapable conclusions of the last few weeks.
Let me give you two of them.
(1) The hard evidence, Mr. Goldman and everybody else, now
proves that the Biden family is hopelessly corrupt and has
apparently engaged in a long pattern of extortion, bribery,
influence-peddling, and tax fraud and staggering abuses of
power.
(2) We are highlighting here today that we now know that a
growing list of the most important Executive-Branch agencies of
the Biden Administration are in on it. They've also been
corrupted. They've been weaponized to help cover all this up,
the First Family's crimes.
When we summarize all this stuff, it sounds like a premise
of a dystopian novel or something, but it's actually happening
right now on our watch. This is not conspiracy theories; this
is evidence.
Our hearing today is to put a spotlight on one more of
these incredible avenues of unprecedented corruption and
government cover-up. Here again, a Federal Court has just
affirmed all that hard evidence. It proves that the White
House, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, among other
agencies, threatened and coerced the social media platforms to
censor and suppress disfavored viewpoints and conservatives'
social media posts online.
I'm grateful we have with us today two individuals, Mr.
Kennedy and Ms. Harris [sic], who were directly impacted by
that censorship, and the third, Mr. Sauer, who we're about to
speak with, serving as lead counsel in the landmark lawsuit
against the Federal Government on this issue.
Let's talk facts. The American people are not aware of the
magnitude of this case, Mr. Sauer, and its profound
implications because most of the mainstream media is in on it,
too, and they're trying to bury the story.
In brief, in May of last year, the attorneys general of my
State, Louisiana, and the State of Missouri filed suit in the
U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana of
this blatant censorship. They went after the blatant censorship
of the Biden White House and nine of its Federal agencies.
Two weeks ago, on Independence Day, the District Court
issued a truly extraordinary, 155-page court opinion, a ruling,
granting the plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction.
Mr. Sauer, you're lead counsel in that litigation. You
referenced some in your opening statement, but let's do it
again here, because they don't seem to be paying attention.
Can you give a summary again of some of the key components
of that opinion and the basis for it? I know you mentioned
there were 82 pages of detailed factual findings, right?
Mr. Sauer. That is correct, 82 pages, 577 citations of the
record evidence. That evidence is drawn from about 20,000 pages
of the government's own communications with social media
platforms and six full-length depositions of senior Federal
officials with firsthand knowledge of Federal censorship
practices.
Mr. Stewart. It's absolutely staggering.
Now, they've tried to bury this and say, well, the Fifth
Circuit entered a temporary administrative stay. They granted
an expedited briefing and oral argument, however, for August
10th.
What's the impact of that? Isn't that routine practice in
the Fifth Circuit?
Mr. Sauer. That's a direct quote from the recent Fifth
Circuit decision in re Abbott, which is cited in my written
testimony. It's legally incorrect, clearly legally incorrect,
to describe them as vacating the injunction, which has happened
multiple times--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. They either don't know the law
or, I don't know, they're trying to obscure the facts. That's a
theme around here.
The White House and their fellow Democrats disputed almost
none of the factual findings in the court. Isn't that right?
Mr. Sauer. So far, we've had two emergency stay motions
from the Department of Justice--one in the District Court, one
in the Court of Appeals. What really struck me in reading those
is they just don't dispute those pages and pages of factual
findings. Almost none of them are directly disputed in what
they've filed so far.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, at the very beginning of this
lengthy opinion, the court explains the staggering scope of the
government censorship uncovered here. At page 2, the court
explains, quote,
If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present
case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech
in United States history.
The court called it ``dystopian,'' and ``Orwellian.''
How broad has the attack been? How many Americans have been
censored, do you think?
Mr. Sauer. There are judicial findings again and again in
the opinion of millions--millions of American voices silenced
by these efforts.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It had profound impacts, we know.
We just saw the poll and the data that's been entered here.
Facts, not conjecture, that it probably changed the outcome of
the election. The court noted that they suppressed, among other
topics, the Hunter Biden laptop story. The court noted--not
you, not me, not Republicans--that millions of Americans were
not exposed to that story. Had they been, we know they might
have voted differently. We'll never be able to unwind history,
but, wow, I mean, the profound impacts.
What are some of the other categories of speech that the
government suppressed with its unconstitutional scheme?
Mr. Sauer. Well, the court made findings on that. I'd just
quote them: Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines, opposition to
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns, the lab leak theory of COVID-
19, opposition to President Biden's policies, statements that
the Hunter Biden laptop story was true, oppositions to the
policies of government officials in power--all were suppressed.
That's just some examples. Many other examples in the
court's findings and in the discovery in the case.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I so wish I weren't out of time.
I yield back.
Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allred from Texas for his five
minutes.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I yield my time to Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Let me thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Kennedy and others here are claiming that they've been
censored, but they actually have a huge megaphone.
The rules that my colleague tried to bring up are rules
that the Republicans made at the beginning of this Congress.
They did not allow the Democrats to be part of that. One of
those rules was that if information or testimony might
potentially defame an individual that we would go in Executive
Session. No one was trying to stop him from testifying, but not
to give him the megaphone that this group has allowed him to
have.
I also note, in terms of censorship, that the far-right
media has already issued articles about me playing the race
card. The race card is something that's often used against
Black people for bringing up when they see race, hatred, being
promulgated against them, and it's a means to try and keep us
quiet and keep us in our place. ``Oh, you're playing the race
card'' by bringing up what is obvious in our lives, what is
obviously happening--race. So, you can keep saying I'm race-
baiting and try and censor me, but I'm going to continue to
tell the truth.
I want to be abundantly clear about what else is happening
in this room. The MAGA Republicans are trying to scare social
media companies into not taking down blatantly false
information in the lead-up to our 2024 Presidential election.
Chair Jordan knows, as we do, that when conspiracy theories
succeed, so does Donald Trump. Russia interfered in our 2016
election, they attempted in our 2020, and they're going to try
to interfere in the 2024 Presidential election.
We note that Russian trolls sought to suppress the Black
vote by unleashing a torrent of social media posts designed to
stoke racial tensions and spread incorrect voting information.
In 2021, our national intelligence agencies found that
proactive information-sharing between the government and social
media companies facilitated the expeditious review and in many
cases removal of social media accounts covertly operated by
Russia and Iran.
Ms. Wiley, if the government is not able to proactively
share information with social media companies in 2024, what is
likely to be the ramifications?
I'd ask that you make your answer as succinct as possible
because there's a lot of information I need.
Ms. Wiley. I will just quote one thing. Mr. Prigozhin, who
has been in the news of late, actually said explicitly and
openly that, ``they would continue to try to spread mis- and
disinformation into the United States and interfere with our
elections.''
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. They know that Russian
interference--that is, the MAGA Republicans know that Trump
benefits when Russia interferes.
The super-PAC that supports--the same super-PAC that
supports Mr. Kennedy and has raised significant funds on his
behalf is run by a man named Jason Boles. Here's Jason Boles'
Twitter profile, as you can see up on the screen.
Jason Boles isn't just a MAGA supporter; he also ran the
super-PAC for MAGA Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren
Boebert, and George Santos. In 2022, he supported Herschel
Walker.
So, the person behind Mr. Kennedy's super-PAC is an
individual who personally and professionally wants the
Republican Party to succeed. Yet, Mr. Kennedy is running as a
Democrat.
Ms. Wiley, will it benefit Mr. Kennedy, as well as the
other individuals that are supported by the super-PAC, if
social media companies are less able to detect and, if needed--
if they determine that it's needed--to remove Russian covert
information designed to suppress votes in this country?
Ms. Wiley. It is possible.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I--
Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Steube from Florida for his five
minutes.
Mr. Steube. Mr. Kennedy, you wanted to respond to that. Can
you do that quickly?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I've never heard of Mr. Boles, and I've
never heard of that super-PAC.
This is typical of the accusations against me at this
hearing. They are baseless, every single one. I've been
subjected to a string, a parade, of defamations. If I believed
those things about myself, I wouldn't want to hear me either.
I'd want to gag me and lock me in a room somewhere. None of
those are true.
They were all of this parade of accusations and defamations
were made against me in a way that was calculated to make sure
that I could not respond to any of them. Every one of them I'd
like to respond to, but I was not allowed to.
Mr. Steube. To further the disinformation going on, Ms.
Wiley, in response to a question, you stated that the decision
in Missouri v. Biden was vacated by the Appellate Court. Is
that correct?
Ms. Wiley. I did, and I want to correct that, because Mr.
Sauer's right. The appropriate word is ``stayed.''
Mr. Steube. Administratively stayed. So, it hasn't been--
Ms. Wiley. Stayed.
Mr. Steube. --vacated or dismissed, like Ms. Sanchez said.
Ms. Wiley. It's stayed, which means it cannot be
implemented right now.
Mr. Steube. OK. Because, I didn't want us to censor your
disinformation that you stated as a factual assertion earlier,
so--
Ms. Wiley. I did misspeak, and I apologize.
Mr. Steube. Thank you for clarifying that for us.
To talk about more evidence about--I think it's
interesting--there's a lot in this opinion, and I have limited
time, but I think illustrating some of the actions that the
Biden Administration took to censor speech is very important.
I'm going read specifically from the opinion.
Explicit threats are an obvious form of coercion, but not all
coercion need be explicit.
I'm on page 97 of the opinion.
The following illustrative specific actions by Defendants are
examples of coercion exercised by the White House Defendants.
(a) Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved
immediately. Please remove this account immediately.
Sounds like a directive from the White House, to me, to social
media companies.
Accused Facebook of causing ``political violence'' by failing
to censor false COVID-19 claims.
(f) This is exactly why I want to know what ``Reduction''
actually looks like--if ``reduction'' means pumping our most
vaccine hesitant audience with Tucker Carlson saying it does
not work . . . then . . . I'm not sure it's reduction.
Implying that they're reducing the information on that.
Questioning how the Tucker Carlson video had been ``demoted''
since there were 40,000 shares.
Wanting to know why Alex Berenson had not been kicked off
Twitter because Berenson was the epicenter of disinformation
that radiated outward to the persuadable public.
I'm just skipping through here. I'm not even going through all
these.
Flaherty stated: ``Not to sound like a broken record, but how
much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at
mitigating reach and how quickly?''
Flaherty told Facebook: ``Are you guys [F-ing] serious? I want
an answer on what happened here and I want it today.''
Sounds like a pretty explicit threat, to me.
(m) White House Press Secretary Psaki stated: ``We are in
regular touch with these social media platforms, and those
engagements typically happen through members of our senior
staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We're flagging
problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.''
Psaki also stated one of the White House's ``asks'' of social
media companies was to ``create a robust enforcement
strategy.''
(o) Psaki stated at the February 1, 2022, White House Press
Conference that the White House wanted every social media
platform to do more to call out misinformation and
disinformation and to uplift accurate information.
Another one:
Hey, folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if
we can get moving on the process of having it removed. ASAP.
Sounds like a pretty explicit demand from the White House, to
me. Again, quoting the opinion:
``These actions are just a few examples of the unrelenting
pressure the Defendants exerted against social media companies.
This Court finds the above examples demonstrate that Plaintiffs
can''--likely prove--``that White House Defendants engaged in
coercion to induce social media companies to suppress free
speech.''
Mr. Sauer, in the limited time that I have, can you just
comment further on, these are just some of the highlights that
are in the opinion, and illustrate to us all the evidence of
the White House censoring the American public and working with
social media companies to accomplish that?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, it's very telling that the judicial
findings are quite specific on the specific threats.
So, there are several ways you can violate the First
Amendment if you're a government official. One is coercion. One
is significant encouragement. One is joint participation, where
you've insinuated yourselves into private decisionmaking. The
court found all those present here.
With respect to those White House communications, there's a
series of specific judicial findings that these statements were
threatening; they were threatening adverse legal consequences.
There are multiple findings, for example, that White House
spokesperson Psaki's public statements explicitly linked the
threat of adverse legal consequences to the White House's
demands for censorship, which we didn't know at the time, but
now know were being very aggressively peppered on the social
media platforms while she was making those public statements.
So, have your public statements from the White House, also
White House Communications Director Bedingfield--there's a very
specific judicial finding on that--threatening adverse legal
consequences in public if there's not greater censorship, and
in private you've got Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, other White
House officials saying: ``Take this down, take this down, do
more to take down borderline content.''
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The time of the gentleman has
expired.
The gentleman--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous
consent request.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There's a lot of talk about this
preliminary injunction, so I'd like to enter into the record
the 155-page Court Opinion, the ``Memorandum Ruling on Request
for Preliminary Injunction'' in the matter of the State of
Missouri and Louisiana v. Biden from the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division; and also, the
Fifth Circuit's administrative stay which does not address the
merits.
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, I'd like unanimous consent to
enter into the record an article that states ``Pro-RFK Jr.
Super PAC Has Deep Ties to Marjorie Taylor Greene, George
Santos,'' which discusses the super-PAC titled, ``Heal the
Divide,'' which states that, ``Only Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can
unite the Nation to start healing America,'' and also discusses
Mr. Kennedy's discussions with Mr. Trump about working in his
administration.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Texas, I believe? Is that the queue?
Ms. Garcia. Thank you--
Chair Jordan. Ms. Garcia, you're recognized.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I live in Houston, but I was born and raised in rural South
Texas. Shamefully, rural South Texas and all of rural Texas has
been utterly devastated by COVID-19.
In fact, only 56 percent of rural Americans are fully
vaccinated versus almost 70 percent of their urban
counterparts. We know that being unvaccinated makes you up to
17 times--17 times--more likely to die of COVID compared to
people who are vaccinated and boosted. A recent study found
that nearly 2,000 lives could have been saved in Texas if it
had reached the vaccination levels of places like Vermont or
Connecticut.
However, today, despite the horrific COVID-19 tragedies--
and thank you for describing those refrigerated morgues, if you
will, because that was horrible to even see, but I'm sure there
are some deniers, just like they deny the climate that this
even happened. These tragedies have also plagued rural South
Texas and families all around the country. Yet, we give a
platform to one of the biggest spreaders of anti-vaccine
propaganda in the country.
He has claimed that vaccines have caused widespread death.
They have not. He has claimed that vaccines are unsafe for
pregnant people. They are not. He has claimed that vaccines
cause autism. They do not. He has even suggested that vaccines
implant government-controlled microchips into patients. They do
not.
As crazy as Mr. Kennedy's theories are, he has been able to
effectively spread false medical information throughout our
communities due to his prestigious family's name, his deep
pockets, and his websites that publish patently false health
and medical information.
By inviting him here today, extreme MAGA Republicans
elevate a man who tells others that vaccines aren't safe, but
vaccines his own children for protection and, it was noted
earlier, even asked guests to his party to be vaccinated.
Three million lives were saved by the COVID-19 vaccine. If
anti-vaccine advocates like Mr. Kennedy did not continuously
flood our communities with false health and medical
information, more lives could have been saved.
Ms. Wiley, thank you for your opening remarks, because that
was the reality that New York and so many communities across
the country faced.
We know that sensational, false information spreads much
faster than accurate information. From your personal
experience, is that true?
Ms. Wiley. It is true.
Actually, one of the ways that the social media companies,
which are the places where the rules are determined--and I
think it's important when we keep talking about censorship
that--they have the power and the legal right to decide what
content is on their site. We're talking about their policies
here and their enforcement, or failure to enforce them.
We've actually raised alarm bells at the Leadership
Conference for Civil and Human Rights about the fact that they
have not sufficiently enforced their own policies and that this
has led to harm--very dangerous harm, which we've talked about.
I just want to point this out as well: The social media
companies actually use algorithms to elevate content that it
finds draws users. That's why there is research that shows, far
from suppressing right-wing and extremist speech, that actually
the algorithms used by social media has elevated them--has
elevated them.
That's true from the New York Stern School that has a study
out from 2021. That testimony has occurred in Congress. Even
Twitter's own analytics shows that it has elevated conservative
speech.
Which, by the way, that the research shows that, while
we're sitting here talking about this as if there is somehow a
targeting of viewpoint, it's actually been about targeting
whether or not the content is consistent with the policies of
the platforms that they themselves set.
Ms. Garcia. So, this year, it really is literally putting
even more lives at risk for elevating all these what I think
are crazy theories. Because as long as these anti-vaccine
theories continue to spread, it makes people not only question
the vaccine but other vaccines.
Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Wiley. I would.
I also want to say, it also occurs in our democracy in
terms of voting. Mis-and disinformation about whether or not
voting laws are being violated and whether individuals are
violating them have led to death threats. That is also in
violation of the social media policies.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Garcia. Well, and it happens--
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, for five minutes.
Ms. Garcia. --it happens, I got a death threat after the
last Weaponization hearing.
Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentlelady from
Wyoming.
Ms. Hageman. I want to thank you, Mr. Sauer, Ms. Morris,
and Mr. Kennedy for your courage, for your willingness to be
the tip of the spear to protect all our First Amendment rights.
Mr. Sauer, I don't know if you watched the testimony from
Christopher Wray last week, but he testified and admitted that
the FBI was continuing to meet regularly with social media
companies up until the very moment that the injunction was
issued by the District Court judge.
What that tells me is, they're not stopping. They're going
to continue to try to further the censorship industrial complex
as long as they can and will continue to attempt to violate our
First Amendment rights. We all must be vigilant.
Ms. Morris, I want to focus on you today. I don't think
that we've talked enough about the freedom of the press, but
it's also included in the First Amendment and is as important
as any other First Amendment right that we have.
I want to thank you for your testimony today. We all know
that the First Amendment is a core, fundamental right. Within
its protection is the protection of the free press against
infringement by the government.
Free press has been an institution in this Nation which
dates back to even before America existed. Americans have
always relied on the media to remain informed about the
workings of their government and events in the world. This is
why the press is often referred to as the ``Fourth Branch,''
using the rights secured by the Constitution as a fourth check
on the three branches of government.
Ms. Morris, before a majority Presidential election, you
were prepared to release a factual report about one of the
candidates. One would think that the information in your report
would be of interest to the American people to understand the
integrity of the candidates who were asking for their support
and their trust.
The facts have been laid out by you and this Committee of
how the FBI worked with social media to alter their perception
of what your story was and to change their policies to censor
it.
Ms. Morris, your story was obviously groundbreaking news.
As we have learned and uncovered additional information over
the intervening two years, I can say with confidence that what
has been going on with the Biden family is an absolutely
horrific and undermines the very foundation of our country and
the integrity of the people in the highest, highest elected and
appointed offices in this country. It's now--we know that you
were correct in what you were going to be reporting.
Have there been any estimates, or do you have any general
idea of how many people were denied access to your story
because of the government censorship?
Ms. Morris. So, there are polls about that. The MRC, Media
Research Center, did a poll about--it said 45 percent of Biden
voters were not aware of the story.
I think it also is an impossible question to answer,
because the thing about the censorship was not only that it was
deleted or whatever from Twitter but, also, it casted an
aspersion on the reporting, on me, that was literally made up.
It was made up.
There is a subset of this country where, despite The New
York Times, The Washington Post, like, literally fill-in-the-
blank, like, liberal news legacy outlet that they all trust,
they'll--like, they just reflectively think, ``Laptop from
hell--fake. Russia. Whatever.''
So, the effect of that can't be measured. Because, like,
these people who are spies, who the country looks at as the
ultimate authority of truth, came out and said that there was
something wrong with it. So, you can't measure the impact of
that.
Ms. Hageman. So, going back to the legacy media, the
Oversight Committee had a very explosive hearing yesterday with
whistleblowers from the IRS. Some of our legacy media outlets
did not cover the hearing. They did talk about Taco Tuesday,
and they talked about other things that seem to be of great
interest to them, but not the fact that we are uncovering an
enormous amount of corruption at the very highest levels in our
government.
While we don't--while you don't know about the F---you
didn't know about the FBI's efforts at the time, I would assume
that, between the Twitter files and what we've uncovered in the
Missouri v. Biden case, you now know the role that the FBI
played in censoring your work.
Do you think the FBI tried to ensure that the American
people didn't hear the story to change the outcome of the
election in 2020?
Ms. Morris. I don't know how to answer that question,
because I'm not in their head. I don't know the reason why. I
don't have a head count of how many Biden voters work at the
FBI. I can't assign a motive to them. I can just tell you what
happened and what we've learned in the two-years since this,
like, blatant, in-your-face censorship event.
Ms. Hageman. We do know that the American public were not
told the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop and Joe Biden's
involvement with his dealings--foreign dealings.
Ms. Morris. Well, that's it. That's what pertains to my
work and my experience.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from--the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from Florida, Ms. Cammack.
Ms. Cammack. My microphone is broken.
Chair Jordan. Oh, your microphone is broken? Maybe use--
slide over--
Ms. Cammack. Yes, let me just slide over here. Sorry. The
microphone is broken. Wait, that might work. OK. All right.
Sorry. This microphone is broken.
I want to thank all our witnesses for being in front of us
here today. I know that this has not been an easy couple of
hours, but I appreciate your endurance.
I'll start with you, Ms. Wiley. Five days ago, Democrat
Representative Pramila Jayapal stated that she has been, quote,
``fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist State.''
Yes or no, do you believe that statement to be antisemitic?
Ms. Wiley. I believe that there is a distinction between
any--
Ms. Cammack. It's just a yes or no.
Ms. Wiley. --conversation about a government versus a group
of people.
Ms. Cammack. So, do you believe that each of my Democratic
colleagues should publicly denounce her comments--
Ms. Wiley. Well, I--
Ms. Cammack. --and not continue to give her a platform to
make statements like Israel is a racist Nation?
Because, essentially, that is what is happening here, is it
is--we are 100 percent trying to censor one gentleman, because
one side doesn't agree with his comments. So, in a
Weaponization hearing about censorship, the left is trying to
censor, which I think is absolutely crazy.
I have to bring this up, since the door was opened. I'm
deeply concerned about the fact that there were FEC reports
brought up. Mr. Kennedy, you acknowledged that you don't know
where those came from. You said that you have no affiliation
with those--that PAC, that super-PAC, I believe.
The Ranking Member said she was deeply concerned about the
affiliation. We seem to have a guilty-by-association theme
going on here. So, I just have to State for the record that I,
myself, am deeply concerned about the affiliation of the
convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein of which the Ranking
Member took campaign donation money from.
So, I think that's the beauty of the First Amendment, is
that we have a right to say what we want to say, but we also
have the right to be offended. So, I just wanted to point that
out--glass houses and all.
Our Democrat colleague Mr. Lynch opened up the door of what
does the impact of the continued narrative of ``weaponization''
have on the general public? I think that's really important,
because what we have seen in the last couple of weeks is
irrefutable evidence of the fact that the FBI has not only been
systematically working to censor Americans' speech, but they
have been facilitating it and, in some cases, at the behest of
foreign governments.
A Weaponization report proved that there was a direct
connection between the Ukrainian SBU--in which that
intelligence service was sending spreadsheets of thousands of
posts, in some cases posts that were belonging to the United
States State Department. Because we know that the Ukrainian SBU
is rife with double agents, the FBI wasn't even vetting the
posts. They were simply sending them direct to the social media
companies, saying, ``Please take these down.''
So, now we have an FBI that is not just saying that they're
going to fight foreign interference, they're facilitating it,
at one point even suggesting that they put forward a 24/7
channel where the FBI takes requests from a foreign government
and filters it right to the social media companies to have
those posts taken down.
It was across the board--anti-Ukraine, pro-Ukraine. That
right there proves that they weren't vetting the posts. That's
a problem.
We've established clearly, with hard evidence, that there
is, in fact, a weaponization of the Federal Government against
the American people. Every single day that we do not
acknowledge it is a bad day in America. The pillars of our
constitutional republic--not democracy--are being taken down
bit by bit, because the press is being told they can't ask the
tough questions.
Ms. Morris, you have probably received threats. You have
been censored. You have been silenced.
Mr. Sauer, you have been before us many times, and you have
expressed the pushback, the threats that you have received.
Mr. Kennedy, I can't imagine what you receive on a daily
basis from both the left and the right.
So, I'm going to go to our Democratic colleague Mr. Lynch
and ask the question, what impact does the continued narrative
of ``weaponization'' have on the general public? I know he
framed this in a way to make a point that it is somehow
negative to ask the tough questions, but I'm going to ask our
three witnesses here: What are the ramifications if we don't
talk about it, if we don't expose it?
I only have 25 seconds, so, Mr. Sauer, take it away.
Mr. Sauer. If Federal censorship is not stood up to
aggressively, it will expand to every corner of online
discourse.
Ms. Cammack. Ms. Morris?
Ms. Morris. I can't even believe this is a conversation.
Like, this is not controversial or taboo. We live in the United
States of America, and you have the right to say whatever you
want, to print whatever you want, and to read whatever you
want.
Ms. Cammack. Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. A government that can censor its critics has
license for every atrocity. It is the beginning of
totalitarianism. There's never been a time in history when we
look back and the guys who were censoring people were the good
guys.
All of us grew up reading Arthur Koestler, Robert Heinlein,
Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell. They were all saying the same
thing: Once you start censoring, you're on your way to dystopia
and totalitarianism.
Ms. Cammack. I know my time has expired, but, Mr. Sauer,
you said earlier, censorship is about power, censorship is
about control. The entire progressive, leftist agenda is about
nothing more than dependency and control. That is why this is
so important.
With that, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, before that, I have a document I'd
like to enter into record, a The Washington Post article of
July 23d, which lists the misstatements of facts in the
preliminary injunction in the Missouri v. Biden case that we've
been talking about.
Chair Jordan. From what paper? What publication?
Ms. Plaskett. I said The Washington Post.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sauer, welcome back to the Committee. It's great to see
you again. You're becoming a mainstay on the Committee. I do
hope that you continue to update us on your case now that it
has been stayed and will not be implemented as it goes through
the appeals process.
I'd like to quickly play a short video, if we could.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Kennedy, I have a simple question for you,
as an early victim of COVID. I actually got it March 10, 2020.
My question to you is whether you think I should be worried
about my genetics as an Ashkenazi Jew because I did contract
COVID.
Mr. Kennedy. No, not at all. That statement that you saw
there is a truncated version of a larger statement--
Mr. Goldman. No, I understand. You issued a clarification.
Mr. Kennedy. --where I was describing a study.
Mr. Goldman. I get it. I understand. Hold on. I asked a
simple question. You're now going on--
I'm reclaiming my time, because what I really want to talk
about here is evidence. Evidence, evidence, evidence.
Mr. Johnson was so eager to talk about what he called the
``hard evidence,'' and yet all we heard again was him repeating
allegations without identifying any evidence. You can repeat
all these allegations as much as you want, but it doesn't make
them true.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Goldman. You are not witnesses--I don't have enough
time, unfortunately.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh.
Mr. Goldman. You are not witnesses to any of this conduct,
and just because you say it over and over, it doesn't make it
so.
If we're talking about censorship here, which I believe is
presumably the reason why Mr. Kennedy is here, the tweet that
you've identified was never taken down. Whatever the government
may have tried to do--and I don't agree that it tried to do
what you said it did--it wasn't taken down.
So, how can the government actually censor anyone if there
is enough freedom within the companies, they're talking to that
they reject whatever request that the government makes?
I want to focus now, Ms. Morris, on the laptop. There's
been a lot of talk about the laptop being real. That is true.
There was a laptop. It's a computer--keyboard, screen. It is
real. You never got a laptop before you wrote that story, did
you?
Ms. Morris. That's correct.
Mr. Goldman. You got a hard drive.
Ms. Morris. Hard drive.
Mr. Goldman. You received that hard drive from Rudy
Giuliani, right?
Ms. Morris. Yep.
Mr. Goldman. OK. Who had been openly associating with an
agent of Russian intelligence in the months leading up to your
story. You agree with that, right?
Ms. Morris. I guess.
Mr. Goldman. Now, did you do a forensic examination of that
hard drive before you printed your story?
Ms. Morris. We had tech people in the Post looking at it,
yes, yes.
Mr. Goldman. That's a forensic analysis?
Ms. Morris. No, not--
Mr. Goldman. I highly doubt the New York Post has the
ability to do a forensic analysis of a hard drive.
Ms. Morris. OK.
Mr. Goldman. Ms. Morris, were you the primary drafter of
this article?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. Bruce Golding was not the primary author
drafter?
Ms. Morris. No.
Mr. Goldman. Did he help with the article?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. Then isn't it true that he decided to withdraw
his name from the byline because of concerns that he had?
Ms. Morris. I wasn't involved with that.
Mr. Goldman. Well, isn't it true, whether you were involved
in it or not?
Ms. Morris. I don't know the details.
Mr. Goldman. He did withdraw his name from the byline?
Ms. Morris. His name was not published.
Mr. Goldman. Right.
Well, I'd like to introduce for the record an article in
The New York Times that says--the first line is: ``The New York
Post's front-page article about Hunter Biden . . . was written
mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it,
two Post employees said.''
Mr. Goldman. Now, I would note, you also said that this
article was determinative of the election, but there was a
pause for 24 hours and there was a tremendous controversy.
There is no doubt that this article received far more attention
because of the controversy than it would if it had ever been
published without any controversy.
It is odd to hear my colleagues and Ms. Morris talk about
their somehow expert knowledge about whether it affected the
election, because we're not hearing a lot about Jim Comey,
although one of my colleagues did say that he interfered in the
2016 election, and that is correct. He interfered on behalf of
Donald Trump, against Hillary Clinton, by unnecessarily
announcing an investigation six days before.
The majority would like us to believe that there's some
broad government conspiracy, but, in reality, this government
is playing by the book. That is why Joe Biden's Justice
Department has allowed a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney to
continue his investigation of the President's son, which is in
direct contrast to what the former President did by weaponizing
the Justice Department.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes himself.
Hard evidence? Mr. Johnson said that we're not only
witnesses to censorship, but we were victims. The Republican
website on the House Judiciary Committee posted the story, and
it was limited, where it could go. They exercised censorship of
the House Judiciary Republican account, for goodness' sake.
Ms. Wiley, you were a lawyer for the ACLU?
Ms. Wiley. I was.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Kennedy, I remember when the ACLU
defended the First--they were the champions of the First
Amendment. You remember that? You remember that ACLU?
Mr. Kennedy. I remember when the ACLU represented Nazis,
who they were appalled by. Their right--
Chair Jordan. Appalled, disgusted by, and yet they would
defend the crazy things they said, right? That's how much the
First Amendment meant to them, right?
Mr. Kennedy. Exactly.
Chair Jordan. I want to go back to where Mr. Steube was. I
want to talk about this hard evidence that Mr. Goldman says
doesn't exist. I want to read from the facts. This is what the
White House was saying. I want to go to just three statements.
One, ``Cannot stress the''--this is statements from our
White--from the Biden White House to social media.
Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved
immediately. Please remove this account immediately.
Same kind of thing they put on yours, ``Remove ASAP.''
Here's the better one. Here's the better one. Mr. Flaherty,
who ran this COVID-19 operation misinformation concept at the
White House, Mr. Flaherty said this:
Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is
being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach
and how quickly?
We should just translate that. Because this is really
simple: How much censorship are you doing it--how much
censorship are you doing, and how quickly are you doing it?
I think the kicker is what Jen Psaki, the press secretary,
said back in 2021. Look at this. Now, think about this. The
press secretary--I mean, we're talking about the White House.
It's considered the center of freedom on the planet. The press
secretary, in the press room, says this:
We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and
those engagements typically happen through members of our
senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We're
flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread
disinformation
Their definition, of course.
Psaki also stated one of the White House's ``asks'' of social
media companies was to ``create a robust enforcement strategy.
So, you've got the press secretary in the press room in the
White House saying, we're going to limit the press. Now, that
is frightening. That is frightening.
Ms. Wiley from the ACLU--lawyer with the ACLU, thinks
that's somehow appropriate. We know it's not.
Their number-one target, Mr. Kennedy, was you--was you, a
Democrat. Their primary--I just--I find that--I find that
amazing.
I would just like--I would like any thoughts you may have
on--because here's the scary thing. Dennis and I had this
conversation a while back. If you don't have a robust First
Amendment, if you try to restrict what the people say and what
the press reports, that is a scary place to go. Because if you
can't have debate and work out our differences, like you said
in your amazing opening statement--let's work together, let's
figure this out. If you can't have that robust debate and
figure things out, the alternative is scary. That's exactly
where we're headed.
I would encourage everyone to read Mr. Kennedy's written
statement. I read it this morning. Amazing. He walks through
the history here. That is what's at stake.
That's why what you're doing--whether we agree with what
you say or not. I disagree with what you said last week, what
they played. I think a lot of people did. You've clarified it.
It's about protecting the Constitution and the First Amendment.
I'll give you the last minute and a half, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, what I would say is that the Founders of
our--and the Framers of our Constitution knew that democracy
was a very inefficient system, and it had all this kind of--it
built in inefficiencies and difficulties.
They said they felt that it would give us--the one thing
that would give us an advantage over totalitarian systems was
this capacity for the free flow of information and a complete
lack of control of debate so that ideas that would eventually
mature into policies would be annealed in a furnace of debate
and then rise through the marketplace of ideas rather than
being dictated from above. That's what would give the energy,
the vibrancy, the vigor to democracy.
When they invented this democracy, we were the first one in
the modern era in 1780. By 1865, five other nations had
imitated us. By today, it's 190 Nations based on our system. We
are supposed to be the exemplary democracy. The corner
foundation stone of our system is freedom of speech. All the
other freedoms depend on it. If we lose that, not only do we
lose our democracy in this country, but the entire world--
Chair Jordan. Exactly.
Mr. Kennedy. --loses us as an example.
Chair Jordan. Exactly. Exactly. I couldn't have said it
better.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman State her request?
Ms. Garcia. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record an article by The New York Times on July the 20th, 2023,
``New York Post Published Hunter Biden Report Amid Newsroom
Doubts.'' I ask for unanimous consent.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Some things amaze me.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. This will be our
last line of questioning.
Mr. Massie. One of the immutable and undeniable tenets of
immunology is natural immunity. For two years, it was denied.
It wasn't even just denied; it was censored.
Mr. Sauer, I noticed in the court ruling in the case that
you worked on that they said that--the court said that,
Facebook reported to the White House that it labeled and
demoted posts suggesting natural immunity to a COVID-19
infection is superior to vaccine immunity.
Is that true? Was that kind of censorship going on?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, that kind of censorship was going on, and
there were direct communications between the platforms and
Federal officials about natural immunity specifically that I
think you've correctly quoted.
Mr. Massie. Thanks to the Twitter files, we found out that
a former FDA Director, who is on the board of Pfizer, Dr. Scott
Gottlieb, wrote on August 27, 2021, to Twitter Executive Todd
O'Boyle--who, by the way, was kind of one of the go-to people
for the White House also to coordinate with when they wanted
something suppressed--requested Twitter take action against a
post about natural immunity.
What's amazing to me is, Scott Gottlieb, who works for
Pfizer, who's a former FDA Director, went to Twitter the day I
got censored on natural immunity--my post, a congressional
post.
Now, the other side said, ``Well, your tweet's still up,
your post is still up. What do you mean you're getting
censored?'' What they did is, they labeled it, and they denied
anybody's ability to actually comment on it, and they deboosted
it.
So, I simply said, ``natural immunity is better than
vaccine immunity.'' We had studies showing that. They took it--
they censored it. So, the next day, I tried it again, with a
reference to Bloom-
berg--hardly a right-wing outlet or conspiracy generator. They
censored that one as well. This is astounding to me.
Mr. Kennedy, can you talk about the censorship, the effort
of the White House and Pharma to suppress the acknowledgement
of natural immunity, and why they might have been doing that?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, again, it was an effort to suppress
information not--in fact, if you read the Twitter files and the
email correspondence between Facebook and the White House,
there was an acknowledgement that they were being asked and
they were complying with censoring information that everybody
knew to be true or highly likely to be true.
The purpose--and, in fact, the term ``misinformation'' did
not denote falsehood or veracity. Rather, it was a euphemism--
Mr. Massie. Uh-huh.
Mr. Kennedy. --for any information that departed from
government orthodoxies. It is very dangerous.
A Congressman a minute ago said a million people have died
because of misinformation about vaccines in this country. In
fact, our country had the worst--had one of the highest
vaccination rates in the world and the worst health outcomes.
We have 4.2 percent of the global population; we had 16 percent
of COVID deaths.
Blacks in Haiti, with a one-percent vaccination rate, were
dying at a rate of 15 per million population. The same in
Nigeria. Had a 1.3 vaccination rate. They were dying at 1 in 14
per million population--14 per million population. In our
country, Blacks were dying at 3,000 per million population--200
times the death rates in other countries. This holds throughout
the world.
We needed information. We should've all been sharing
information openly and talking to the 15 million doctors
through the internet who were treating patients on the front
line all over the world and channeling the best therapies, the
most successful treatments, so that we could all figure it out.
This is not a time, in a pandemic, to--I'll just say this
one thing. Trust in the experts is not a function of science.
It's not a function of democracy. It's a function of religion
and totalitarianism. It does not make for a healthier
population.
Mr. Massie. Hmm.
Let me ask you this. You referenced your father and your
uncle and the party that they were in. What has happened to
your party with respect to the First Amendment? Would they
recognize the position now?
Mr. Kennedy. Listen, I'm a Democrat and I believe in all
the--if you went through a checklist of all the things that my
father believed in, that he fought for, that my uncle believed
in and fought for, I would check every box. I feel my party is
departing--has departed from some of those core values. One of
the reasons that I want to run for President is to reclaim my
party for those.
It's got--listen, this is not a partisan issue, the First
Amendment. It just seems crazy to me that anybody thinks that
it's OK to censor.
There's a lot of information that I don't like. There's
hateful information. As the Chair was saying, in 1977 the ACLU
went out and supported Nazis who were walking through a Jewish
neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. They said, that's important.
We hate what they're saying. We're repulsed by it. We cannot
survive as a democracy if we are not ready to die for the right
for even people who are appalling to speak. The democracy won't
work. Unfortunately, there's--
Chair Jordan. Time.
Mr. Kennedy. --no other way to control it but through the
First Amendment and free speech.
Mr. Massie. Amen. Thank you for those comments.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ranking Member, I have one other question I could ask, but
I would first give you a chance to ask a question if you had
it. I just have one quick question for Mr. Kennedy, but I want
to be fair. If you've got an extra question you want to ask Ms.
Wiley or any of the witnesses, I'll turn to you first.
Ms. Plaskett. I wasn't prepared for that, so if you could--
Chair Jordan. Well, I'm sorry. I just have--
Ms. Plaskett. --give me a second.
Chair Jordan. I thought I was going to get 15 seconds from
Mr. Massie, but we were unable to do that.
Ms. Plaskett. Sure. Thank you, sir.
I did want to ask Ms. Wiley regarding--we had a
discussion--and it was brought up by one of the witnesses--
related to the website Gab.
If you could tell us--it seems to me that, while Mr.
Kennedy is here, he claims to have been censored, but, in
reality, his group, Children's Health Defense, has been allowed
to say whatever they want on Gab.
Can you share what Gab is?
Ms. Wiley. Gab is an online community that explicitly
states that it wants to create a Christian political economy.
It is a space where researchers have identified a massive
influx of extremist and also explicitly antisemitic engagement
and behavior.
I'm not saying that's about everyone who participates, but
that has been documented. As I stated earlier, the murderer,
convicted murderer, in the Tree of Life massacre actually spent
a lot of time on that.
It was deplatformed because it was not--was not--adhering
to some of the social media policies about identifying that
kind of speech.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
Actually, I'm going to let Mr. Johnson of Louisiana have
our one minute here, but I think he wants to wait for Mr.
Kennedy to--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, I can ask it of Mr. Sauer.
Chairman Jordan. OK.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm sorry that Mr. Goldman left,
because we talked a lot about evidence.
Isn't it true, in your litigation, Missouri v. Biden, that
Elvis Chan, who was one of the FBI agents in charge of the FBI
online censorship program, testified under oath in the
litigation, and the court noted it in the opinion, that he had
a 50-percent success rate? In other words, when the FBI brought
to the social media platforms content or posts that they said
was disfavored speech for whatever reason, 50 percent of it was
taken down. Isn't that true?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is there any other glaring piece
of evidence that Mr. Goldman might have missed in his review of
that outcome? We've got a second or two here.
Mr. Sauer. There is so much evidence, I couldn't possibly
summarize it all. Eighty-two pages of factual findings, tens of
thousands of pages of emails and other documents, six full-
length depositions.
I'd just quote what the U.S. Department of Justice attorney
said in oral argument in front of Judge Doty on May 26th. He
said, ``How can I be sure that this won't happen again?'' she
answered, ``It's not the government's position that this will
never happen again.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To be fair, I'm out of time. I
yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We
appreciate the work you're doing to defend the First Amendment.
Thank you for just very compelling answers and compelling
testimony and the work you've done and how important this is
for the country. I mean, if we don't have a First Amendment,
it's just--I'm frightened by where we go.
Mr. Kennedy. May I, Mr. Chair?
Ms. Plaskett. No, you may not. You may not.
Mr. Chair--
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to respond.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair--
Chair Jordan. I don't think--
Ms. Plaskett. The time is out. We're done.
Chair Jordan. I haven't adjourned the hearing, and I don't
think you're the Chair.
Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. I want to--
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair--Mr. Chair, I--this--
Chair Jordan. Chair's discretion. I'm going to let Mr.
Kennedy--
Ms. Plaskett. I know it's your discretion, but--
Chair Jordan. We're going to let Mr. Kennedy--
Ms. Plaskett. --he has had so much additional time.
Chair Jordan. Well, I think everyone's had additional time.
I mean, why--
Ms. Plaskett. Why I mean, why? Why are you doing that
specifically for him--
Chair Jordan. Because we don't want--
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to explain the super-PAC--
Ms. Plaskett. --as opposed to other people?
Chair Jordan. I'm sure the witness--
Ms. Plaskett. He may explain in other places.
Chair Jordan. I'm sure the Democratic witness will be as
short as he possibly can.
Ms. Plaskett. No. No.
Chair Jordan. I'll let you respond.
Ms. Plaskett. No. Are you going to allow our witness to
just give another piece of--
Mr. Kennedy. I want acknowledge--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No. Let him address the
defamatory comment that was made about him that's untrue.
Ms. Plaskett. It was not defamatory. That is a legal
definition that was not met.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to acknowledge information about the
super-PAC that you mentioned.
Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. I've just been told that the super-PAC is
connected to somebody that we have a connection to. It's not a
super-PAC that I've endorsed, and it's not one, as I said, that
I've ever heard of.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for that statement, and
I thank you for your testimony.
The Committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116258.
[a]l]