    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   BRAZIL: A CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM,
                              AND RULE OF LAW?
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH,
                              GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS,
                        AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  May 7, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-97

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    56-121 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     	GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania		BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California		GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri			WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    BRIAN MAST, Florida			GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    KEN BUCK, Colorado			AMI BERA, California
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee			JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee		DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky			TED LIEU, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas			SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    YOUNG KIM, California			DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida		COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan			ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 		SARA JACOBS, California
        American Samoa			KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas			SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			      Florida
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana			GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida			MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS KEAN, Jr., New Jersey		JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York		JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    CORY MILLS, Florida			SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia			JIM COSTA, California
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas			JASON CROW, Colorado
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan			BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas

                    Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
                    Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
                                      ------

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL
                                 ORGANIZATIONS

                    CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania, Ranking
    AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa          Member
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                AMI BERA, California
    RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia              SARA JACOBS, California
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY MANNING, North Carolina

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith.....     1
    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Susan Wild...................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Christopher Pavlovski, Chairman and Ceo, Rumble.....     8
      Prepared Statement.............................................    11
    Statement of Michael Shellenberger, Investigative Journalist.....    14
      Prepared Statement.............................................    17
    Statement of Paulo Figueiredo, Investigative Journalist..........    51
      Prepared Statement.............................................    55
    Statement of Fabio De Sa E Silva, Professor of Brazilian Studies,
      University of Oklahoma.........................................    68
      Prepared Statement.............................................    70

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................   110
    Hearing Minutes..................................................   112
    Hearing Attendance...............................................   113

                            Materials for the Record

    Statement submitted by Chairman Christopher Smith................   114
    Statement submitted by Allan Dos Santos..........................   120
    Statement of ASFAV 1.............................................   123
    Statement of ASFAV 2.............................................   130
    Statement submitted by Ludmila L. Grilo..........................   137
    Statement submitted by Rep. James McGovern.......................   146
    Senate January 8, 2023 Commission Report.........................   148
    Material submitted by Gustavo Gayer..............................   156

            BRAZIL: A CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, AND RULE OF LAW?

                                  ----------

                              Tuesday, May 7, 2024

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights,
                       and International Organizations,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The hearing of the subcommittee will come to
    order.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

        I will welcome our very distinguished witnesses and our
    very esteemed guests who are here, many of whom are Members of
    Congress from Brazil. Thank you for making that trip, and I
    will be introducing you a little later on. But I am very
    grateful for your physical presence.
        Since late 2022, Brazilians have been subject to grave
    human rights violations committed by Brazilian officials on a
    vast scale. Documented rights violations in Brazil include the
    political abuse of legal procedures to persecute political
    opposition, including jailing opposition figures on spurious
    charges; violations of freedom of speech and media freedom,
    including persecution of journalists; the silencing of
    opposition media; banning individuals from social media; thinly
    veiled censorship laws claiming to fight disinformation, and
    many violations of rule of law and judicial malfeasance.
        The government of Brazil has pursued Brazilian journalists
    and political opponents in the United States of America as
    well. It has used Interpol Red Notices, social intimidation,
    threats of legal action and extradition, and according to one
    credible victim of transnational repression, has sought to use
    the FBI as a carrier or a conduit to its intimidation.
        I would point out that legislation that I have introduced
    on transnational repression will be soon marked up by the
    committee. Michael McCaul--and I am the prime sponsor of it--
    has said it will be on our next markup. And that is designed to
    stop governments, including China and other dictatorships, from
    intimidating people here in the United States in such a callous
    way, which is what they do.
        In December 2022, Mary O'Grady, who writes a weekly column
    on Latin America for The Wall Street Journal, noted that the
    crackdown is ordered not by the executive, but by the judicial
    branch. Quote, ``A greater threat,'' as she points out, ``is
    the 11-member Supreme Court, which is overstepping its
    jurisdiction and flouting the rule of law for political reasons
    without consequences. When the highest court becomes an ally of
    ideological and corrupt politicians, democracy is in grave
    danger.''
        She goes on, ``Brazil has arrived at such a moment. The
    court censored other political speech from business leaders,
    elected officials of Congress--Members of Congress--and news-
    and-entertainment platforms on the right. This has been carried
    out with assistance from the electoral tribunal's `special
    advisory to combat disinformation.' It acts as a ministry of
    truth,'' so-called.
        In fact, the crackdown is largely in the name of one man,
    Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. In late
    January 2023, The New York Times reported, referring to Moraes.
    Quote, this is from The New York Times:
        ``Using a broad interpretation of the court's powers, he
    has pushed to investigate and prosecute, as well as to silence
    on social media, anyone he deems a menace to Brazil's
    institutions. He has jailed people without trial for posting
    threats on social media; helped sentence a sitting Congressman
    to nearly 9 years in prison for threatening the court; ordered
    raids on businessmen with little evidence of wrongdoing;
    suspended an elected Governor from his job, and unilaterally
    blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social
    media, with virtually no transparency or room for appeal.''
        That is The New York Times article.
        Since January 2023, the abuses have grown and spread in
    expanding waves of persecution. Yet, almost all the major media
    have almost ignored this story. And that has got to change.
        This hearing, hopefully, will be a pivot and we will begin
    on this committee, and I have legislation that I'm working on
    right now that will be a democracy act. And I have written many
    of them in the past. The Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 is law
    of the land, and many others. This one will be focused on
    Brazilian human rights and democracy, or lack thereof.
        Although the Western media and prominent human rights
    groups have said little, others have stepped in and gathered a
    vast amount of additional evidence about an expanding wave of
    grave human rights abuses in Brazil--social media bans,
    political persecutions/prosecutions, jailing opposition on
    spurious charges, thinly veiled censorship laws, all, again,
    claiming to fight disinformation.
        We will hear from some of these people today as part of our
    distinguished panel. The testimony of Michael Shellenberger is
    all the more fascinating because, long ago, he was drawn to
    Lula. He interviewed Lula in 1994 and asked him whether his
    socialism would lead to censorship. He said emphatically, this
    is Lula now, ``No. The Brazilian people love freedom too
    much,'' as did he.
        Shellenberger is now a renowned investigative journalist.
    He documents the systematic, far-reaching efforts of the
    supreme court justice to ban and punish political opponents of
    the Lula government--to do so in secrecy, to further pursue
    anyone who reveals or discusses what he is doing, and the fear
    he has inspired.
        We will also hear the harrowing personal testimony of Paulo
    Figueiredo. Paulo is a prominent Brazilian journalist living in
    Miami. He opposed riots, but also at many points opposed or
    questioned the government.
        The Brazilian government blocked him from all social media
    platforms, including YouTube and Twitter, froze his assets, and
    subjected him to exorbitant fees. Pursuing Paulo to Rumble, the
    government eventually forced the closure of Rumble in Brazil
    and moved on to additional measures of intimidation. Paulo will
    cite a long list of other journalists who have suffered
    similarly, and many of these he is in personal contact with.
        I always believe the journalists are like the canary in the
    coal mine when it comes to human rights. When they speak out,
    we need to listen. They are the whistleblowers.
        So, thank you, Paulo, for your bravery and your
    steadfastness on the right of free speech.
        Paulo and other Brazilians fighting for human rights have
    found their greatest ally perhaps in Elon Musk. On April 6th
    and 7th, in a series of tweets and retweets heard around the
    world, Musk, the owner of X, formerly Twitter, described the
    secretive, sweeping regime of censorship, the attempt to
    prevent him from even talking about the censorship orders, and
    threats to the company that he was receiving.
        Musk announced that this, quote--and this is him, his
    quote--``This aggressive censorship appears to violate the
    law''--and that's Brazilian law he is talking about--``and the
    will of the people of Brazil.'' Musk announced that he would
    defy the court's order and lifted all restrictions. He went on
    to say that X will publish everything demanded by Alexandre,
    and how those requests violate Brazilian law. ``The judge has
    brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and the
    people of Brazil,'' he goes on to say in his tweet.
        Confirming everything Paulo and Michael Shellenberger have
    said about Brazil, de Moraes added Musk to his fake news
    investigation and opened an inquiry on Musk for what he called,
    ``an obstruction of justice.''
        Free speech, media freedom, censorship--these are becoming
    some of the most important human rights abuses of our times.
    Because without freedom of expression, we are unable to defend
    against any other human rights abuse.
        In 2006--and I have chaired well over 500 human rights
    hearings on human rights in my career as a Member of Congress--
    but one of those, and one of the most important, was in 2006.
    And this is right up there as one of the most important ever. I
    chaired an historic hearing on the complicity of Yahoo,
    Microsoft, Cisco, and Google in China's regime of internet
    censorship and surveillance.
        Four of the top people from those companies or vice
    presidents, I swore them in right where you are sitting and
    asked them hard questions about how they were helping the
    Chinese Communist Party track down human rights defenders,
    journalists, and others.
        They said, ``We're just following orders. If the Chinese
    Secret Police come and ask us for information,'' what do they
    do? They turn it all over, including personally identifiable
    information that leads to more arrests. And that is exactly
    what happened.
        Yahoo, there was a guy named Shi Tao who talked about how
    they were told, ``You cannot talk about Tiananmen Square.'' He
    sent out a memo on that that went to New York. He got 10 years
    in prison, and Yahoo were the ones who opened up the
    information that was used to prosecute him in a kangaroo court
    in the People's Republic of China.
        So, free speech is important. And again, this reminds me of
    that hearing--where we have Lula, who is a socialist, who is
    not abiding by the rule of law; is mirroring exactly what the
    Chinese Communist Party has done.
        In recent years, we have had wave after wave of revelations
    of our own government's activities in pursuing companies to
    censor, limit, manipulate, and control information. Today, many
    elected officials, as well as leading newspapers and media
    organizations, openly support the call for more censorship.
        We need more speech, not less, more speech. And, you know,
    I was talking to Chris earlier from Rumble, and that was
    precisely his point. More speech, let people speak out. That is
    what free speech is all about.
        We are going to hear today from star witnesses who have
    assembled a galaxy of evidence of widespread politically
    motivated censorship and persecution in Brazil.
        I will also be submitting questions to the Biden
    administration about its relationships and interactions with
    the government of Brazil on the issues we are raising in this
    hearing today.
        As I indicated earlier, I am working on legislation, a
    Brazil Freedom of Democracy Act, that will require the U.S.
    Government to engage more vigorously with Brazil on the side of
    freedom and human rights.
        Mary O'Grady, again, from The Wall Street Journal, summed
    it up so well when she said about Brazil, ``The grim reality in
    Brazil is that democracy is dying in broad daylight.''
        Again, I want to thank the many Brazilians who are here,
    who made the trip. I want to thank our distinguished witnesses.
        And I yield to my friend and colleague, the ranking member,
    Ms. Wild.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SUSAN WILD

        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome to all who are participating here today or
    attending.
        With all due respect to everyone involved in this hearing,
    I would like to say at the outset that this is not the hearing
    on Brazil that I believe we should be having today. The hearing
    I believe we should be having is one focused on the 200th
    anniversary this year of the bilateral relationship between the
    United States and Brazil, the two largest democracies in the
    Western Hemisphere.
        The hearing I believe we should be having is one focused on
    the many areas of cooperation between our two countries--on
    labor and workers' rights; climate and protecting the Amazon;
    combating hunger, poverty, and violence, and expanding
    sustainable and broad-based economic growth, stability,
    security, and peace throughout the Hemisphere. Above all, we
    should be working to advance our critical partnership with
    Brazil in a spirit of mutual respect.
        Unfortunately, the framing of this hearing, which I believe
    presents a distorted view of Brazilian democracy and provides a
    platform to those seeking to undermine it, does the opposite of
    that. Rather than strengthening our relationship, a hearing
    like this serves only to damage and undermine it.
        Brazil is a strong and vibrant democracy with a robust
    civil society and media; a multitude of political parties
    representing a huge political spectrum, and an electoral system
    that is rightly considered to be one of the most secure and
    rapid in the world.
        Like all democracies, including right here in the United
    States, there are healthy debates to be had about aspects of
    the country's institutions, but I want to be clear: internal
    politics and debates on constitutional and legal issues should
    be decided by the Brazilian people, their elected
    representatives, and Brazil's judiciary. The U.S. Congress is
    not the forum for it. We can and should continue to find areas
    for cooperation and mutual advancement, but we should not and
    cannot act as if we somehow have a mandate to weigh in on the
    internal mechanisms of Brazil's institutions.
        Democracies are different, each informed by their own
    history. Brazil's 1988 constitution was shaped by a military
    dictatorship that usurped power through a military coup and
    brutally ruled the country from 1964 to 1985. Many of the
    people who lived through these horrific years still remember
    state-led extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture.
    Brazil's democracy responded by providing courts with the
    mandate to protect its hard-won democracy and prevent
    authoritarianism from taking root again. What we will hear
    today from some witnesses is an attempt to undermine Brazil's
    judicial process.
        Former President Bolsonaro's conduct in office; his praise
    for the military dictatorship; his calls for violence against
    his political opponents; his refusal to acknowledge his 2022
    election loss; his attempt to engineer a coup, and his
    incitement of the January 8th attacks triggered laws in place
    designed to serve as a check on executive power resulting from
    the coup in 1964.
        Brazilian law enforcement and judiciary have refused to
    stand by idly in response to the most serious threat to
    Brazil's democracy since the military dictatorship. They have
    responded robustly, according to their constitution and their
    legal system, which, again, have key differences with ours in
    the United States.
        Brazil, like France, Germany, and other Western European
    countries whose democratic credentials would likely not be
    questioned by anyone in this room, has a different conception
    of freedom of speech than we have here in the United States.
    Brazil's approach to freedom of speech, while broad, includes
    guardrails informed by this recent history.
        The title of today's hearing is: ``Brazil: A Crisis of
    Democracy, Freedom, and Rule of Law?'' Mr. Chairman,
    respectfully, I would ask, where was the hearing about
    Brazilian democracy when we learned about then-President
    Bolsonaro's efforts to foment a military coup? Where was the
    hearing after supporters of former President Bolsonaro led a
    coordinated attempt to overthrow the country's democracy on
    January 8th, 2023?
        This brings us to January 8th and the parallels between
    January 6th, 2021 and January 8, 2023. Put simply, the January
    8th attack, conducted in the manner it was, was clearly
    inspired by the January 6th attack. I believe we need more
    investigation of the connections between the two events and the
    role that individuals in the United States may have played in
    the coup attempt, including far-right public figures who used
    their platforms to, at a minimum, express support for a coup.
        This is another essential question I would have liked to
    see reflected in the framing of this hearing: how precisely did
    2020 U.S. election deniers and the January 6th attack here in
    the United States enable the attempt to reject the results of
    the 2002 election in Brazil and to attempt a coup on January
    8th? And can Members of Congress in both countries work
    together to strength our democracies in the face of these
    threats?
        I have with me today a copy of the report issued by
    Brazil's Parliamentary Inquiry Commission on the January 8th
    attacks. It contains critical findings. Mr. Chairman, I am
    submitting excerpts of the report for the record.
        I am also entering a statement prepared by Representative
    Jim McGovern, the co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights
    Commission, into the record.

        [The information referred to is located in the Appendix]

        Ms. Wild. As it happens, this year marks the 60th
    anniversary of the 1964 coup that led to Brazil's military
    dictatorship. Part of democracy means being honest about the
    instances in which we fall short of the ideals that we
    proclaim. The U.S. Government's involvement in and support for
    the 1964 coup was such a moment in our history.
        In this hearing, let us be cognizant of the history between
    our countries. Let us approach our vital relationship with
    Brazil as a partnership of equals, not one in which the United
    States seeks to dictate events or interfere with Brazilian
    democracy.
        Let us learn from the consequences of past actions and
    remember that the role of the United States should not be to
    interfere in internal judicial proceedings, or worse,
    destabilize democratically elected leaders who disagree with
    aspects of United States policy, but, rather, to build durable
    alliances around the world--understanding that we will have
    differences, even with close partners and allies.
        Brazil's 2022 elections were free and fair. The U.S.
    Government, alongside the international community, recognized
    the results immediately. In response to the attempts to
    overturn the election results, Brazil's institutions prevailed;
    democracy prevailed; the Brazilian people prevailed. This is
    the vision that I intend to defend in today's hearing and
    beyond.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        I will introduce our very distinguished witnesses, but just
    make a couple of points.
        One, the Republicans were not in control of the House. The
    Democrats were in control of the House. So, the hearings that
    you mentioned should have been had. It could have been done by
    the Democrats. It was not done or contemplated, as far as I
    know. So, I just think, for the record, that needs to be known.
        I am a firm believer that friends don't let friends commit
    human rights abuses. We have an obligation, a moral obligation,
    that is not so easily satisfied. When we see human rights
    abuses that are occurring, whether they be underreported by
    certain aspects of the human rights community or not, they need
    to be exposed.
        This violation of religious freedom--of free speech is very
    profound. It is getting worse. And I think we have a moral
    obligation.
        Also, one other thing. I was engaged in the effort to bring
    David Goldman's son Sean Goldman back from Brazil when Lula was
    the President before. We tried very hard to get hearings. We
    finally had one. I got a resolution passed on the floor of the
    House.
        In complete violation of The Hague Convention on Criminal
    Abduction--because they are signatories to it--Lula and his
    government refused to abide by that international set of
    principles established by the United Nations. We are part of
    that Hague Convention, as is Brazil. And it took the threat of
    taking away GSP, Generalized Systems of Preferences, in order
    to get the Brazilian government to say, ``We'd better let this
    little boy leave and be joined with his father.''
        I learned the hard way. I went to Brazil twice during that
    ordeal. And again, Lula was of no help. He was on the other
    side of that situation. And that is a human rights issue of the
    highest level.
        So now, we are talking about free speech, and we are
    talking about in terms of right now it is being violated, I
    believe with impunity. And we need to speak out. We need to
    speak with one voice. Because friends don't let friends commit
    human rights abuses.
        I would like to now introduce Chris Pavlovski, who is the
    founder and chief executive officer of Rumble. As a three-times
    successful entrepreneur, Mr. Pavlovski has founded Cosmic
    Development in 2011, a global IT business employing 150
    employees with offices in Europe and North America. The
    business was ranked as the second-best employer in Macedonia
    and has been the recipient of numerous awards. Mr. Pavlovski
    also sits on numerous boards, including Macedonia 2025, a not-
    for-profit focused on economic and educational development in
    that country.
        Michael Shellenberger is founder and president of
    Environmental Progress and CVR Chair of Politics, Censorship,
    and Free Speech at the University of Austin. He is also a
    leading investigative journalist who has broken major stories
    on crime and drug policy, homelessness, Amazon deforestation,
    rising climate resilience, growing eco-anxiety, the U.S.
    Government's role in the fracking revolution and climate
    change, and California fires. He has testified to Congress at
    many hearings, including in recent years on AI and censorship,
    on Big Tech censorship, and on the ``Censorship-Industrial
    Complex,'' as he puts it.
        Paulo Figueiredo--I always have a little problem with
    that--is an investigative journalist. As a journalist, Paulo
    stands out as one of the most well-known figures in Brazilian
    journalism/media. When he appeared on JP News Network, his show
    was an absolute leader in audience ratings for various
    television programs. On his social media account and YouTube
    channel, he has millions of subscribers seeking a perspective
    absent from the legacy media. He currently hosts his own show
    which leads the audience ratings in its time slot on the
    internet. In 2022, the supreme court of Brazil blocked all of
    his social media accounts in Brazil, froze all of his financial
    assets, and canceled his passport--without any form of
    communication or accusation.
        Fabio de Sa e Silva is associate professor of international
    studies and Wick Cary professor of Brazilian studies at the
    University of Oklahoma, and an affiliated fellow at Harvard Law
    School Center on the Legal Profession. In Brazil, he served in
    the Ministry of Justice and the Institute for Applied Economic
    Research, and consulted for UNDP, UNESCO, and the International
    Bar Association's Human Rights Institute. Fabio is the author
    of high-impact studies of law, lawyers, and democracy. He is
    frequently sought after by the media to comment on Brazilian
    affairs.
        Chris, the floor is yours.

                   STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER PAVLOVSKI

        Mr. Pavlovski. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    come before you today to discuss the importance of protecting
    the freedoms of speech and expression.
        My name is Chris Pavlovski. I'm a native of Toronto,
    Canada, and the chairman and CEO of Rumble. When I founded
    Rumble in 2013, incumbent platforms had become beholden to
    large creators, brands, and large corporations. Rumble provides
    an alternative for small and independent creators to speak
    their minds, express their opinions, own their narrative, build
    communities, and maximize their earnings. Our company was
    founded on a mission to protect a free and open internet, as we
    believe everyone benefits when there is a diverse marketplace
    of ideas, opinions, and dialogs.
        In late 2020 and into 2021, we realized the power of our
    mission as millions of users followed creators to the emerging
    platform--with little to no marketing. Some of Rumble's largest
    creators, including former Congressman Devin Nunes, Dan
    Bongino, Glenn Greenwald, and former Democratic Presidential
    candidate Tulsi Gabbard, also joined the platform during this
    time.
        As a result, Rumble saw its average monthly active users
    increase dramatically--from 1.6 million in the third quarter of
    2020 to 36 million in the third quarter of 2021. In other
    words, we saw an increase of 22-and-a-half times the number of
    users in just one calendar year.
        In September 2022, Rumble successfully went public,
    relocating our headquarters to the United States and trading on
    the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol RUM, R-U-M. We have expanded
    our video content into new verticals, like sports, lifestyle,
    hip hop, and video gaming. Beyond the video-sharing platform,
    Rumble now offers the Rumble Advertising Center, Rumble Studio
    livestreaming software, and the Rumble Cloud.
        Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the
    cornerstones of a democratic society. I know that is not a
    foreign idea to the members on this subcommittee who have
    witnessed these rights used to protest tyrannical governments
    around the world and inequalities here in the United States.
        Freedom of expression is so important that not only is it
    the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it
    is also Article 19 in the United Nations Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights.
        Without these freedoms, we may have never learned the
    stories of Frederick Douglass during the abolition movement in
    the 1830's or witnessed the civil rights movement of the
    1960's; the women's rights movements of the 1970's, or the Arab
    Spring in the early 2010's.
        It is extremely troubling to me that, in 2024, I have to
    come before the U.S. Congress to testify that these fundamental
    rights are being threatened. For years, we saw platforms
    shadowban ideas they did not agree with. It was subtle
    suppression of ideas and opinions that did not fit the norm, as
    dictated by algorithms.
        Today, the censorship we see is much more overt.
    Governments are acting in ways we only imagined happening 50 to
    60 years ago--openly asking platforms to censor and take down
    disfavored content. They are back in the business of thinking
    they know what's best--dictating and controlling conversations
    and stripping the human right to speak and share freely.
        These are not theoretical fears. These things are
    happening, and I know this personally, as the CEO of a platform
    that receives demands from governments around the world.
        One of the first instances of government censorship we
    experienced did not come as a surprise, as it came from
    Communist China. Communist governments often crack down on a
    variety of freedoms, including freedom of expression.
        However, we were surprised in 2022 when we received a
    request from the French government to block certain news
    sources. People can certainly question the trustworthiness of
    news sources, but it should not be any government's job to
    selectively eliminate access to information. Rather than comply
    with the French government's request, we simply disabled the
    access to the platform in France and challenged the legality of
    this demand.
        To be clear, Rumble has a strong set of content guidelines
    under our terms and conditions, but the content the French
    government was asking us to censor did not violate any of our
    terms. Instead, it was regarding Russian news outlets.
        Earlier this year, we received requests from the Brazilian
    government to remove certain creators from our platform. Again,
    the content did not violate our terms and conditions, but,
    instead, shared opinions that were unpopular in Brazil at the
    time.
        Rumble made a very tough decision not to comply with the
    government's request. As with France, we chose to disable
    access for our users in Brazil, while we challenged the
    legality of the supreme court's demands.
        It does not stop there. Just last month, we received
    requests from New Zealand and Australia to censor politically
    unpopular content. Countries in every hemisphere, all of the
    members of the United Nations, are no longer upholding the
    human right to freedom of expression. This is getting out of
    control and it should alarm everyone in this room.
        As this committee knows, the United States is involved in
    so many initiatives to protect democracy around the world, but
    when it comes to defending the freedom of speech and protecting
    American businesses who attempt to uphold this right in Brazil,
    the United States has been silent. It cannot remain so.
        It does not matter which platform hosts the content. Today
    is Rumble; yesterday it was X, but tomorrow it could be The New
    York Times. The platforms shouldn't matter. The universal right
    to freedom of speech and expression, the core of Western
    democracy is at stake. America needs to step up and take a
    leading role.
        Rumble will never back down from our mission. We are the
    tip of the spear in this fight and we relish that. We urge
    everyone, especially the U.S. State Department, to join us.
        I will close with one final thought. Every totalitarian
    regime that has crushed the rights of individuals has sought to
    control what people can say and hear. It's never the good guys
    doing the censoring. If the United States won't stand up for
    freedom of speech, who will?
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today. I
    look forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pavlovski follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
        I would like to now recognize Mr. Shellenberger.

                   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

        Mr. Shellenberger. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Wild,
    thank you very much for inviting my testimony.
        Brazil has been a liberal democracy for over 30 years.
    During that period, there have been free and fair elections;
    people have been free to express their views, and it is notable
    to me that Brazil's own constitution specifically protects
    political freedom of speech. Quote, ``Any and all censorship of
    a political, ideological, and artistic nature,'' reads Chapter
    5, Article 220, paragraph 2, of the Brazilian Constitution,
    ``is prohibited.''
        Today, Brazil is no longer a liberal democracy. It is an
    illiberal one where people, including former Workers' Party
    members and prominent legal scholars, say they fear speaking
    their minds, including about the illiberalism of their country,
    for fear of punishment. And for simply exposing this fact, I
    now find myself under criminal investigation by Brazil's
    Federal police and attorney general.
        The evidence suggests that the Federal Supreme Court, the
    STF, and the Superior Electoral Court, the TSE, which are under
    the heavy influence of a single justice named Alexandre de
    Moraes, are directly interfering in elections by demanding the
    de-platforming of independent journalists and politicians on
    every major social media platform.
        De Moraes is not simply demanding that social media
    platforms censor specific content by controversial journalists
    and politicians. He is demanding that all social media
    platforms ban them for life, and he often does so through
    secret hearings without the right of appeal.
        It is important to stress this point: one cannot be a
    politician or an independent journalist in the age of the
    internet if you cannot communicate on social media. As such,
    the censorship in Brazil is the worst I have seen in any
    Western democracy. De Moraes has acted unilaterally to invent
    whole new laws. Therefore, interfering not only with elections,
    but also taking over the role of Congress.
        My involvement began on April 3d, 2024, when I published
    the Twitter Files-Brazil. They show Supreme Court Justice de
    Moraes had illegally demanded that Twitter reveal private
    information about Twitter users who used hash tags he
    considered inappropriate and demanded the de-platforming of
    independent journalists and politicians.
        Three days later on April 6th, X Corporation, formerly
    Twitter, announced that a Brazilian court had forced it to,
    quote, ``block certain popular accounts in Brazil.'' One hour
    later, X's owner Elon Musk announced that X would defy the
    court's order and lift all restrictions.
        One day later, April 7th, de Moraes announced a criminal
    investigation into Musk for allegedly spreading disinformation,
    obstructing justice, and allowing people who de Moraes had
    banned from social media to freely express their views. De
    Moraes said he would fine X $20,000 per day for every banned
    person Musk allowed to speak. On April 15th, X's top attorney
    in Brazil resigned his post--fearing for his safety.
        On April 18th and April 19th, Brazil's Federal police
    published two reports that suggested that I was under criminal
    investigation for publishing the Twitter Files-Brazil. The
    reports claim that the people who de Moraes had demanded be
    censored had gained limited access to communicate on X,
    particularly through X's Spaces, which allows for live
    conversation.
        This is, yet, more evidence that de Moraes is obsessed with
    silencing his enemies. It was not enough for X to have blocked
    their profiles within Brazil. De Moraes, also, does not want
    those individuals to be able to use their voices.
        The Federal police reports that singled me out suggested
    that it was somehow suspicious that I only have one paid
    subscription on X, which is to Elon Musk, but there's nothing
    suspicious about this. I am paying Musk, not the other way
    around. And as the police report notes, Musk takes a percentage
    of the revenue of the people who subscribe to my content on X.
        I will note, in a moment of irony and some levity, that
    this police report reproduced the banner from my profile page
    on X, which reads, ``Defund the thought police.'' I took a
    small amount of pleasure in knowing that the thought police
    were reproducing a slogan against their mission.
        [Laughter.]
        Three days later, Brazil's attorney general, Jorge Messias,
    urged the supreme court to pursue ``criminal prosecution,''
    unquote, and investigation to, quote, ``identify and punish the
    possible culprits.'' His report named me specifically.
        At no point did the attorney general suggest that either I
    or my co-authors, Eli Vieira and David Agape, lied or presented
    inaccurate information. Rather, the attorney general's six-page
    memo, released publicly, claims that I released, quote,
    ``excerpts of content from confidential judicial decisions in
    an attempt to destabilize the democratic State.''
        But both accusations are also untrue. None of the Twitter
    Files-Brazil contained any confidential judicial decisions. The
    Twitter Files-Brazil were strictly emails between Twitter
    staff. There's not a single instance where we published
    confidential judicial decisions.
        But even if we had, the Brazilian constitution reads,
    quote, ``The law may only restrict the publicity of procedural
    acts when the defense of privacy or social interests so
    require,'' Article 5. And in this case, it was imperative that
    we publish the Twitter Files precisely to protect the Brazilian
    public's right to privacy, freedom of speech, and democracy.
        What's more, this attack on me is highly selective.
    Brazilian news media have reported on confidential judicial
    decisions for years and not been subjected to such outrageous
    criminal investigation as the one I am under.
        Finally, there is no law in Brazil attempting to prohibit,
    quote, ``the destabilization of the democratic state'' through
    non-violent means. The law only prohibits violent attacks on
    democracy. As such, the attorney general abuses his power and
    acts as a lawmaker, usurping Brazil's Congress.
        And just imagine for a moment if Brazil criminalized
    something as vague as destabilizing the democratic State. Such
    a law would allow President Lula to lock up non-violent
    protestors, journalists, and his political rivals.
        While in Brazil, I interviewed dozens of Brazilians,
    including professors, journalists, and respected lawyers. The
    vast majority told me they were shocked by what is happening
    and that they are too afraid to speak their minds about it
    publicly.
        We are at a very dangerous moment. Brazil's democracy is at
    risk, despite its strong constitutional protections.
        Thank you for asking for my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shellenberger follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
        I would like to now ask Paulo if he would make his
    presentation.

                      STATEMENT OF PAULO FIGUEIREDO

        Mr. Figueiredo. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wild, and
    distinguished Members of the House, my name is Paulo
    Figueiredo, and I am the living, breathing proof of human
    rights violations in Brazil. For doing the work of a good
    journalist, I am censored in all social media; I have my assets
    frozen, and my Brazilian passport canceled--all without due
    process.
        I come from a family with a long legacy of fighting
    tyrannical. My great-grandfather, General Euclydes Figueiredo,
    led a revolution against Brazil's most brutal dictator, Getulio
    Vargas. For that, he spent years in dungeon.
        His son, my grandfather, Joao Figueiredo, became Brazil's
    30th president in 1979, tasked with ending the 15-year-long
    military regime. As president, he granted amnesty, held free
    elections, allowed multiple political parties, and by the end
    of his term, peacefully handed power back to civilians--
    restoring free democracy in Brazil.
        And I have imagined this legacy of fighting for individual
    freedoms would span generations and fall upon me as well. Until
    the end of 2022, the year of Brazil's latest Presidential
    action, I was a political commentator on JP News, a TV network
    often compared to U.S. Fox News. The primetime show I was in
    had been voted the best in the country and had more viewers
    than the next two networks combined, including the local CNN. I
    had over 5 million followers across all social media with
    higher engagement than virtually any other journalist in
    Brazil. By any account, I was one of the most influential
    journalists in the country--until I started being targeted by a
    series of decisions from the highest court in the land.
        In December 2022, I had all my social media accounts
    blocked for Brazilians. Later, I learned that the order would
    extend to freezing my financial assets; suspending the
    confidentiality of my financial transactions; threatening
    exorbitant fines every time I said something that displeased
    Justice Alexandre de Moraes, and even canceling my Brazilian
    passport.
        I disappeared from my entire audience. This is the modern
    equivalent of being sent to a dungeon, as was my great-
    grandfather.
        In January 2024, following Lula's inauguration and the
    January 8th riots, Brazil's Department of Justice opened a case
    against JP News, accusing the channel of fomenting the revolt.
    Demonetized by YouTube, faced with a new criminal case and
    threat of losing its public concession, JP News gave in and
    laid off all its conservative commentators and adopted a more
    Moraes-friendly editorial stance.
        I was unemployed with all my assets frozen and my work
    blocked. Rumble and Locals promised to always stand for freedom
    of expression. So, I joined, quickly becoming one of the
    biggest content creators in both with 120,00 subscribers on
    Rumble and nearly 60,000 subscribers and 2,000 paid subscribers
    on Locals.
        However, in December 2023, pressured by absurd orders
    issued by Moraes, with me being one of the main targets, I
    believe, both platforms closed access to all Brazilians. The
    financial loss has been unbearable.
        On February 8th, 2024, Brazil newspapers reported a new
    offensive against me. I was apparently being investigated for
    accurately reporting on primetime TV the behind-the-scenes
    meetings of the Brazilian army's high command in December 2022.
        In this investigation, a new measure was issued prohibiting
    me from having contact with former President Bolsonaro and any
    other person investigated--a clear intimidation tactic that
    hinders my journalist activities.
        There's one single name behind every one of these
    decisions. That's Alexandre de Moraes. Remember this name. He
    is the de facto dictator of Brazil. He is a supreme court
    justice, the head of the Superior Electoral Court, known as
    TSE, and the man in charge of the infamous fake news probe,
    which began in 2019 and is still open--an alarming cavy.
        Through all this, my work was being carried out from my
    studio in Florida, where I have been residing since 2016. I
    have, therefore, been under the jurisdiction of this country
    the entire time, and consequently, protected by the rights
    guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
    United States of America.
        American companies have been obeying legal orders directly
    from Brazilian judges without following your national
    procedures and sharing data of individuals under American
    jurisdiction. This Congress should address this issue, as it
    not only violates our constitutional rights, but also exposes
    an intelligence risk and potentially violates the FCPA.
        By no means, I was the only journalist affected. On the
    same day, award-winning journalists and best-selling authors
    Rodrigo Constantino--present here in this hearing--and
    Guilherme Fiuza were targets of nearly identical copy-and-paste
    decisions. Other journalists, such as Allan dos Santos--also
    present here today--had faced even harsher measures, including
    arrest orders. Libertarian podcaster Monark, known as the
    Brazilian Joe Rogan, suffered a similar fate. They are both
    exiled in the United States.
        There are numbers of other examples, including comedians or
    even a judge, Ludmila Lins Grilo--here in the audience--or
    Congressmen, like Nikolas Ferriera and Gustavo Gayer; also
    present here, Marcel van Hattem, Carla Joagia
        [phonetic], Alice Shandri Hamaji
        [phonetic], Carla Zambelli, many other Members of Congress,
    and even Senator Marcos do Val, who had their social media
    blocked, offices raided, or passports taken by Moraes.
    Congressman Daniel Silveira is currently serving 9 years in
    prison for recording a video harshly criticizing Moraes. Former
    Congressman Deltan Dallagnol, the former prosecutor who got
    Lula da Silva convicted for corruption--also here--lost his
    seat by order of Moraes' court.
        A survey showed that 70 percent of Brazilian Members of
    Congress believe the supreme court invades their powers. Some
    two-thirds of Brazilians believe the country lives under a
    judicial dictatorship. Demonstrations with hundreds of
    thousands of people are mostly against Moraes. The Brazilians
    people and Congress know Moraes is out of control, but are
    paralyzed with fear.
        Many ask how one justice can do all these things, given
    that Brazil has laws defending freedom of expression. In fact,
    Alexandre de Moraes does not have this power by law and his
    actions flagrantly violate the Brazilian Constitution,
    specifically, Article 5, items IV and IX, and Article 220, as
    well as international laws to which Brazil is a signatory, such
    as Article 13, Paragraphs 1 and 2, and the American Convention
    of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights.
        These censorship and persecution actions occur with an
    illegal process, such as that mentioned fake news probe, which
    is now investigating even Elon Musk, where Moraes acts as the
    alleged victim, investigator, prosecutor, and judge without the
    right to appeal. He also acts through his seat in TSE, which
    granted itself exceptional powers during the 2022 elections
    that persist to this day.
        These acts occur in a veiled way with cases running under
    legal secrecy and lawyers not having full access to the case
    files. My case is iconic in that sense. For about a year and a
    half, I have been suffering the described penalties without
    being formally notified or informed of any decisions or
    procedures against me--making me unable to defend myself.
        I only accessed the decisions against me when the Judiciary
    Committee of this House subpoenaed X, requesting and
    publicizing Moraes' decision. The content, which generally
    lacks legal basis and specifics on violated laws, shocked me,
    the world, the Brazilian people.
        This secrecy occurs because Brazil has no law criminalizing
    fake news, whatever that is. For these reasons, Moraes
    currently faces 100 complaints in the Inter-American Commission
    of Human Rights. Regretfully, they have been sitting on these
    cases.
        The United States may have a broad role in this sad story
    as well. Some could even say that the U.S. Government and NGO's
    acted directly in strengthening Brazil's censorship apparatus.
        First, the U.S. Government may have assisted the Brazilian
    TSE in developing strategies to, quote-unquote, ``combat
    disinformation'' and strengthen censorship practice--with FBI
    agents and the U.S. Department of Justice officials
    participating in TSE council meetings, with the participation
    as well of the Brazilian Intelligence Agency, ABIN. These
    meetings marked the beginning of TSE's authoritarian
    escalation.
        The tactics outlined in the recent Censorship-Industrial
    Complex Report by this House Committee on the Judiciary, which
    details how the Biden administration coerced Big Tech companies
    to censor Americans, closely resemble the modus operandi in
    Brazil. However, while the Biden administration acted mostly
    informally, Moraes issued judicial orders throughout Brazil's
    highest court threatening fines or complete disconnection from
    Brazil if Big Tech challenged them, as happened to Telegram in
    March 2022.
        American NGO's, including George Soros' Open Society and
    the Ford Foundation and the OAK Foundation funded initiatives
    that worked closely with Moraes. The Atlantic Council, also
    funded by Soros, supplied reports and the theoretical
    foundation crucial to his fake news probe.
        But perhaps the most frightening influence was the
    systematic campaign that used all the soft power of American
    foreign policy as, quote-unquote, ``a discreet campaign to
    defend Brazilian elections,'' according to a 2023 Financial
    Times article. This involved covert actions by high-ranking
    U.S. officials, such as the CIA Director, the Secretary of
    Defense, and Biden's National Security Advisor, who threatened
    public officials, military leaders, and Brazilian politicians
    with sanctions to ensure Moraes was not challenged.
        It's puzzling why the United States, historically a
    promoter of freedom and democracy, would use its top officials
    to support censorship and aid in the ascent of a president
    aligned with China, Russia, Hamas, Cuba, Venezuela, drug
    cartels, and opposed to American interests globally, even
    undermining the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
        CIA Director William Burns and other Biden administration
    key agents continue to meet with officials from the Lula da
    Silva government and TSE in Brazil, focusing on, quote-unquote,
    ``combating disinformation,'' which we know now is a code word
    for censorship of unpleasant speech.
        Additionally, a Brazilian congressional delegation
    supportive of the Lula da Silva regime, including a
    Congresswoman from the communist party, visited Washington, DC,
    last week to meet with members of the Democratic Party and OAS
    representatives.
        Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the immense challenges
    you had to overcome in order for this hearing to happen. Why?
    In Brazil, ultimately, it will be up to the Brazilian people to
    solve their own problems, but it is important that the United
    States of America, once again, becomes a force for freedom and
    no longer for censorship.
        The U.S. Congress has enormous powers in this direction and
    I urge you to use them.
        First, ensure that the Moraes/Lula regime stops operating
    in the shadow. As the Bible says in John 8:32, ``Then you will
    know the truth, and the truth will set you free.''
        Brazil needs to be the subject of more freedom hearings,
    and Congress must continue to use its powers to bring light to
    the facts. Congressmen, visit Brazil. I speak on behalf of the
    Brazilian Congressmen here that you are welcome in our
    Parliament and your presence will bring greater visibility to
    what has been happening.
        Second, exercise oversight power against executive branch
    policies that harm not only freedoms in Brazil, but also U.S.
    global interests--pushing my country toward nations hostile to
    America, such as China.
        Third, withhold funds and resources, not only those
    destined for Brazil, but also for international organizations,
    such as the OAS, that are shirking their roles. The American
    taxpayer should not finance the oppression of my people.
        Finally, produce legislation imposing harsh sanctions on
    the Brazilian government and officials who violate fundamental
    rights and freedoms.
        With this help, I guarantee that my country's institutions
    will react and return our freedoms. This is what I beg of you,
    on behalf of millions of Branch Chiefs.
        God bless America. God bless Brazil.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Figueiredo follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Paulo, thank you very much for your testimony
    and for your recommendations.
        I would like to now recognize Fabio.

                    STATEMENT OF FABIO DE SA E SILVA

        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wild,
    members of this subcommittee, thank you for this invitation and
    the honor to testify before you.
        Thoughts and prayers to the southern Brazilians who are
    going through a massive flood there. You all have my
    solidarity.
        On January 8, 2023, thousands invaded and vandalized the
    headquarters of three government branches in Brazil. This
    didn't happen out of nowhere. It was the result of a long
    process by which politicians, media influencers, and others,
    relying heavily on social media platforms, worked to discredit
    Brazilian institutions and spread two big lies.
        One, that the Brazilian elections had been defrauded and
    Lula da Silva, inaugurated a few days before, was illegitimate.
        Another, that given tensions in society and between
    government branches, the military had constitutional authority
    to take over.
        This was not the first violent action of Brazilian
    political factions unwilling to accept the results of the 2022
    elections. In December, a few weeks after the votes had been
    counted and Lula was declared president, riots took place in
    the country, which included attempts to bomb the Brazilian
    airport on Christmas Eve.
        The supreme court has been a special target of these
    extremists since 2020, when it ruled that the COVID policies
    that former President Bolsonaro planned to adopt were
    unconstitutional.
        ``I've had enough,'' shouted Bolsonaro. He actually
    shouted, ``Acabou, porra!''--which, in respect to this
    subcommittee, I'm not going to translate.
        Thereafter, Bolsonaro stood up against judges and even said
    in rallies that he was ``no longer going to respect'' court
    decisions. Others joined this call to confront justices on the
    streets and on social media. One of their mantras has been that
    ``The people are supreme.'' And in my written testimony, I
    provide some pictures of demonstrations where this slogan
    features prominently.
        In this vision, courts must bow to what the people want.
    This is anything but a rule-of-law system, Mr. Chairman. It's
    actually a textbook definition of rule of man.
        As for the judiciary, it had to defend itself almost on its
    own. The chief Federal prosecutor, appointed by Bolsonaro and
    with the authority to investigate high officials, was refusing
    to do his jobs, as demonstrated in studies. Congress, under new
    leadership, was becoming ever more complacent with Brazil's
    authoritarian leader.
        One of the few resources available to justice was to
    initiate investigations themselves, which, in 2019,
    interpreting Article 43 of the court's bylaw, they understood
    they had the power to do.
        Some of these investigations are still underway and they
    have produced substantial evidence that there was a plan to
    stage a coup, including through depositions by the former
    Bolsonaro's aide-de-camp Mauro Cid and the former Air Force
    Commander Carlos Baptista, Jr.
        The issues discussed in this hearing stem from this painful
    and complex context. Some question the decisions made by the
    Brazilian judiciary in those investigations as well as in its
    capacity to oversee elections. They do so based on conceptions
    of freedom of speech that misrepresent Brazilian law and
    private files released by different sources.
        In my written testimony, I provide the subcommittee with a
    more detailed explanation of Brazilian law and why I see claims
    that Brazilians are living under a censorship regime,
    controlled by a single supreme court justice, Mr. Alexandre de
    Moraes, as nonsense.
        I demonstrate, for instance, that Brazilian law fully
    allows judges to order the removal of social media posts and
    the suspension of accounts when those violate others'
    individual rights or the public interest.
        I also highlight that the authority of the supreme court to
    initiate investigations of online crimes against itself and
    against its members was recognized even by Bolsonaro's
    solicitor general, Mr. Andre Mendonca, who currently sits on
    the courts appointed by Bolsonaro.
        But, in these initial and oral remarks, I want to make sure
    that we don't get lost among the trees and miss the forest. Is
    there a crisis in Brazilian democracy and rule of law? If there
    is, it is not because judges are trying to do their job,
    imperfect as they might be, as all other human beings. It is
    because we got very close to a point where judges would have
    become insignificant, subjugated by mobs unwilling to play by
    the rules of the game. And this, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Wild, is how democracy dies.
        Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. de Sa e Silva follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Let me just ask a few opening questions, and then, I might
    do some followup after my colleagues have asked their
    questions.
        And again, Mr. Shellenberger, you make a very, very cogent
    case for how you actually thought Lula was a believer in
    freedom of speech, and then, you have now been disabused by
    that belief on the record--by the record, including against
    yourself.
        You point out that the law governing freedom of speech is
    very robust, but it is not being followed. My colleague Ms.
    Wild mentioned that they have a different law. Well, how much
    different is it really from the universally recognized right to
    freedom of expression articulated by the U.N. and, of course,
    enshrined in our U.S. Bill of Rights? I am very concerned that
    we say they have a different definition becomes an excuse for
    allowing violations of fundamental freedom of speech.
        In your background, as well as in your testimony, you point
    out the sweeping--sweeping--Mr. Fabio, sweeping restrictions on
    freedom of speech as severe as the ones that have been placed
    in Cuba since the early 1960's.
        And just for the record, I have raised human rights issues
    vis-a-vis Cuba my entire 44 years as a Member of Congress. And
    I have had people push back and tell me how that's not true.
        I have tried to go to Cuba for about 30 years. I have been
    denied. When Fidel Castro was still the dictator, I wanted to
    visit with the political prisoners--I had hearings on it here
    in this room--and was told, ``You cannot come in.'' Even now, I
    have tried to go to Cuba, which is ``the paradise of human
    rights recognition,'' according to some.
        I remember we had one clergyman at one of my hearings tell
    me that his favorite scripture was Matthew 25, where the Lord
    said, ``When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was in
    prison, did you visit me?''
        So, I had a long list of political prisoners--Oscar Biscet
    and many others, an Afro-Cuban who was an amazing, amazing
    leader--that I had tried to visit with and was told, ``There's
    no way you're even going to get into Cuba.''
        So, I asked this Reverend Walker, who sat right where you
    are sitting, Michael, ``You say you visited all these
    prisoners. Name one political prisoner.'' He couldn't name a
    single one--because he had not. He was shilling for the Cuban
    dictatorship, as do so many other people in this town.
        And to me, that is an outrage, especially since you name
    the human rights abuse, including human trafficking, child sex
    trafficking, and all the others, and I wrote the laws on
    combating human trafficking in this country, as well as around
    the world.
        And the idea that we don't speak out against a friend
    because they are a friend on human rights--I was happy when
    George W. Bush put Israel and South Korea on the target list
    for bad actors on human trafficking. Because, again, friends
    don't let friends commit human rights abuses.
        But getting back to, Michael, your comments, could you
    elaborate, if you will, on this pivot toward crushing free
    speech of people with whom the Lula government and the supreme
    court justice disagrees?
        Mr. Shellenberger. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Yes. So, I had an opportunity to interview the current
    president of Brazil in 1994. I asked him directly if he
    intended, in his version of socialism for Brazil, to engage in
    the kind of censorship and totalitarianism that we have seen in
    Cuba. And he was very adamant that he was not going to do that.
    And my interview with him, by the way, was not the only time
    that he had said that he would not pursue that level of
    censorship.
        Contrast that to his behavior since taking office. Last
    year, shortly after taking office, Lula created two agencies--
    the National Prosecutor's Office for the Defense of Democracy,
    under the supervision of the attorney general, and had this
    Orwellian-named Department for the Promotion of Freedom of
    Expression with extraordinary censorship powers.
        I would also note that, in all 50 instances where this
    Office for the Defense of Democracy demanded censorship in the
    first two-thirds of 2023, according to Revista Oeste last
    December, and it is a quote, ``all related to unfavorable
    information or criticism of the government. The members of the
    government who had called former President Dilma Rousseff's
    impeachment a `coup,' for example, never underwent any
    investigation.''
        So, the idea that there is somehow some effort to neutrally
    apply anti-misinformation or anti-disinformation laws is
    disabused by this particular case. We see so many of the things
    that they are doing--fake fact-checking websites that create
    predicates for censorship.
        We see, in October 2022, before the second round of
    Presidential elections, Lula's lawyer created a report claiming
    that supporters of Lula's opponent had created a disinformation
    ecosystem, leading the TSE to indict and censor 55 prominent
    individuals.
        We also note that they created something called Nucleo de
    Inteligencia, a secret police force within the TSE, to engage
    in creating predicates for censorship.
        So, this is beyond anything that I had seen around the
    world, and we saw some very scary stuff in the United States.
    This is an extreme form of censorship that is, in my view,
    approaching what they do in Cuba.
        Mr. Smith. Paulo, if I could ask you, has anyone raised
    complaints with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
    or the Rapporteur on freedom of expression of the Inter-
    American Commission on Human Rights?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Yes, hundreds--I would say 100 people.
    There are at least one here, at least two, actually three
    people here that did file complaints. I did one myself. I am
    filing a new one next week. My attorney is also here present.
        And unfortunately they have been sitting on these cases and
    it is a very said thing to say. Their latest report says
    nothing about the violations, and that is--that are ongoing in
    Brazil. I mean, you could approach it through different ways
    saying that some of these violations are not consensual. I
    think that is the proper way to describe it. But you need to
    mention it. They forgot to mention everything.
        And the problem is that they are mostly funded by U.S. So
    the U.S. is funding an institution that it is clearly not doing
    its job. And it is not the first time. They haven't been doing
    their job in a long, long time, or doing a poor job like they
    did in Peru, or any--I can stay here and talk about other
    countries as well.
        But the AOS is--and many of the people that are on the
    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are connected to a
    Brazilian Supreme Court Justice. At least one key figure is
    connected to Gilmar Mendes, which is another important figure
    from the Brazilian Supreme Court that supports most of Moraes'
    actions. So it is a sad thing.
        Mr. Smith. Let me ask you with regards to a study by the
    Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent non-profit
    organization that advocates for press freedom worldwide, as we
    all know. Brazil ranks 10th in the list of countries where
    murderers of journalists are most likely to escape punishment.
    It came out in a report just recently, released February 29,
    and in fact the headline was ``Haiti Joins List of Countries
    Where Killers of Journalists Most Likely to go Unpunished.''
        Can any of you share any light on that very, very
    disturbing acknowledgement by the committee?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I think you have a thing or two to say
    about that as well, right? It is on your report.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Can I?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. So one piece of information that I bring
    in my testimony is the fact that Reporters Without Borders has
    recently released their latest ranking on the global press
    freedom where Brazil moved up 20 positions from 2022 to 2023.
    That is to say after Bolsonaro left power.
        Mr. Smith. But from what to what? What are they now?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Say again?
        Mr. Smith. What is their current number?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Current number is I think 62. I can
    check. Oh, 84. Sixty-two is the U.S. But they are in the same
    tier.
        Mr. Figueiredo. Right. And if I can, Mr. Chairman, add that
    this organization is also funded by George Soros, also funded
    by the Oak Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
        Mr. Smith. And the Committee to Protect Journalists----
        Mr. Figueiredo. So it is a circle. It is a circle. They
    support their own narrative and they fund their own narrative.
        Mr. Smith. And the Committee to Protect Journalists is
    independent----
        Mr. Figueiredo. It is.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. And they have now ranked them as
    number 10.
        Mr. Figueiredo. It is hard to say who funds who, right,
    and--but it is----
        Mr. Smith. But 10 isn't very good, believe me.
        I do have other questions which I will come back to, but I
    would yield to Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to note an
    object to the anti-Semitic trope against Mr. Soros that was
    just uttered.
        But moving on, let me turn to you, Mr. de Sa e Silva. No, I
    know I got that wrong.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Figueiredo and de Sa e Silva are going
    to be hard for the----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Wild. Yes, I should have spent last night studying the
    pronunciations rather than my----
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, it is fee gay--and I know you are
    very big LGBT supporter. So fee, gay, ray, do.
        Ms. Wild. I am in fact a----
        Mr. Figueiredo. I know.
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. Big supporter----
        Mr. Figueiredo. I know.
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. Of LGBTQ rights.
        Mr. Figueiredo. Yes.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much for noting that.
        So, Mr. de Sa e Silva, thank you, I want to talk about the
    attempts to overturn the 2022 election. In depositions to the
    Brazilian Federal police the former commanders of the Brazilian
    army and air force asserted that then President Bolsonaro
    sought but failed to gain their support for a draft decree to
    overturn his 2022 election defeat. And that draft decree would
    have proclaimed the election illegitimate, declared a State of
    siege, deployed the armed services to ensure the necessary--
    the, quote, ``necessary restoration of the democratic rule of
    law in Brazil.''
        In your assessment how high was the risk of the coup
    succeeding had then President Bolsonaro managed to gain the
    support of these branches of the armed forces?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Thank you, Congresswoman. It was very
    high. I believe when you draft a decree outlining what is going
    to happen once the military take over, which in some versions
    of this draft even included the arrest of Justice Moraes, I
    think you are trying to anticipate what you are going to do
    when that--when push comes to shove.
        And I want to say that a draft of this decree had been
    encountered with the former justice minister in the Bolsonaro
    cabinet and another draft had been encountered in Bolsonaro's
    office itself in his party when the police conducted a search
    and seizure there. So and it has corroborated by these
    testimoneys the fact that they had been discussing these
    drafts.
        Ms. Wild. And how long a period was that that the draft
    decree was under drafting?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. I would have to check, but I think it is
    between, you know, the end of the first round of the elections
    until January.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And the election, am I right, was in
    October?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. October. Yes. The first round.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And so the draft decree wasn't fully
    prepared until January?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. It was in the making.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And you heard the chairman's comments in--
    --
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. You asked me about the risk.
        Ms. Wild. Wait. Let me get to----
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Okay.
        Ms. Wild. Let me just finish my--what I was going to say.
    You heard the chairman's comments in response to my opening
    remarks that Democrats were in the majority, Democrats here in
    Congress, and we could have done a hearing at that time.
    However, by the time this decree actually came about in
    January, as you said, I believe it is a matter of record that
    Republicans were actually in control on--in January of that--of
    2023. So by the time we knew of this decree Republicans were in
    control. I mean, that is not a question. It is just a
    statement, sir.
        Go ahead with what you were just going to respond to with
    how high was the risk of the coup succeeding.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Yes, and even the fact that a couple of
    military officers backed off to me is not an indication that
    there wasn't support from the military for this to happen. I
    mean, they were involved in conversations. They attended
    meetings, you know? I think it was a last minute decision,
    making some calculations that this wasn't going to work. And
    one of the reasons why I think they thought that this wasn't
    going to work is because there wasn't international support for
    this kind of solution, you know, especially from the U.S.
    Government. And so I think you played an important role in
    security democracy in Brazil by sending those signals.
        Ms. Wild. But assuming that the armed services or the armed
    forces had not rejected his attempts, do you believe that the
    coup would have succeeded?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. The circuit would have been closed,
    right? All the pieces that were needed would have been put
    together.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And so what do you see--you made--thank you
    for the kind remarks about the United States' role, but can you
    tell us what some of the primary factors were that ultimately
    prevented a democratic rupture from taking place?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. I believe lack of international support,
    the fact that Lula da Silva is a politician that has high
    electoral densities or, you know, had lots of votes in the
    country and has great support from the majority of the
    Brazilian people. Had been somebody weaker----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. de Sa e Silva [continuing]. Had somebody weaker than
    Lula been in that position, I think that person could have been
    run over.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you. And what do you see today as the
    greatest threat to Brazil's democracy?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Primarily the persistence of this
    thinking that the military has a role to play in civilian
    government, which, you know, is one of the components of this
    whole plot. I mean, the idea was to create chaos and enable an
    intervention of the military in civilian politics based on
    these interpretations, very sketchy interpretation of Article
    142 of our constitution. But that, you know, is something that
    continues to gravitate in Brazilian media sectors and political
    sectors.
        The supreme court has just rejected unanimously, by the
    way, this interpretation of Article 142, including with votes
    from those justices that were appointed by Bolsonaro. But this
    was a very key aspect of this process and it speaks to the
    history of the country which had a military dictatorship from
    1964 to 1985.
        Ms. Wild. Well, actually thank you for bringing that up.
    Well, we will get to that in a minute, but let me just ask you,
    did President Bolsonaro ever refer to military generals as my
    generals?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Yes. Yes, and there was even this video
    from a ministerial meeting that was also apprehended in this
    investigation that you make a reference to where he refers to
    the fact that the superior electoral court invited the military
    to oversee the electoral process. And he says, you know, they
    made a mistake here because I am the commander, the chief
    supreme commander of the military, you know, as if they were in
    his hands.
        Mr. Pavlovski. Madam Ranking Member, can I add something to
    that?
        Ms. Wild. No, I will get to you in a little bit. I want to
    just--actually at this--I have numerous other areas of
    questioning, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to give other
    people an opportunity to ask some questions and I will come
    back.
        Mr. Smith. The chair recognizes the distinguished
    gentlelady from Florida, Chairwoman of the Western Hemisphere
    Committee.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for the invitation.
        And to the witnesses than you for being here enduring with
    us. Unfortunately, while I was doing my research I just came to
    the conclusion that now Brazil not only has a convicted felon
    for political corruption as president, Inacio Lula da Silva,
    but now has a totalitarian operator as the chief justice of the
    supreme court called Alexandre de Moraes. Wow.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I mean, there is nothing to
    celebrate. Poor Brazilians. They deserve a lot better. The most
    important country----
        Mr. Figueiredo. We are celebrating that someone is saying
    it finally.
        Ms. Salazar. The most important country in the--
    economically speaking with the largest economy in the Western
    Hemisphere, or in South America, I should say to be more
    precise, deserves better.
        So having said this, Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter has
    become a target to the highest court because he shoots back.
    And that is the way you do it in a democracy. Really we do not
    know if the supreme justice Mr. de Moraes is a socialist or he
    is a useful fool, or he is a useful idiot for the socialists,
    but we do know that he is curtailing the most fundamental right
    that any democracy, including the Brazilian's, have, which is
    free speech. And I really do not understand why. So that is
    why.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Shellenberger for being here with
    us and I do want you to explain to us why do you think that
    Elon Musk and Twitter is in the cross hairs of this gentleman?
        Mr. Shellenberger. I think the short answer is that X and
    Mr. Musk just grew fed up with all the illegitimate
    unconstitutional and illegal request for censorship. It is such
    a radical demand.
        In one case we knew that de Moraes was demanding that X de-
    platform a sitting Member of Congress for content that he had
    posted on different social media platforms. This is completely
    absurd and outrageous.
        All of the claims, all of the major claims that the
    Brazilian government has made against Musk, and including
    against me, are disinformation themselves, including the idea
    that somehow this is a money play by Musk. The first thing that
    he said was we are probably going to lose all of our financial
    business there and we may go bankrupt. Well, a few days later
    the Brazilian government halted all advertising on X. In fact,
    when I was in Brazil I was still seeing Brazilian government--
    --
        Ms. Salazar. So what you are telling me--I understand that
    then the president of the country and the chief justice are in
    cahoots. Is that what you are telling me?
        Mr. Shellenberger. That is what it appears to be the case.
        Ms. Salazar. Do we have any proof of that?
        Mr. Shellenberger. Well, we do know that--yes, we saw media
    reports while this controversy was going on that de Moraes had
    been meeting with Lula and his advisers and coordinating some
    sort of a response that de Moraes----
        Ms. Salazar. But de Moraes was there before Lula was
    elected once again?
        Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
        Ms. Salazar. So do you know if they had a previous
    relationship as friends in previous governments? I mean, what
    is known about his motives? Who does he work for?
        Mr. Shellenberger. Well, the latter question is a very
    interesting question, but we definitely know that they
    reconciled their relationship once Lula was elected president
    and came to power.
        Ms. Salazar. Reconciled? Why? They had had some arguments
    before?
        Mr. Shellenberger. A previous disagreement, yes. And that
    they reconciled and that that--and then we saw--in response to
    Elon Musk's standing up for free speech in Brazil, we saw de
    Moraes go to Lula and spend time with Lula and his advisors
    making the case that they needed to, you know, continue to
    fight for more censorship and de-platform.
        Ms. Salazar. And why do you think that Twitter in
    particular has caused such an irritation?
        Mr. Shellenberger. I just think it is because Musk has got
    enough resources to be able to stand up to the Brazilian
    government. It is not easy for--and I don't think other
    platform CEOs, you know, besides Rumbler and X have shown the
    courage. I mean, I think we are not naming the names here, but
    Google, Meta, Facebook, you know, Instagram--these platforms
    are allowing the censorship to continue.
        Ms. Salazar. And I commend Elon Musk for doing that. Very
    good. That is exactly what he needs to do, not only in Brazil,
    but he needs to create the Brazilian model as an example that
    someone that has----
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
        Ms. Salazar. He needs to create an example, not only for
    Brazil, but for the United States and for the rest of the
    hemisphere that you do not mess with free speech across the
    board. It does not matter what you are saying, you have the
    right to say it as long as it does not bring violence. Period.
        So there are two facts here that I think could shed some
    light on who Mr. de Moraes is. And these are facts. No. 1, he
    gave the order to take down a post that said that Lula da Silva
    supports Daniel Ortega, the dictator of Nicaragua. Well, yes,
    it is true, so why can't the Brazilians not know that? So Mr.
    de Moraes ordered to bring it down.
        No. 2, he gave 1 hour to the company, to Twitter, to take
    down posts by conservative politicians or they would be fined
    $30,000. So 1 hour. What about if you read the email 30 minutes
    into it? So you only had 30 minutes to bring it--to take it
    down or be fined $30,000. And those two politicians are here:
    Carla Zambelli and Marcel Van Hatten. Is that true?
        Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
        Mr. Pavlovski. If I can step in here, we at Rumble have
    also received these requests, multiple, nine in total. Our
    decision was to immediately leave Brazil upon these requests
    and no longer do business in Brazil based on protecting human
    rights and free speech. These requests----
        Ms. Salazar. That is exactly they want you to do: leave.
    Which is what Musk is not doing: staying.
        Mr. Pavlovski. I would say that actually the best move is,
    for all of us is to protest and turn off the platforms and not
    comply with their orders. Rumble did not comply with Moraes'
    orders. And at this point right now the other platforms are
    still in compliance with the orders. Those accounts are banned
    on those other platforms. On Rumble we did not ban those
    accounts. We left the country under the principle of free
    expression and protecting the human right of free expression.
        So I believe the best course of action is to all in protest
    shut off in Brazil and let the entire nation know that this is
    unacceptable so that everyone else that--everyone in that
    country can then protest in their government to push back
    against this type of behavior.
        Ms. Salazar. But does the average Brazilian have any type
    of recourse to fight this back?
        Mr. Pavlovski. I think----
        Ms. Salazar. I would say they don't. Because they are
    working----
        Mr. Pavlovski. I do think----
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. And they are bus and they are
    trying to make a living. So my next question is what can we do
    from this platform--to all of you, what can we do from this
    platform to protect the average Brazilian to read on Twitter,
    on any social media platform whatever they want to, which is
    their right? What can we do as Members of Congress? Either one.
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, at the end of my remarks I offer four
    suggestions: The first one is keep doing what you guys are
    doing here and on Committee on the Judiciary, which is shed
    light to the issues in Brazil. I can say here what people can't
    in Brazil, and that is why they targeted me so hardly.
        The second thing that--and you are all welcome, I mean it,
    to visit Brazil. The mere fact that you go to Brazil and you
    talk in our house--and I speak on behalf of the Brazilian
    Members of Congress, that we will hold hearings with you if you
    come to our country. And that itself will shed light. Light is
    important. I quoted the Bible verse John 8:38 that you shall
    know the truth and truth shall set you free.
        The second is that you have immense power and oversight:
    the executive branch. And the Biden Administration has been a
    force for censorship. They enable Moraes and they have been
    enabling Moraes since the beginning. Not only them, but deep
    State agents as well have FBI agents meeting TSC technicians
    and----
        Ms. Salazar. But has the Biden Administration picked up the
    phone and reach out to the chief justice and explain their
    disgust for what is happening?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I think they support what is happening.
    They sent----
        Ms. Salazar. They support what is happening?
        Mr. Figueiredo. They did. They actually sent the CIA
    director. They sent Jake Sullivan as well. They sent the
    Pentagon chiefs to Brazil in order to threaten Brazilian public
    officials, military leaders, to not challenge Moraes. That is
    what he is referring when he says, well, a coup didn't happen.
    No one ever thought of a coup. It is a complete lie. A coup
    was----
        Ms. Salazar. The Biden Administration is interfering----
        Mr. Figueiredo. They openly interfered.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. In a foreign----
        Mr. Figueiredo. There is a piece of the Financial Times,
    2023 piece of the Financial Times called, ``The discreet
    campaign of the United States to defend Brazil's election.''
    Defend Brazil's election meant that we couldn't challenge the
    serious concerns that we have about our electoral system.
        I mean, 82 percent of Brazilians of the President
    Bolsonaro's voters don't believe in the system. What, they
    should all be silenced? I should ask him. Because 82 percent of
    the electors of Bolsonaro--37 percent of the country should be
    silenced because they have concerns about a public service?
    Because the supreme court decided that we cannot criticize
    the--an electoral system?
        Ms. Salazar. The United States has----
        Mr. Figueiredo. These are public officials.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. No business in interfering in
    elections in any other country.
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, they are doing it in Brazil
        Ms. Salazar. We have enough problems with ours.
        Mr. Figueiredo. They have done it in Brazil.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much for that information.
        And I am sure that, Chairman Smith, we will take some
    action.
        Thank you for your info. Thanks to you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am so glad
    to join this hearing as the Co-Chair of the Brazilian Caucus.
        Strengthening democracy should be a top priority of the
    U.S.-Brazil relationship, which is very long, especially given
    our countries' shared experience with horrific attacks on our
    democratic institutions that were stoked by defeated thin-
    skinned presidents seeking to reject the peaceful transition of
    power.
        In the United States insurrectionists stormed this very
    Capitol on January 6 in an attempt to overturn the results of
    the 2020 elections by force, killing people including members
    of law enforcement. Two years later Jair Bolsonaro and his far-
    right supporters took inspiration from Trump's election denial
    playbook and sought to orchestrate a military takeover, bussing
    in protestors to storm all three branches of Brazil's
    government on January 8. These attacks and the disinformation
    and conspiracy theories that enabled them represent the very
    real threats to democracy that we should be discussing.
        I did visit Brazil. I just came back from Brazil. I was
    actually there when videotape was revealed and shared of then
    President Bolsonaro hiding out in the Hungarian Embassy. So, I
    just returned----
        My time. My time. I just returned from leading a delegation
    of congressional Black Caucus Members to Brazil to learn about
    our shared histories of racial discrimination. And if we want
    to talk about strengthening democracy, we should be talking
    about how we can increase the political participation and
    economic and social inclusion of Afro-Brazilians who have been
    murdered and marginalized throughout Brazil's history and let
    shine a light on the historic land grabs and religious
    persecutions that these communities have continued to face.
        So instead, this hearing is about protecting Brazil's
    democracy, but really it is actually an attempt to undermine it
    by interfering in Brazil's judicial process and giving a
    platform to the very individuals who spread lies about Brazil's
    election.
        Not only that, the far right in the United States is using
    the debate around Brazil's fight against disinformation as an
    opportunity to cry victim when they face accountability for
    their own anti-democratic actions and to give themselves cover
    for their enabling of the January 6 insurrection.
        So if that is not the definition of gaslighting, I don't
    know what is.
        I just have a few questions. They are yes or no questions.
        Mr. Figueiredo--did I pronounce it correctly?
        Mr. Figueiredo. [Inaudible.]
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. All right. Apologies. Yes or no, is it
    true that you are currently investigation by the Brazilian
    Federal Police for your role in the January 8 coup attempt?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I don't know. I haven't received----
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. Moving on.
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. The proper notice.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Reclaiming. Is it true that an official
    report from the Federal police provides evidence of your
    participation in a group created to, quote, ``discredit the
    electoral process, plan the execution of a coup d'etat, and
    abolish the democratic rule of law?''
        Mr. Figueiredo. Same answer.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. You don't know? Okay. Do you disavow the
    military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1979 to 1985?
        Mr. Figueiredo. This has nothing to do what we are
    discussing here.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay. Yes or no, please?
        Mr. Figueiredo. This has nothing to do with----
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Just yes or no.
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. What we are discussing.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Reclaiming. I can ask. This is my
    hearing.
        Mr. Figueiredo. And I can answer----
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes or no?
        Mr. Smith. With all due respect, I would hope----
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Mr. Figueiredo. Under my first amendment rights, I can
    answer whatever I want.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. Respect shown to the witness, too.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Moving on----
        Mr. Smith. With all due respect, respect for the witness
    and vice versa.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, vice versa.
        Mr. Shellenberger, yes or no, is it true that you have
    repeatedly published false information that defamed public
    figures who are dedicated to combatting disinformation----
        Mr. Shellenberger. No.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove [continuing]. Including--Okay. Thank you
    for that response.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva, I have some remaining questions for you.
    Can you talk about information that was coming out regarding
    the January 8 attempted coup and what can be done to make sure
    that accurate information is shared for Brazilians and for the
    global community? I think respecting, protecting, strengthening
    democracy is incredibly important and I do also agree that we
    have a real problem with the proliferation of misinformation
    and disinformation.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Thanks, Congresswoman. I think----
        [Disturbance in hearing room.]
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Is it a yes or no question, ma'am?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It is not a yes or no question.
        [Disturbance in hearing room.]
        Mr. Smith. Order. Order, please.
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Can you repeat the question,
    Congresswoman?
        Mr. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. To what extent----
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Yes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove [continuing]. If at all did the events of
    January 8 pose a threat to Brazil's democracy and constitute an
    attempted coup d'etat? And what are the implications of the
    attempts to manipulate and deny the nature of the January 8
    attack?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. I believe we still need to wait for a
    few months until the investigations are finalized, but recently
    as I noted in response to Congresswoman Wild, there has been
    substantial evidence that there was a plot to stage a coup,
    that this plot started with the discrediting of the electoral
    process to seed the--among the people the idea that the
    elections were going to be defrauded beforehand. And then after
    the elections took place there was the--you know, the idea was
    to create chaos so that the military could take over based on
    that sketchy interpretation of Article 142 of the constitution.
    So that is the plot that emerges from those documents.
        I think when it comes to, you know, cross-national
    discussions of domestic political issues there is always a gap
    of information that needs to be filled. So a lot of what is
    happening in Brazil doesn't seem to come across clearly to, you
    know, U.S. authorities as well as the general public. So for
    instance, I guess the premise of these conversation has been
    that Mr. Moraes has taken down social media posts and profiles
    from the Brazilian rights.
        When I actually demonstrate on page 5 of my testimony that
    first of all it is not Justice Moraes, right? It is two courts
    involved in this with many justices. And second, that many of
    these posts and profiles taken down also are from people from
    the left.
        And last week actually President Lula was fined for a
    speech that he gave back in the campaign by the TSE, the
    electoral superior courts, which is presided over by Mr.
    Moraes. So how can one say that there is a collusion between
    Mr. Moraes and President Lula when the courts that Mr. Moraes
    presides has just fined President Lula for a speech that he
    gave back in the elections, right? But all these details, it is
    difficult to convey them because they relate to so specific
    things.
        And the same is true for law, right? I believe that I am
    the only person in this room that has a Brazilian law degree--
    decree--degree. And yet, there is a lot of people who want to
    interrogate aspects of our criminal procedure in a hearing in
    the U.S. Congress. I mean, with what information, right? And
    honestly, with what authority?
        I think, you know, I am--I believe it is important to have
    cross-country conversations about domestic political issues,
    but these need to be more well-informed sometimes. Thank you.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
        Mr. Chair, we don't have times.
        STAFF: We don't use them in a subcommittee.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay. I have one more question. What is
    your assessment of the ways in which--and this is for Mr. de Sa
    e Silva. What is your assessment of the ways in which Brazil's
    judicial institutions and Congress responded to the events of
    January 8?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Initially in the very aftermath of the
    events there was great union in the country, not only among the
    three government branches, but even among Governors. I believe
    I was reading, a lot of times it was mentioned here, articles
    by Jack Nicas from the New York Times. He has written
    critically about the Brazilian supreme courts, but he also
    wrote an article praising Brazil for the way it responded to
    the January 8 attacks where there was great union in the
    country as opposed to the United States.
        There were investigative proceedings that took place in
    Congress about this which produced a very important report that
    I think needs to go on record. And the Brazilian judiciary is
    responding through these investigations that we have been
    mentioning as well as directly because about 1,000 people were
    arrested in the buildings. And they are being tried right now
    as we speak. Some of them are being convicted, you know, for
    different penalties according to their involvement in the
    events.
        I guess about half of them have been given plea deals by
    which they are not going to even be prosecuted which to me
    indicates that the court is trying to sort out who needs to be
    held really accountable for engaging in violent acts and who
    was--who had a more ancillary role.
        So, you know, I think the institutions are responding as
    they are supposed to do. I mean, this is not an easy situation
    for any country to navigate, right?
        And the Brazilian democracy is very young. It is only
    about, you know, 35 years old. People talk here about
    censorship and censoring speech of journalists. This is what
    happened to journalists in the military regime in Brazil. Mr.
    Herzog was suicided in prisons for trying to critique the
    regime. There is nothing that is, you know, vaguely similar to
    what happened back then happening right now. Thank you.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And I would just add I was
    also there when the arrests were made for the alleged
    assassination of the councilman Marielle de Franco. And so as
    we talk about people being able to speak up and speak up and
    not be afraid for their lives, I just want to bring her back
    into this fold.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Castro?
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you, ranking member.
        And thank you all, guys, for your testimony today. I am the
    ranking member of the Subcommittee that oversees the Western
    Hemisphere and the United States' relationship with our
    neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, and also as somebody of
    Mexican descent very concerned about democracy in the Western
    Hemisphere. And I think the truth is that over the years
    leaders on both the left and the right have abused their people
    at times and have abused their countries at times.
        Unfortunately, I think over the years the United States'
    inclination was to call people on the left dictators and
    leaders on the right allies when that happened. We need to
    apply the same standards to everyone whether they are on the
    left or the right and make sure they don't abuse their people,
    that they respect democracy, and that their--that the people
    get to determine who their leaders are. That should be our only
    interest.
        Our interest is not in picking who Brazil elects as their
    leaders. That is the choice for the Brazilian people. And so to
    the extent that you all have relayed serious concerns about
    what is going on in Brazil, we should look at those and we
    should have conversations with the Brazilians. I think that is
    fair.
        But I also want to be clear that these issues didn't start
    on January 8 of 2023. There were some very deep issues with
    President Bolsonaro, and I am sure with presidents perhaps on
    both sides before that.
        And so I wanted to ask you, Mr. de Sa e Silva--I am sorry I
    am--I apologize if I mispronounce your name, but what are some
    of the issues? Because we need some context here, right? The
    world didn't start in Brazil 2 years ago. So what was going on
    before that with President Bolsonaro?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. You mean before President Bolsonaro?
        Mr. Castro. During that term. Well here, give us--we have a
    few minutes. I promise I won't go too long, but----
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Oh, I actually teach an--go ahead.
        Mr. Castro. Yes, I mean, but I mean you said the democracy
    is only 35 years old. Kind of the evolution of that and how we
    get here. Look, you all know that in Latin America there were
    disappearances in different parts of Latin America. There are
    families that still don't know what happened to their kids,
    right?
        So getting democracy in Latin America right is very
    important. Respect for human rights is very important. So how
    do we get to where we are in Brazil?
        Mr. de Sa e Silva. Thank you, Congressman. I actually teach
    an entire course about Brazil from 1988 to 2018 to my students.
    And it is very interesting because the first two-thirds of the
    course, you know, I guide them through a process that was very
    positive for the country of consolidating democratic
    institutions, democratic practices. And Collor is the fruits
    that come from this process.
        You know, in 1988 we had our constitution. Next year we had
    our first election. We had President Collor who served for a
    few years. He had an--but was impeached. There was maybe a
    hiccup in the process.
        But after that Itamar Franco took over as--what was, you
    know, rose as the president. Brazil adopted the Real Plan which
    stabilized currency. That was very important. It had a very
    important effect in reducing poverty and in giving people
    predictability.
        Cardozo had two terms and then Lula was elected. It was a
    beautiful scene to see Cardozo passing the sash to Lula, right?
    A university professor from Sao Paulo passing a sash onto a
    metal worker. You know, this shows that rotation occurs in
    power.
        And then we had President Dilma Rousseff. You know, she
    made some mistakes especially in economic policy, right? But
    then after 2013-2014 the country has been through turmoil which
    deepened or, you know, really caused political polarization.
    And I believe at this point the Brazilian history converges
    somehow with the history of the U.S. and many of the
    democracies that are under stress right now because we have all
    these factors: polarization, extremism, the role of social
    media in help to spread misinformation, right, and really
    producing a political culture that is antagonistic to the
    democracy and to the rule of law. I hope that gives you some
    sense.
        Mr. Castro. And I wanted to ask you all--we had in our own
    country January 6 of 2021, which was--has been described as an
    insurrection. I think that it was a kind of attempted coup. In
    Brazil you had January 8, 2023. Where is Brazil in holding
    people accountable, the people that were directly involved in
    that attack?
        Mr. Figueiredo. There are several key differences. The
    first one is that you can claim that January 6 was an
    insurrection. You can claim that, but--because President Trump
    was in power. But in Brazil Lula was the president already,
    has--had been for 8 days on January 8. So I don't think we had
    an insurrection because what would be the outcome of the
    insurrection? Let's say on January 6----
        Mr. Castro. Well, no, but we have seen in Latin America and
    around the world leaders can get overthrown by insurrections
    and coups.
        Mr. Figueiredo. But Lula wasn't even there. No one was
    there. It was a Sunday. So it was definitely a riot that went
    out of control and----
        Mr. Castro. Yes, but if you overtake the building and you
    don't let government----
        Mr. Figueiredo. Congressman, I agree with you.
        Mr. Castro [continuing]. Operate and so forth----
        Mr. Figueiredo. I was the first one--I was working on the
    largest TV network at the moment. I asked to join in and get on
    air and I was the first one, the first one on air saying these
    people were stupid from doing what they were doing and they
    should go back home.
        Mr. Castro. So you think they should be held accountable?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I think they should be held accountable by
    the crimes they committed individually, meaning if they
    desecrated public patrimony, yes, definitely. Let's hold them
    accountable. But they were not attempting a coup d'etat. There
    was no way. That was not possible. You cannot commit a--well,
    there is a law professor her. You cannot commit a crime if the
    crime is impossible. That is a principle in the law.
        Mr. Castro. Okay. So we disagree on that, but I get it. But
    let me ask one more question because you all have had a long
    hearing as subcommittees go, all right?
        On the question of Rumble the Brazilian government--in
    September 2021 then President Bolsonaro attempted to ban social
    media companies from removing certain content, and under that
    policy social media companies would not be able to remove any
    content unless they pertained--unless it pertained to nudity,
    drugs, and violence, or if they encouraged specific crimes. And
    so here you have been making the case that the current
    Brazilian government shouldn't call Rumble and say, hey, take
    down this specific post of so forth, right?
        Well, but the reverse of that is do you believe that a
    government should be able to make such rules or do you believe
    that a private company, a private entity like a social media
    company, should be able to remove content from their platform?
    In other words, if you go back under Bolsonaro, was President
    Bolsonaro right to social media companies, hey, you can't take
    anything down except XYZ?
        Mr. Pavlovski. With respect to Rumble, Brazil has no
    jurisdiction on anything on Rumble whatsoever. We do not have
    employees there. We do not operate there. We are a U.S. company
    with offices in Canada as well. Brazil has zero jurisdiction to
    make any sort of claim to remove anybody off of our platform.
        Mr. Castro. Your position is that Bolsonaro was wrong and
    Lula is wrong?
        Mr. Pavlovski. My position is that if we don't operate in
    that nation, they have no jurisdiction whatsoever to ask us to
    remove anything from our platform. Rumble operates under the
    laws of the United States, which is the First Amendment, and we
    believe, and we all believe in this room that freedom of
    expression is a human right which is also Article 19 of the
    U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So when someone
    asks to remove a political creator or a non-political creator
    that doesn't violate the terms of service of any platform, I am
    fully opposed to that.
        Mr. Castro. Well, no, and I just want us to be consistent,
    right, because the point that I made is that under the left and
    the right you have had presidents who get heavy-handed, right?
    And like I said, we should take a look--talk to the Brazilians
    if they are infringing on different free speech issues, but
    this has happened repeatedly in different ways with people on
    different parts of the political spectrum. We have to be
    mindful of that as well.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Castro, for those
    comments because I do believe that this is a pivot point and I
    think we need to be making a very clear statement to Lula and
    to the supreme court that it is intolerable to violate freedom
    of expression, freedom of speech. Lula himself compared the
    Israelis to the--it was like when Hitler decided to kill the
    Jews. I abhor that comment that Lula made. Reuters reported it.
    But it is a free speech. He has an opportunity to say it. And I
    don't agree with it, but he has a right to say it.
        And I would say equally people who disagree with the Lula
    government or with the supreme court should have an unfettered
    ability to speak out without facing potential criminal charges,
    without being de-platformed.
        And to that I would like to just ask, Christopher
    Pavlovski, your--what kind of Rumble creators were targeted for
    orders? Who were they focusing on?
        Mr. Pavlovski. So we have received multiple orders from the
    Brazilian supreme court and they range from very different
    creators, some political, some journalists, some would say that
    just talk about anything.
        The very first order that did come to Rumble to remove, we
    had multiple orders on this individual specifically, was a
    person by the name of Monarch, who as my understanding is like
    the Joe Rogan of Brazil and has no real political affiliation
    or is--you know, identifies with any political side at all. And
    that was the first order that we received to remove.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Wild?
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Figueiredo--close enough?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Good job.
        Ms. Wild. I have a few simple questions; would appreciate
    simple answers. And I know the chairman would like to get us
    out of here by noon, so maybe we can expedite this.
        Can we agree, you and I, that the 1964 to 1985 military
    government was an anti-democratic regime responsible for
    killing hundreds of political opponents?
        Mr. Figueiredo. It depends. You can't compare what was
    happening in 1968, as professor here can better explain, to
    what was happening for example in 1979. When my grandfather was
    president for example he already got in power with the AI5,
    which was a very undemocratic act. It was not in place anymore.
    First thing that he did was to give amnesty to political
    prisoners. We had free speech----
        Ms. Wild. Wait, wait. No, we have got to keep----
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. We had the supreme court
    working.
        Ms. Wild. Let's try to keep this simple.
        Mr. Figueiredo. I am trying to answer your question.
        Ms. Wild. So you disagree that the military government was
    an anti-democratic regime?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, it is a nuanced answer, like I just
    said. Part of it yes; part of it no.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. Do you agree that they killed hundreds of
    political opponents?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Some of them yes, and some of the in Negril
    as well.
        Ms. Wild. Okay.
        Mr. Figueiredo. But I don't think that is purpose of what
    we are talking about here. This is not a hearing about the
    history of Brazil. It is about what is happening----
        Ms. Wild. Okay.
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. No.
        Ms. Wild. So let's move on. Do you believe that the 2022
    elections--and by the way----
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Wild. By the way, history does dictate what----
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. A democracy looks like, as I noted
    in my opening remarks. So history is very----
        Mr. Figueiredo. We can talk about Vargas.
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. Very relevant. Do you believe, sir,
    that the 2022 elections were in fact free and fair?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I do not.
        Ms. Wild. Do you believe that the Brazilian armed forces
    then should have acted to support President Bolsonaro's draft
    decree?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Who? I am sorry?
        Ms. Wild. Do you believe that the Brazilian armed forces
    should have acted to support overturn the 2022 election
    results?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I do not.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. So even though you don't believe them to
    have been fair and free, you don't believe that the armed
    forces--you believe they properly acted in not acting to
    overturn those results?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Madam Congresswoman, are you familiar with
    the report of the military on the elections of Brazil?
        Ms. Wild. I am, yes, but----
        Mr. Figueiredo. So what do you think they should have
    done----
        Ms. Wild. No, I get----
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. When they realized----
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. To ask the questions.
        Mr. Figueiredo [continuing]. The realized the Brazilian
    elections was----
        Ms. Wild. It is a simple--do you believe that the armed
    forces acted appropriately?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I do not.
        Ms. Wild. And let me just read a few statements by former
    President Bolsonaro and let's just see if we can agree or
    disagree on this.
        These are quotes: ``Elections won't change anything in this
    country. It will only change on the day that we break out in
    civil war here and do the job that the military regime did not
    do, killing 30,000. If some innocent people die, that's fine.
    In every war innocent people die.''
        Agree or disagree with that statement?
        Mr. Figueiredo. That statement is from 1994 and I
    completely disagree with it.
        Ms. Wild. You are very familiar with the statement. Yes, he
    made it as a Member of Congress, but then years later as a
    Presidential candidate----
        Mr. Figueiredo. So I disagree.
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. He refused to disavow that
    statement.
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well----
        Ms. Wild. So agree or disagree with that?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I completely disagree with that statement.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And then he went on to say, ``I have three
    alternatives for my future: be arrested, killed, or victory.''
    Do you agree or disagree with that statement at the time that
    he made it?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, I think he has a very high chance of
    being arrested, but I disagree with this statement as well.
        Ms. Wild. And do you see that as an acknowledge that he
    might lose the 2022 election, his statement?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I think he expressed his distrust on the
    electoral system since the beginning.
        Ms. Wild. In 2018, then Presidential Candidate Bolsonaro
    called Colonel Ustra a national hero. Would you agree or
    disagree with that?
        Mr. Figueiredo. I don't have enough information to answer
    that question.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. And in office he reinstated commemorations
    of the 1964 military coup and openly celebrated the military
    dictatorship. Agree or disagree with that action?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Agree.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        Mr. Figueiredo. It was a counter-coup against a communist
    group, so yes. We did not want a communist to be part of Brazil
    as was in Cuba and other countries, but I do not agree with the
    route that several leaders in Brazil for many, many years. And
    that is--I come from a family that has been fighting for
    democracy for a long time. And that is the legacy of my
    grandfather, restoring full democracy in Brazil, so I am very
    supportive of that.
        Ms. Wild. Well, I appreciate your family's efforts at
    restoring democracy and upholding democracy, so--and just
    because you are--have pointed out earlier on one of my
    particular interests, I wanted to bring to your attention
    public remarks that I am sure you have heard the former
    president say attacking the LGBTQ community, one example being
    that he stated he could never love any of his children if they
    were gay. Do you find such comments harmful to marginalized
    communities in Brazil and ultimately to a Brazilian democracy?
        Mr. Figueiredo. Well, I don't agree with these remarks, but
    I am not here to defend President Bolsonaro. I am here to
    defend free speech.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. I am not asking you to. My question is----
        Mr. Smith. Would the gentlelady yield? With all due
    respect----
        Ms. Wild. Let me finish my question.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. This is not an inquisition of----
        Ms. Wild. But it is a hearing about democracy----
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. A former president.
        Ms. Wild [continuing]. And I just want to know whether the
    witness believes that those kinds of statements are supportive
    of a democracy.
        Mr. Figueiredo. I don't think they are nice statements, but
    I think they are protected.
        Mr. Smith. I don't believe the witness needs to answer
    that. I think we have veered so far away from the purpose of
    this. I mean, I could talk about skepticism for elections. In
    my first election 2,000 dead people voted against me. It was
    engineered by the Democrats in the city of Trenton. When I
    tried to get the officials to look into it, and we verified it
    had happened, they would not do it. We could not get--we got
    the verification that it happened, but there was no effort to
    hold people to account.
        Okay? You just move on.
        There is a healthy skepticism that we should all have.
    Matter of fact, my opponent went into court to keep the city of
    Trenton open beyond the time limit because it was raining out
    and the fear was some people might not be able to make it to
    the polls. They were going to count how many people they needed
    in order to defeat me.
        Now I learned from it. I became friends with a lot of
    people. The county clerk told us do you ever wonder why you
    never got the A ballot position? Because they used to
    refrigerate the ball. He would put his hand in, pull out the A
    position. And the Democrats would get the A position each and
    every year. And a similar type of effort was lodged against me
    with people who were dead voting.
        That said, I still believe in the system. I still believe
    that we need--to have a healthy skepticism. I have a healthy
    skepticism. I voted to ensure that Biden was made the president
    during the electoral college. Why? Because we could not prove,
    or the administration could not prove that it had been
    falsified. But there was all kinds of mistakes made. And I
    always had to look back at my own experience. But you got to be
    able to prove it. But that said, you move on.
        This hearing is not a re-litigation of January 6 or January
    8 despite some efforts to cloud over this issue of freedom of
    expression being violated with impunity.
        So we are going to keep a focus on that.
        Lula does not have a right, nor does the supreme court
    justice in Brazil to violate people's free speech rights, which
    are universally recognized. As you pointed, Mr. Shellenberger,
    in your statement, the constitution couldn't be clearer. That
    is what this is about.
        So any other, well, what do you think about this, what do
    you think about that, really is a distraction in a very real
    way. So I would ask----
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Smith. I am going to honestly continue pushing very
    hard to ensure that free speech rights which are universally
    recognized are recognized by Brazil.
        Hearing is adjourned.
        Ms. Wild. Let the record reflect that the chairman has
    cutoff the ranking member in contravention of our usual
    tradition of not doing so----
        Mr. Smith. With all respect, we reconvened. Make your final
    statement.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. You are welcome.
        Ms. Wild. You will have to give me one moment because I
    closed my binder here.
        Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that.
        I do want to address what I consider to be the harmful
    impact of oligarchs on a democracy, and in particular there has
    been a great deal of defense in this hearing today of Mr. Musk
    and his platform. And I think it is very important that we
    understand his ideological agenda. We are talking about
    somebody, and I am referring to Mr. Musk, who not only does not
    believe in labor unions and who here in the United States has
    attempted to stop workers at his company from organizing, but
    he has also challenged the constitutionality of the National
    Labor Relations Board in court. So that gives you an idea of
    just how much Mr. Musk values people's rights.
        And I think that it is important that we understand the
    impact on democracy of oligarchs like Mr. Musk who act as if
    their wealth and their power places them above the law and
    provides them with some sort of global mandate to destabilize
    democracies around the world including Brazil and right here in
    the United States.
        He and his allies and our witnesses and the chairman claim
    not to have an ideological agenda apart from defending freedom
    of expression, but let's face it, they have a pattern of going
    after progressive democratically elected governments prior to--
    which prioritize issues such as workers' rights and national
    sovereignty over national resources--natural resources.
        So while they frame their actions in the context of freedom
    of expression, I think that it would be accurate to say that
    freedom of expression is threatened by the unregulated flow of
    false information. With that, I yield.
        Mr. Smith. Did you mean me?
        Ms. Wild. Pardon me?
        Mr. Smith. Are you talking about me?
        Ms. Wild. I was talking about the witnesses.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Well first of all, I want to thank our
    distinguished witnesses for their testimoneys. I hope that the
    people of Brazil will look at this and be encouraged that there
    are people in Congress; not all perhaps, but there are people
    who strongly believe that they have a right to freedom of
    speech. That is a hallowed right. It is a God-given right and
    it should not be circumscribed for political agendas. So I want
    to thank you.
        Elon Musk, whether--I am pro-labor. I am a pro-labor union
    guy. That said, if he has a position against labor unions, he
    is entitled to it. I disagree with him.
        I have a bill in that is going to pass soon, hopefully on
    the floor. It passed the Ways and Means Committee on cobalt.
    Cobalt is being extracted from the DR Congo through child
    labor. And unfortunately cobalt is a mainstay of the electric
    vehicles and unless that supply chain can be cleaned, because
    it is going into his cars as well, we have got a real problem
    there because nobody should drive a car that was built on the
    backs of dead children in DR Congo. And we are talking about 25
    to 40,000 kids, 200,000 adults, all in forced labor.
        That said, Elon Musk has been a refreshing and I think a
    very important voice about freedom of expression and freedom of
    speech. And I laud him for it, I thank him for it, and I am so
    glad that he is taking such a principled stand in Brazil, as
    well as around the world.
        Hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]