[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-876 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
CHRIS STEWART, Utah STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MATT GAETZ, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOHN GARAMENDI, California
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida DAN GOLDMAN, New York
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 30, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio. 1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the Virgin Islands........................................ 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Eric Schmitt, Senator, U.S. Senate, Missouri
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
The Honorable Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Louisiana
Oral Testimony................................................. 15
Prepared Testimony............................................. 17
John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 42
Prepared Testimony............................................. 45
Supplemental Material.......................................... 75
Matthew Seligman, Professor, Constitution Law Center, Stanford
University
Oral Testimony................................................. 76
Prepared Testimony............................................. 78
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee
on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below 133
An article entitled, ``Trump Says the Justice System Has Been
Weaponized. He Would Know,'' Mar. 29, 2023, The New York Times,
submitted by the Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of
the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the Virgin Islands, for the record
A National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin, Department of
Homeland Security, submitted by the Honorable Stephen Lynch,
Massachusetts, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
Massachusetts, for the record
A letter by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, January 12,
2021, submitted the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Louisiana, for the record
Definition of salacious, submitted by the Honorable Linda
Sanchez, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of
California, for the record
An official State email for John Sauer, Special Assistant
Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice, submitted by
the Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the State of Florida, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of
the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government from the State of Texas, for the record
An article entitled, ``In This Texas County, There's No Such
Thing as Moving on From COVID-19,'' Mar. 15, 2023, Time
Magazine
An article entitled, ``Do face masks work? Here are 49
scientific studies that explain why they do,'' Dec. 23,
2021, KXAN
An article entitled, ``How Trump's denial and mismanagement
led to the Covid pandemic's dark winter,'' Dec. 19, 2020,
Washington Post
An article entitled, ``The great Texas COVID tragedy,'' Oct.
20, 2022, PLOS Global Public Health
APPENDIX
Statement by the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member of the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
from the State of Virginia, for the record
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions to Matthew Seligman, Professor, Constitution Law
Center, Stanford University, submitted by the Honorable Dan
Bishop, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of North
Carolina, for the record
VOTES
RC #1--Vote on Motion to Adjourn--failed 7-12
RC #2--Vote on Motion to Table the Motion to Subpoena, offered by
Ms. Wasserman Schultz--passed 10-7
HEARING ON WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Thursday, March 30, 2023
House of Representatives
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Massie, Stewart,
Stefanik, Gaetz, Johnson, Armstrong, Steube, Bishop, Cammack,
Hageman, Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly,
Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on
the Weaponization of the Federal government. We, particularly,
want to welcome back our friend and colleague Mr. Steube from
the great State of Florida. Good to see him healthy and strong
and back working with us. We would ask if Mr. Steube would lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Steube.
The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
Twenty-two days ago, Republicans on this Committee released a
report showing the Federal Trade Commission sent 12 letters to
Twitter in a three-month time span. It happened to be the
three-month time that Mr. Musk had purchased the company.
In the first letter, after the first Twitter files, the
first question was, who are the journalists you were talking
to? Actually, named four journalists personally. Two of those
four journalists testified the very next day, three weeks ago
today, they testified that day in front of this Committee--
Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi--right here in this room.
In that hearing, Democrats asked them to reveal their sources.
There's another thing that happened during that hearing.
While Mr. Taibbi was testifying, the Internal Revenue Service
paid a visit to his home; left a note on his door saying: We'll
be back in touch with you next week.
That all happened. That all happened.
Then we learned at the same time--excuse me. Certainly, it
appears that--we still do not have the answers from the IRS
about that unlikely coincidence. It certainly appears to be
just the latest example of the weaponization of the Federal
government against the American people. It shows the need for
this Subcommittee and its work to proceed no matter how robust
the opposition.
Today's hearing is so important and builds on our prior
work related to government-induced censorship. It was
interesting, in the first hearing, we had Mr. Turley--by the
way, not a Republican--Mr. Turley, who talked about censorship
by surrogate. In our hearing three weeks ago, we had two
journalists--again, not Republicans--talk about the Censorship
Industrial Complex. Today, Senator Schmitt and Attorney General
Landry--I read through their written testimony last night--they
talk about the vast censorship enterprise. The key word in all
three is the word ``censorship'' because that is exactly what's
going on.
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to bring to light
evidence from within the Federal government and Federal
agencies that have driven much of this censorship. This
evidence comes from the litigation efforts of Missouri and
Louisiana against the Federal government. The States' lawyers
in those cases are here to testify before us today.
Within days of taking office, the Biden White House was
already pressuring Big Tech to suppress free speech. The
censor's goal is simple: Limit what Americans can see. Limit
what Americans can say, which is a direct assault on the right
to free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The
censor is bully Big Tech to get them to do the government's
bidding, and Big Tech has all too often agreed to collude with
the government and facilitate the censorship agenda.
In this country, the government does not get to pick what
viewpoints are right, what issues we discuss, or what we
believe, but that is exactly what the White House and the
agencies as varied as the CDC and the FBI have done. Their
censorship has extended to speech on critically important
topics, like how best to respond to COVID-19 and even to
elections themselves. That kind of speech is at the heart of a
free country and our Republic.
The amount of content censored has been staggering. One
nonprofit that is part of the Censorship Industrial Complex has
boasted that 35 percent of the pages it flagged for social
media companies were either labeled, removed, or soft-blocked.
Perhaps even worse is the scope of the censorship. The
government no longer pretends that censorship is limited to
foreign disinformation or even domestic misinformation.
Instead, censorship extends to the so-called mal-information;
in other words, true information that is supposedly misleading
and conflicts with the censor's preferred narrative. That is
the most dangerous and, frankly, the most frightening thing of
all. Censorship isn't about truth; it's about power.
The evidence from this litigation shows the need for this
Subcommittee's work investigating the entirety of the
Censorship Industrial Complex. The Federal government is at
fault, but it also should be able to weaponize nongovernment
actors--it should not be able to weaponize nongovernment actors
to work on its behalf to advance censorship. This Subcommittee
must investigate the extent of what has happened here, and we
must protect the American people from it happening again.
Already this Subcommittee has requested related documents
from the Federal agencies, Big Tech companies, and their
intermediaries that make up this complex, this vast censorship
enterprise. This important work must continue so that the
American people learn what their government has done to them
and that this Congress can take action to ensure that it
doesn't happen again.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for her
opening statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to
everyone. On Monday, multiple people, including three children,
lost their lives to violence, gun violence in Nashville,
Tennessee. This week a Federal grand jury and a judge, a
Federal judge had to force Trump officials to testify
concerning their possible involvement and what they knew
regarding the violence and death in the riot and insurrection
attempt on our Capitol from January 6, 2021.
The debt ceiling is looming over the American economy, and
Speaker McCarthy and the Republican Conference are holding the
debt hostage right now. We're holding a hearing on what?
Missouri v. Biden and some alleged deep State effort to censor
Conservatives online. That allegation is nonsense.
As we have discussed extensively in the hearings, as the
Chair has said before, social media companies, deep-pocket
private companies, social media companies actually amplify
Conservative voices. They do less to center those voices.
Everyone here should be alarmed when that amplification pushes
out false and dangerous narratives: False narratives such as
January 6th being a deep State effort, false narratives, such
as, COVID vaccines somehow do harm, false narratives suggesting
that President Trump won the election.
In fact, that's the real reason we're here. Republicans
know that these are false narratives, and they know that
Americans know the truth. So, they are grasping for a way to
spin the truth. How do you do that? You tell an untruth, a lie,
misinformation, over and over and over and over and over again,
and eventually people believe it. Some people right here in
this audience believe it.
Mr. Chair, thank you for calling this hearing because I am
actually eager to speak to the witnesses that we have here.
Mr. Seligman, you are a renowned lawyer, legal scholar, and
expert on election law and disinformation. I'm eager to hear
from you on exactly how disinformation harms our democracy.
Part of the reason I'm interested in that is because of the
other witnesses that are here.
Senator Eric Schmitt, you are a U.S. Senator. You signed a
statement defending Trump's indefensible campaign to stop
social media from fact-checking election fraud falsehoods when
Trump complained about censorship; served as the Vice Chair of
the Republican Attorneys General Association while its
fundraising arm made robo calls urging the march on the Capitol
the day before the deadly January 6th insurrection. You also,
sir, signed a brief in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to
invalidate electoral votes in the hopes of reversing the
results of Presidential elections. I don't even how the time to
go into some of the things that you did while you were attorney
general; theories that you have with regard to the Great
Replacement Theory, and other things of that nature.
Mr. Sauer, you, as well, now serve as Missouri's Deputy
Attorney General for special litigation. You have sought to
silence people with disabilities from participating in legal
cases about COVID-19 mask mandates. You've opposed LGBTQ rights
on numerous occasions. As recently as 2015, you opposed same-
sex marriages; in a brief in 2021, opposing the President's
Executive Order redefining sexual discrimination.
Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Landry, congratulations on your
bid for Governor of Louisiana. You refused to join 50 other
attorney generals in condemning the insurrection of January 6th
and, in your own separate letter, tried to equate that
insurrection, that one violent day, with the Black Lives Matter
protests of 2020: 7,750 demonstrations took place over the
summer, and 93 percent of those were peaceful. One day, January
6th. Yes, yes, yes, 93 percent were peaceful. One day on
January 6th was devastating to our democracy. You've also
denied climate change.
So, I would like to speak to these individuals who are here
but maybe for a different reason. We are here to talk about the
weaponization of the Federal government when the greatest
weaponizer has been Donald Trump.
Yesterday, The New York Times--I know it's not everyone in
here's favorite paper, but I'd like to submit this, I have a
motion to submit this into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. The article was on March 29, 2023,
and it says: ``Trump says the justice system has been
weaponized.'' He would know. Yes, he would. Why would he know?
In that article, it lists instances of his attempts to
weaponize the Federal government when he was President in the
words of his own people. Quote:
He was always telling me that we need to use the FBI and the
IRS to go after people. It was constant and obsessive, and it's
just what he's claiming is being done to him now.
said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump's White House Chief of Staff.
I would tell him why it was wrong. And, while I was there, I
did everything I could to steer him away from it and tell him
why it was a bad idea.
Mr. Kelly said,
I thought we were successful, but he would often ask a lot of
people to do a lot of things that he didn't want to do himself
in the hopes that someone would do it, and he would claim that
he did nothing wrong.
That's the twice-impeached former President Donald Trump's
Chief of Staff speaking. So, don't tell me he didn't weaponize
the government. I don't think we're going to be investigating
that, however.
Mr. Chair, I know that you and my Republican colleagues
believe that Mr. Trump is still the leader of the Republican
Party. Unfortunately, you're following his example and
attempting to weaponize Congress.
[Slide.]
Last weekend President Trump posted the message that's on
the screen right now--thank you:
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a
former President of the United States, who got more votes than
any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by
far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when
it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, and also
known that potential death and destruction in such a false
charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why and who would
do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic]
hates the USA!
He threatened death and destruction if an independent
State-level, duly elected prosecutor took action against him.
Now, Mr. Chair was asked about this post previously, and
his response was that he needed his glasses to read it. I hope
that he and all my colleagues can see it now up there on the
screen.
Mr. Chair, you and other Members of this body--have sent
multiple letters in your capacity as Chair to seek to interfere
in the investigation of the President by a duly elected State
representative and demanding that District Attorney Bragg
appear for a transcribed interview in a matter that is under
criminal investigation. That is not appropriate. That is not
what this Congress is supposed to be about. That is an abuse of
the power of this body, of this Committee, and that is the
weaponization of Congress. Plain and simple.
The real question before us today is: Why are the Chair and
others, why are Congressional Republicans doing the President's
dirty work? That's what we should be investigating, not chasing
politically motivated theories that have already been shown to
be baseless.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses.
We first have The Honorable Eric Schmitt. Senator Schmitt
represents the great State of Missouri in the U.S. Senate.
Before his election to the Senate in 2022, Senator Schmitt
served as the Missouri Attorney General and the Treasurer of
that State.
The Honorable Jeff Landry, a former colleague of ours, Jeff
Landry serves as the Attorney General of Louisiana, a post he
has held since 2016. Prior to serving as the Attorney General,
he represented Louisiana's Third Congressional District here in
the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. John Sauer is a Special Assistant Attorney General for
the Louisiana Department of Justice. He previously served as
Deputy Attorney General for the special litigation with the
Missouri Attorney General's Office and Solicitor General of
Missouri. He clerked for Judge Michael Luttig and Justice
Antonin Scalia.
Then, Matthew Seligman is a nonresident fellow at the
Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. His research
focuses on election law, constitutional law, Federal courts,
contracts, and private law theory. He clerked for Judge Douglas
Ginsberg.
We welcome our witnesses today and thank them for
appearing. We will begin by swearing you in.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in
the affirmative.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered in
the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes. We'll give a few more
minutes, of course, to Senator Schmitt and Attorney General
Landry, as has been the courtesy or has been the custom of this
Committee.
We'll start with Senator Schmitt. You know how it works
here with the lights. Senator, you go, but like I said, we'll
give you a little extra time there. We appreciate your service
to our country and your State, and we appreciate you being here
today.
You are now recognized Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC SCHMITT
Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Plaskett, and Members of the Select Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to be here today to discuss this important
issue.
The First Amendment is the beating heart of our
Constitution. The First Amendment is integral to maintaining
our Republican form of government and the belief that we are a
country of free people, not oppressive government.
The Biden Administration has led the largest speech
censorship operation in recent American history. Since taking
office, President Biden and his team have labored to suppress
viewpoints with which they disagree. In doing so, they have
infringed upon the individual freedoms of millions of
Americans. No matter what your political affiliation is,
government censorship should concern everyone.
The Biden Administration has coerced, cajoled, and colluded
with social media companies to censor disfavored speech. The
Biden team has publicly threatened social media companies from
removing legal protections--with removing legal protections,
blamed social media companies for societal problems, accused
social media companies of killing people. These social media
companies, some of the biggest companies in the history of the
world, willingly took part in this Orwellian vast censorship
enterprise.
On multiple occasions, President Biden and his team have
threatened to punish social media companies that did not
sufficiently censor Biden's political opposition by revoking
Section 230. Biden suggested Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
should be subject to civil liability and potential criminal
prosecution for not censoring political speech.
President Biden also repeatedly accused social media
companies of, quote, ``killing people by not censoring enough
disfavored speech.'' The Biden Administration has threatened
and attacked social media companies so that those social media
companies would censor speech the Biden Administration
dislikes.
Until the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit and later the Twitter
Files, the Biden Administration's efforts to pressure and
collude with social media companies was behind the scenes
through meetings and emails and was unknown.
On behalf of Missouri and Louisiana, I was proud to join
with General Landry to sue the Biden Administration for
violating the First Amendment through this vast censorship
enterprise. This lawsuit alleges the Biden Administration,
including President Biden himself, and Members of his team
pressured and colluded with social media giants to censor free
speech in the name of combating so-called disinformation and
misinformation, which led to the suppression and censorship of
truthful information on a scale never seen before.
The lawsuit provides example after example of truthful
information that was censored by social media companies that
were admitted at a later date to be truthful or credible,
including the Hunter Biden laptop story, the COVID-19 lab-leak
story theory, and the efficacy of masks.
Discovery obtained by Missouri and Louisiana demonstrated
the Biden Administration's coordination with social media
companies and collusion with nonprofits to censor speech was
far more pervasive and destructive than ever known. Documents
reveal multiple White House officials, from the former Press
Secretary to the Digital Director, relentlessly pressuring
social media companies to remove specific posts or accounts or
expand censorship practices.
The White House wanted posts censored from FOX News host
Tucker Carlson, even though Facebook found that the content did
not violate its policies. The White House also asked for
unfavorable news to be put, quote, `` . . . in context with
specific talking points, along with amplification of Biden
Administration messaging and FAQs.''
Missouri and Louisiana also deposed Dr. Anthony Fauci. This
deposition showed that, when Dr. Fauci spoke, Big Tech
censored. For example, Dr. Fauci was aware early in the
pandemic that his agency had funded dangerous gain-of-function
research on the coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
He sought to discredit and suppress the theory that COVID-19
leaked from a lab to deflect blame and avoid potential
responsibility for the pandemic.
In his deposition, Dr. Fauci claimed 174 times that he
could not recall, including about critical details related to
gain-of-function research and other issues associated with the
lab-leak theory and the government's response to the pandemic.
Because of Dr. Fauci's influence, social media platforms
censored the lab-leak theory and other COVID-19 viewpoints that
Dr. Fauci and his cabal of experts disfavored.
Missouri and Louisiana also deposed the FBI agent about the
Hunter Biden laptop story. This deposition and relevant
documents reveal that the FBI deliberately planted false
information about hack and leak operations in advance of the
Hunter Biden laptop story coming out to deceive social media
platforms into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. The FBI
also flagged social media accounts for censorship on a monthly
basis, and have an estimated 50 percent success rate in getting
reported disinformation removed or censored.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit also obtained documents
revealing that multiple Federal agencies have pressured and
colluded with Big Tech or social media companies to flag and
censor large number of accounts and posts, especially related
to public health and elections. The Federal government has even
created public-private partnerships to expand its censorship
reach.
Without the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit and the subsequent
disclosures in the Twitter Files, Americans would have never
known about the Biden Administration's coordination, collusion,
and coercion to censor speech. President Biden and his
Administration may lust for its own ministry of truth, but I
along with millions of Americans will never stop fighting for
the God-given right to speak your mind, freedom of expression,
and freedom of speech.
Americans have enshrined the First Amendment in our
Constitution more than 230 years ago for good reason and for
times such as these. We cannot allow the Biden Administration
to infringe upon the freedoms that we cherish and that had been
purchased by the sacrifice of millions of Americans.
Freedom of speech is vital to our country and our people;
in many ways, it's our pressure release valve. We must stop the
Biden Administration's threat to free speech so that America
can remain the freest country in the history of the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Senator Schmitt
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
Mr. Attorney General, you are recognized for your five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFF LANDRY
Mr. Landry. Good morning. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking
Member Plaskett, and the distinguished Members of this Select
Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I would ask if I could correct the record
quickly. Ms. Plaskett fails to recognize that I submitted a
letter on my own condemning all violence, all political
violence, and urged my colleagues to do the same. Since I would
remind everyone that violence throughout that past year had
inflicted a lot of damage on other Federal buildings as well.
Ms. Plaskett. That's not a correction--
Mr. Landry. So, I would like to submit that letter for the
record.
Voice. The gentlelady is out of order.
Ms. Plaskett. That's not a correction. I said he refused to
join the--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady has not been recognized. The
time belongs to the Attorney General from the State of
Louisiana. Mr. Landry, you can proceed.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful for the
opportunity to join Congress today, along with my former
colleague and now U.S. Senator Schmitt from Missouri and Mr.
Sauer to discuss the findings of our Federal government
censorship case, Louisiana and Missouri v. Biden.
Since I was sworn in as the Attorney General in 2016, I
have been ringing alarm bells about Big Tech. In fact, in 2018,
I led a bipartisan discussion of attorney generals about the
dangers that I saw regarding Big Tech. It was a bipartisan,
multi-State coalition. Back then, the big story was the
election of President Trump, and some were quick to blame
social media platforms, especially Facebook, for enabling fake
news to spread. Then, social media was actively used to tip the
scales in President Biden's favor in 2020 by censoring real
news such as the Hunter Biden laptop story, among others.
Despite all of this, Federal agencies have been allowed to co-
op these private companies and use social media platforms to
infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Americans.
[Slide.]
Let's look at the COVID-19 pandemic. During that time,
Facebook had close to three billion users worldwide with
roughly 124 million in the U.S. alone. In 2021, 66 percent of
U.S. adults used Facebook while 23 percent used Instagram. Over
500 million tweets were posted daily during the pandemic by
more than 340 million users on Twitter.
On YouTube, roughly, 500 hours of video content were
uploaded every minute with more than four billion hours of
video viewed each month. More than 72 percent of U.S. adults
used the platform.
Why is this important? Because our lawsuit has uncovered a
censorship enterprise that spans numerous government
institutions and all major social media platforms. That
censorship enterprise has been widely successful in achieving
its goals.
White House Director of Digital Strategy Robert Flaherty
was impressed when YouTube reported their success in reducing
watch time of borderline content by 70 percent. This is what we
found in our case. The FBI claims a success rate of 50 percent
in getting platforms to censor content flagged as
misinformation. The election integrity partnership now known as
the virology project bragged that four major platforms, they
worked with all had high response rates, and that 35 percent of
URL shared with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and
YouTube were either labeled, removed, or soft-blocked.
As a result of this collusion between social media
companies and the CDC, NIH, NIAID, American citizens,
scientists, and journalists were shadow-banned, censored,
silenced, and deplatformed for their valid concern about
lockdowns, masks, COVID vaccines, and more.
Robert Kennedy, Jr., the nephew of a President, the son of
the former U.S. Attorney General of this country, the nephew of
a distinguished U.S. Senator, who by the way was a Democrat,
was censored. Tucker Carlson, who hosted the top-rated prime-
time television news, was also censored, as so were millions of
Americans while deceitful and manipulative voices like Dr.
Anthony Fauci were elevated. This censorship enterprise knows
no bounds. It's not limited in scope to COVID-19 or elections.
Yet, many of the Committee Members will sit here today and say,
what can we do?
I say bring the Federal government to heel. No one in this
Chamber, no one in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle,
should be opposed to that.
I applaud this body's efforts and the Chair for passing The
Protecting Speech and Government Interference Act. However, I
would offer that it just doesn't go far enough. I would ask
those on the left to join in making it tougher.
The time has come when we must hold Federal employees,
contractors, and Federal actors accountable by terminating both
their jobs and their retirement for violating the First
Amendment of American citizens. If they participate in
violating American citizens' First Amendment rights and that's
what a court finds, then those are the penalties that should be
imposed.
This Chamber should also draft legislation that will open
the pathway for legal liability for such conduct so that
American citizens have a right of action against their own
government in protecting their--and I will repeat ``their''--
First Amendment rights. There must be a penalty, or this
problem will never be solved.
If you would like to understand exactly how bad this
problem has become, I invite you to read our satirical
pamphlet, ``The Censorship Enterprise: The Future is Now,''
which is basically the Federal government's guide to limiting
disfavored speech. If you're not disturbed by that document,
you are either complicit or contributing to the problem. Know
that the State of Louisiana and Missouri are fighting back
against this vast government censorship in our Federal courts
today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Landry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Attorney General Landry. We
appreciate your coming here and testifying today as well.
Senator Schmitt, we'll let you move on to your other
responsibilities, and we'll get back to our next witnesses.
Thank you both for your leadership.
Mr. Lynch. A point of order, Mr. Chair.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized for a point of
order. If he will State his point of order.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, these witnesses are being dismissed
without the ability to cross-examine their statements. They
have made some outlandish allegations here. Consistent with the
work of this Committee, especially this Select Committee, and
Congressional hearings in general, we should have the ability
to question their statements.
Chair Jordan. Yes, it is a longstanding practice of the
Committee to, when you have our colleagues from the other side
of the aisle and other officials, to let them testify and--
Mr. Lynch. No, no, no, no, no. These witnesses--Mr. Chair,
these witnesses were direct witnesses to the cases that they
brought. When we bring in our colleagues from the Senate and
other colleagues from the House, we extend them a courtesy.
Many times, we do not even swear them; we do not require them
to take an oath. We allow their testimony in a ceremonial or in
a nonsubstantive way.
These two witnesses have just presented evidence that I
think in part is false. I would like the opportunity to cross-
examine those witnesses. If this--
Chair Jordan. Those witnesses aren't here--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, a point of order--
Chair Jordan. You will get a chance to cross-examine Mr.
Sauer. You have not--
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my--
Chair Jordan. --point of order here. I will recognize the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, isn't it true that,
even in recent--
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No. You are not recognized, sir.
Isn't it true that even in--
Mr. Lynch. Yes, I am. I was recognized. He did recognize
me.
Chair Jordan. A point of order, I am now recognizing Mr.
Johnson because you are not stating your point of order any
longer; you are making a speech.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. My point of order, Mr. Chair, is
to recall--isn't it true that, in recent days, even colleagues
like Congressman Jamie Raskin presented testimony that was
pretty salacious and was allowed to leave the room, and we were
not allowed to cross-examine him, too? Isn't that true?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, in response to the
gentleman--
Chair Jordan. The Committee will abide by the custom of the
House--
Ms. Sanchez. A point of order. Salacious has to do with
sexual content, and I don't think that our colleague, Mr.
Raskin, presented salacious comment. I would ask that--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, let's call it outrageous
then. I'll use the same term that my colleague did.
Ms. Sanchez. I ask that word be taken down because it's
false.
Chair Jordan. I think the--
Ms. Sanchez. Debate on--
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair--
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana said it was not
salacious; it was outrageous. He changed the term. We will now
get to--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, in debate on the point of
order, please. The phrase--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. The Attorney
General is not--Mr. Landry is not a Member of Congress, is not
extended--entitled to an extension of courtesy that we give to
some of our colleagues or even former colleagues. He is the
Attorney General--
Chair Jordan. We extended the same--I would just say to the
gentlelady from Florida, we extended the same courtesy to
Attorney General Landry, former Member of the United States
Congress--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Raskin was a Member--
Chair Jordan. --that we extended to Tulsi Gabbard, former
Member of the United States Congress--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That was a Member panel. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sauer for his
five minutes of testimony.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, on the point of order. At least if
we're not going to have the ability to cross-examine, I would
move that we move to strike the testimony provided by Senator
Schmitt and Attorney General Landry. If we're not going to
observe--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you mean you want to censor
it? Do you want to censor their testimony.
Mr. Lynch. I want to strike it. I want to strike it. I want
to strike it.
If we aren't able to probe the veracity of their
statements, the truthfulness of their statements--
Chair Jordan. You will be given your five minutes here when
we get to the five-minutes of questioning. I have--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I understand that.
Mr. Lynch. They're not here.
Chair Jordan. Be able to--
Mr. Lynch. They have scurried away with your complicity.
They refused to defend--
Chair Jordan. They have not scurried away. They were--
Mr. Lynch. In a country of 330 million--
Chair Jordan. Dismissed like all witnesses.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Sauer for his five minutes of
testimony.
Mr. Lynch. --you couldn't find two people to defend their
statements.
That's pretty disgraceful.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer, you are recognized.
Ms. Sanchez. If allowing them to leave is not
weaponization, I don't know what is, Mr. Chair--
Chair Jordan. Oh, yes, yes, right.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you all for illustrating
our point. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. --at least the power of weaponization.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Sauer. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Plaskett--
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn. I move to adjourn.
I move to adjourn.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is not recognized.
Mr. Lynch. This is mockery and a disgrace. It is shameful
that the--
Chair Jordan. The gentleman, Mr. Sauer, is recognized for
hisfive minutes of testimony.
Mr. Lynch. There's a motion on the floor to adjourn.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Lynch. It is not debatable.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It's not debatable.
Mr. Lynch. If you don't know the rules of the Committee,
then talk to your parliamentarian.
Chair Jordan. Well, you were recognized for your motion.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Nor are you following the rules
of the Committee.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You can't speak out of order.
Ms. Plaskett. What are you doing? What are doing? You are
out of order.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer, you can proceed.
Ms. Plaskett. Your--
STATEMENT OF JOHN SAUER
Mr. Sauer. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Plaskett, and Members
of the Subcommittee, imagine a world where White House
officials email The New York Times' editorial board when the
paper runs a story criticizing the President. They abuse the
paper in profane language and demand that it immediately pulls
the offending story from its website while the White House
publicly threatens devastating legal consequences if the paper
doesn't comply, and it does.
Imagine a world where the FBI every month sends all the
major booksellers in the United States an encrypted list of the
books that the FBI wants them to pull from their shelves that
month and burn, and the booksellers comply by burning at least
half of those books.
Ms. Garcia. Out of order.
Mr. Sauer. Imagine a world where a Federal National
Security Agency teams up with a major research university to
establish a mass surveillance program of ordinary Americans'
political thoughts and opinions. They use swarms of analysts
and cutting-edge technology to monitor hundreds of millions of
domestic political communications in real time and covertly
censor millions of them.
These three scenarios do not come from a hypothetical
dystopian future. The first two are very similar to what
Federal officials are doing with social media platforms now.
The third scenario is not hypothetical at all. That mass
surveillance and mass censorship program started operating in
2020.
Last July, the plaintiffs in Louisiana and Missouri v.
Biden received a limited discovery of communications about
censorship between Federal officials and social media
platforms. What we obtained was astonishing, staggering, and
horrifying.
A veritable army of Federal officials, pressures,
threatens, coerces, colludes with, demands, and deceives social
media platforms to censor online speech.
Our evidence shows White House officials badgering social
media platforms in private to censor speech that contradicts
the White House's preferred narratives while the President
publicly accuses them of, quote, ``killing people by not
censoring enough of ordinary American speech.'' The President's
spokespeople raised the specter of crippling legal consequences
if they don't comply. One major platform responds to White
House demands by assuring them: ``We hear your call to do
more.''
It scrambles the carry out, quote, ``what the White House
expects from us on misinformation going forward.''
Our evidence shows Federal officials routinely flagging
social media posts by ordinary Americans for censorship. It
shows Federal officials orchestrating elaborate plots of
deception to dupe platforms into censoring disfavored speech.
It shows Federal officials engaging in seemingly endless
meetings with the content-moderation officers of major
platforms to discuss disinformation and censorship. It shows
Federal officials serving as privileged fact-checkers with
effective authority to dictate what Americans can and cannot
say on matters of immense public importance on social media. It
shows Federal officials relentlessly pressuring social media
platforms by threatening them with ruinous legal consequences
if they do not cave to the Federal demands for censorship.
Truth is not the goal of this Federal censorship
enterprise. The censors have been proven wrong again and again,
including on politically seismic issues. Each time the censors
are proven wrong, the censorship has continued unabated, and it
expands. That is because now, as in every time other time in
human history, the goal of censorship is not to promote truth;
it's to obtain, preserve, and expand political power.
Censorship is not necessary to protect Americans' lives,
security, or democracy. Systematically violating the most basic
civil right of millions of Americans does not make Americans
safer or healthier. Federal censorship is not democratic. It
stifles the voices of ordinary Americans in places that
channels a public debate under command and control of elites.
Censorship inflicts lasting harm on Americans by impeding the
pursuit of truth in a free marketplace of ideas.
The Supreme Court describes social media as the modern
public square. For years, Federal officials have been
perpetrating a hostile takeover of that modern public square.
This hostile takeover has largely succeeded. Congress should
take swift action to banish the Federal censors and restore the
freedom of speech to social media. I welcome the Subcommittee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sauer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A complete statement with supplemental material is provided
by John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana
Department of Justice is available at: https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/FD/FD00/20230330/115611/HHRG-118-FD00-Wstate-SauerJ-
20230330.pdf.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Sauer.
Mr. Seligman, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SELIGMAN
Mr. Seligman. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Plaskett, and
Members of the Committee, the focus of today's hearing is
allegations of censorship by social media platforms purportedly
at the direction of the Federal government.
Once again, it bears repeating: The First Amendment applies
to governmental restrictions of speech, not private conduct.
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden instead argue that the
Federal government coerced those platforms into censoring
disfavored speech through the application of the platform's own
content-moderation policies.
For reasons I detail in my written testimony, that
contention lacks a reasonable basis in law and fact. In short,
governmental officials offered their suggestions to platforms
about misinformation, and no threat of adverse governmental
action ever attached to whether those platforms took those
suggestions or not.
Social media platforms' content-moderation decisions have
always rested and remain with the platforms themselves. By
attacking those platforms' attempts to combat misinformation,
the plaintiffs in cases like Missouri v. Biden, do disservice
to the principles of free speech that they claim to support,
and they invite the grave consequences of misinformation that
they seek to spread themselves unchecked.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that the proponents of
measures that would handicap social media platforms' efforts to
combat misinformation are often prolific purveyors of
misinformation themselves.
Senator Schmitt and Attorney General Landry, who just
testified, filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the
suit by the State of Texas seeking to block the counting of
electoral votes from four States that President Biden won. Over
a hundred Members of Congress, including Members of this
Committee today, also filed briefs supporting that suit.
Texas' complaint included a fantastical claim that the
statistical likelihood that President Biden fairly won the 2020
election was less than one in quadrillion. That is false.
Members of this Committee have claimed that Dominion voting
machines fraudulently flipped votes from Trump to Biden. That
is false.
Members of this Committee have claimed that thousands of
ballots were cast on behalf of dead and unqualified voters.
That is false.
Members of this Committee have claimed that election
workers around the country counted fake or fraudulent votes.
That is false.
On October 19, 2020, Chair Jordan tweeted that Democrats
are trying to steal the election after the election. That is
false.
Lies like these corrode Americans' faith in the integrity
of our elections and democracy. Those elections are, without
question, fundamentally sound. These falsehoods form the
foundation of an unprecedented effort to reverse the results of
a Presidential election. They are just a drop in the bucket, a
drop in the ocean of the flood of lies that flooded social
media in the weeks and months after the 2020 Presidential
election.
This is not idle political theatre. Across the country,
election workers have been targeted by extremists with threats
of horrific violence as retaliation for their alleged
complicity in a stolen election.
Just over two years ago, a violent mob stormed the Capitol
Building in an attempt to disrupt Congress' count of electoral
votes. Some in that mob elected gallows on the steps of the
Capitol not far from where we sit today.
After the Vice President honorably confirmed that he would
abide by his constitutional duty, some in that mob chanted
``Hang Mike Pence.'' They did so because someone told them the
lie that the election was stolen. They did so because someone
told them the lie that Vice President Pence had the power to
reverse the results.
Whether or not our Constitution and our fidelity to the
principles of the First Amendment permits us to punish or
prosecute those who told those lies, surely, we can recognize
the damage done. Surely, we can recognize that the social media
platforms, which now serve as the main channels of
misinformation, need all the help they can get in combating it.
It is both constitutional and consonant with the principles
of the First Amendment for government experts to help social
media networks in identifying misinformation and to encourage
those networks to stop spreading it and amplifying it.
I welcome the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seligman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Seligman, isn't it true that Democrats
objected to President George W. Bush's victory in 2000 on the
House floor?
Mr. Seligman. Yes, it is.
Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it true that Democrats objected to
President George W. Bush's victory in 2004?
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentlelady.
The irony is so thick in the room today that you could cut
it with a knife. First, the Democrats' sole witness is this
gentleman that comes to us from the Constitutional Law Center
at Stanford Law School where, less than two weeks ago, the dean
had to order mandatory training in the First Amendment to
faculty and students after her apology for the debacle of them
shouting down a Fifth Circuit Appellate Court judge. Were you
present for that event?
Mr. Seligman. No, I was not.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Well, and you just told us we
basically--that the media networks need to censor viewpoints
you disagree with. It's unbelievable.
The other irony is that our Louisiana Attorney General Jeff
Landry just explained to us in detail and put on a brilliant
presentation with all the evidence pointing out that there is
literally a censorship enterprise now in the Biden
Administration. Not five minutes later, our colleagues over
here objected and wanted to strike his testimony as being too
objectionable. I mean, we're illustrating the point right here
as all of you talk.
Many actors in the Biden Administration, many of them, have
and continue to harass and pressure social media companies to
censor COVID-19 content. That's just one of the subcategories
here that I wanted to drill down on. That doesn't align with
their chosen narrative because, when people talk about the
origins or the effectiveness of lockdowns or the mass mandates,
et cetera, the benefits of natural immunity, they wanted to
censor and silence that, and they did.
Through the great work, Mr. Sauer, of you and many others
in the States of Louisiana and Missouri, we now know that there
was a coordinated campaign of both public and private pressure
against the social media platforms. Who did it come from, as
you pointed out? President Biden himself, Senior White House
staff, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the
CDC. They targeted opposing COVID-19 viewpoints. They targeted
the viewpoints, folks. If you're watching at home, they volume-
censored you, they turned you down, and they kicked people off
the platforms because they said things that went against the
Administration's narrative.
One piece of COVID information that President Biden's
Administration labeled as misinformation was the belief that
the virus originated from a lab in China. We now know that is
no longer just a theory; it's likely true, as some of the
agencies of the government have had to admit now.
Dr. Fauci himself was instrumental in contradicting the
lab-leak discourse from the very beginning of the pandemic.
Listen--everybody needs to pay attention to this--he
commissioned a research paper to discredit the theory. Can you
please share with us what his interest was in covering up the
lab-leak theory, Mr. Sauer? What do you think about that?
Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Congressman. The evidence in our case
indicates that, going back to 2011, Dr. Fauci had been a public
advocate in favor of gain-of-function research; that starting
at least in 2014. NIAID, under his direction, had publicly
funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that, in early 2020, when the
virus was new, he became aware from briefings from his staff
and emails from Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Institute in the
United Kingdom that there was a grave risk that the virus had,
in fact, leaked from that institution where NIAID-funded
research--gain of function on viruses had been conducted. You
see an elaborate plot, a deceptive plot to try to discredit
that theory at that time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. NIAID was his agency. When he was
asked at a White House briefing about this report that he
commissioned, he claimed he was unfamiliar with the authors of
the study, even though he was instrumental in every single step
of its creation. I have a video if we can play that really
quickly. We'll look at it in his own words. Go ahead.
[Video played.]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. While they're trying
to fix that, what Dr. Fauci says there, in his own words, is
that he has no idea anything about the authors of the study,
even though he is the one that orchestrated the whole thing.
When he was asked in a deposition about his role in
suppressing the lab-leak origin theory, among other things, he
said--and we have another video, it's not going to work, I'm--
he said 300-something times that he doesn't recall, or he
doesn't remember. He isn't the only bad actor.
Mr. Sauer, can you please elaborate on the ripple effects
of President Biden publicly saying social media companies are
``killing'' people by failing to remove COVID information that
his party disagrees with?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, Congressman. Our evidence indicates that
was a critical watershed in the Biden Administration's pressure
campaign to attack Facebook, in particular, but also social
media platforms in 2021. What you see is these amazing emails
right after that July 16, 2021, comment from President Biden
that they're ``killing people'' from very senior Facebook C-
suite Facebook executives desperately scrambling to get back in
the White House's good graces and assuring them: ``We will do
what you want.'' We won't carry out, quote, ``what the White
House expects of us on misinformation going forward.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It has an incredible effect of
chilling the speech of Americans.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. You bet.
Mr. Lynch. First, I want to correct the statement my
colleague made that my objections were to the substance or
content of the two witnesses that are now departed.
My objection, as I had stated before, was that, if we are
not going to observe the right to cross-examine witnesses that
are providing substantive testimony before this Committee, then
we should strike that. That is the practice in Federal courts
when much is at stake. It is a device that ensures that, when
people take a stand and offer evidence, that we can test the
veracity of their statements. That is not the case in this
hearing.
The Chair and the majority have chosen to allow witnesses
to offer substantive testimony here and then have allowed them
to scurry away and not face cross-examination or the testing of
the statements they have made.
It's ironic that we began this hearing with a Pledge of
Allegiance. We all stood and put our hands on our hearts and
looked at the flag. Then we turned around, and we eviscerated
the very process here that would protect rights, protect the
integrity of this hearing to illicit the truth and to test the
statements and testimony that are brought before us.
This is such a departure, this is such a departure from
regular order and the usual process of Congressional hearings
that I'm compelled to strike that, to ask to strike that
testimony because it's not worth anything if it can't be
tested.
Congress or the American people should not be able to rely
on that information if it is not tested, not truthful. So, Mr.
Chair, I resume my motion to adjourn, and I ask for a recorded
vote.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman moves to adjourn.
The Committee will suspend while we prepare to have the
clerk call the roll.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, may the time be suspended please
for--
Chair Jordan. It is suspended.
Ms. Plaskett. The clock is going down.
Chair Jordan. Yes, we will hold the time for Mr. Lynch.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. We'll get the clerk out here, and we'll call
the vote.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, point of query.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I've testified before Committee even
during the two-years I was out of Congress, and you and I have
been here for more than a decade together. Have we ever cross-
examined a current U.S. Senator who testified before any
Committee that you or I were on?
Chair Jordan. No, we have not.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, this is debating the point of order.
Mr. Issa. No, it was a point of inquiry. I just asked the
question of the Chair.
Chair Jordan. The clerk will call the roll on the
gentleman's motion from Massachusetts.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan?
Chair Jordan. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Issa votes no.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie votes no.
Mr. Stewart.
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Stefanik votes no.
Mr. Gaetz?
Mr. Gaetz. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Steube?
Mr. Steube. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Steube votes no.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop votes no.
Ms. Cammack?
Ms. Cammack. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Cammack votes no.
Ms. Hageman?
Ms. Hageman. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Hageman votes no.
Ms. Plaskett?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Lynch votes yes.
Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Sanchez votes aye.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Wasserman Schultz says aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Garamendi?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Allred.
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia?
Ms. Garcia. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia says aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, how am I recorded?
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Plaskett, you are not recorded.
Ms. Plaskett. I vote aye.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Plaskett votes aye.
Mr. Stewart, you are not recorded.
Mr. Stewart. I vote no.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Stewart votes no.
Chair Jordan. All members voted. The clerk will report.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Chair, there are 7 ayes and 12 noes.
Chair Jordan. The motion fails.
The gentleman is recognized for the remainder of his five
minutes of questions.
Ms. Garcia. Point of inquiry.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized from Texas.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I think we need to unconfuse the
record. I mean, sometimes I hear you talk about Mr. Landry is
appearing as a former Member of Congress, and sometimes I hear
you saying he is--was Louisiana Attorney General.
Chair Jordan. So, those are both true statements.
Ms. Garcia. Those are true statements, but in what capacity
was he testifying today?
Chair Jordan. He is testifying--
Ms. Garcia. As a former Member or as an elected State
official?
Chair Jordan. He was testifying as a witness in front of
the Subcommittee of the Weaponization of Government.
The gentleman from Massachusetts for his two minutes and 17
seconds remaining in his five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Garcia. In what capacity, sir?
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I should get an answer in what
capacity he was here?
Chair Jordan. He was in the capacity of a witness in front
of our Committee. That was his capacity.
Ms. Garcia. Attorney general?
Chair Jordan. Yes, the gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Ms. Garcia. So, is the precedent now set that any State
official can come--
Chair Jordan. The precedent is now set that the gentleman
from Massachusetts is recognized for the remainder of his five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I would--
Mr. Lynch. Regular order.
Mr. Seligman, in the Missouri v. Biden complaint, today's
witnesses who are now departed claimed that a February 2022
Department of Homeland Security threat bulletin somehow harmed
them by warning that online disinformation could lead to real
physical threats.
I ask unanimous consent to introduce this February 7, 2022,
National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin--
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Seligman, this warning who obviously was not
farfetched, as evidenced by the events of January 6th. Members
of the extremist groups like Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and
Three Percenters did not hesitate in calling for perpetrating
violence on the basis of false or misleading election fraud
narratives. We need only to remember the chants of ``Hang Mike
Pence'' outside this U.S. Capitol.
I would also underscore that more than 60 lawsuits brought
by President Trump and his supporters, especially Rudy
Giuliani, following the 2020 Presidential election failed
because they lacked evidence to support them.
Professor Seligman, do you agree that false or misleading
narratives about the substance of election fraud could lead to
calls for violence around elections?
Mr. Seligman. Yes, I do.
Mr. Lynch. Professor Seligman, the witnesses that were
sitting next to you seem to think that it is censorship for DHS
to warn that online disinformation could lead to election
violence.
Could you walk us through how disinformation can lead to
that election violence?
Mr. Seligman. Yes, Mr. Lynch.
So, if 100 million people see a false claim about voter
fraud or election interference on a social media website, some
number of those 100 million people may become outraged to a
degree that they are willing to commit acts of violence.
That's exactly what we saw in the aftermath of the 2020
election, that these false narratives, these false statements
of fact about the integrity of the election in 2020 were
propagated.
Millions, hundreds of millions of people saw them, and some
small number of those people took matters into their own hands
and committed acts of violence that the Members of this
Committee have seen.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
I would point out that last Congress the Democrats ran a
Committee in that Congress for a year and a half which gave no
ability to the Republicans to cross-examine one single witness.
So, we do believe the ability to cross-examine is
important. We also believe in following the customs.
Mr. Lynch. That's false.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer--
Mr. Goldman. You couldn't question witnesses at a hearing?
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer--
Mr. Goldman. You were not allowed to question witnesses at
a hearing. Is that what you're saying?
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer, you deposed Dr. Fauci?
Ms. Sanchez. Point of order. Mr. Chair, could you clarify
that statement? Because I find it incredibly hard to believe.
Mr. Gaetz. Point of order. That's not a point of order.
Ms. Sanchez. What basis in fact do you have for making that
assertion?
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady does not State a point of
order.
I'm going to--the Chair now recognizes himself for his five
minutes of questions.
Ms. Sanchez. Are we just here to allege wild accusations
that have no factual thing to pick it up?
Chair Jordan. Mr. Sauer.
The gentlewoman has not been recognized.
I would like--Mr. Sauer, you deposed Dr. Fauci last fall?
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Chair Jordan. In that deposition, you asked him the
question, you said: ``Is it important for people to have access
to both sides of the debate so they can assess what's good
information and what's bad information?'' You remember that
question you asked Dr. Fauci?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, Representative.
Chair Jordan. Here was his response. He said, Dr. Fauci
said:
Well, you know, it depends. If information is clearly
inadequate and statistically not sound, there can be a danger
in people who don't have the ability or the experience to
understand.
Mr. Sauer, do you forfeit your First Amendment rights if
you can't tell good information from bad information?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely not.
Chair Jordan. That's not how our First Amendment works, is
it?
Mr. Sauer. You're correct.
Chair Jordan. You need to turn your mike on, if you can,
Mr. Sauer.
Is the First Amendment only those people who have the
ability or experience to understand?
Mr. Sauer. No. It is for all Americans.
Chair Jordan. All Americans, all 330 million of us. Is that
right?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. Not just for the special people, not just for
the super smart people like Dr. Fauci who worked 40 years in
our government, highest paid guy, not just for them. It's for
all of us, right?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely right.
Chair Jordan. Even if, maybe, you don't know the difference
sometimes between what's good or bad information, you still
have your First Amendment liberties under our Constitution?
Mr. Sauer. Both to hear and to speak, absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Exactly right.
By the way, when you deposed Dr. Fauci, how many times did
he happen to say he didn't know or couldn't remember?
Mr. Sauer. He said, ``I do not recall,'' or variations
thereof, 174 times, and adding in variations of ``I don't
remember'' at least 212 times.
Chair Jordan. Wow. Smartest man on the planet couldn't
remember 212 times?
Mr. Sauer. He couldn't remember things, including things
that he had told the national media, quote, ``I remember it
very well,'' that he would say 16 times, ``I don't recall
details of that meeting.''
Chair Jordan. Now, you were near the top of your class at
Harvard Law School, Rhodes Scholar. Is that right, Mr. Sauer?
Mr. Sauer. I've submitted a biographical statement.
Chair Jordan. Yes. Well, I looked at your biography. It's
pretty impressive.
Is that pretty high? You've done a lot of depositions.
You've done a lot of legal work. You've deposed a lot of
people. Is 212 times pretty high?
Mr. Sauer. I've taken dozens of depositions. I've never
seen anything like it, including in this case where other
Federal government witnesses frequently profess inability to
recall.
Chair Jordan. So, the guy who told us all these things, who
is the smartest man on the planet, he set a record, highest
you've ever seen in not--couldn't recall, didn't remember?
Mr. Sauer. I've never seen anything like that.
Chair Jordan. OK. Page 4 of your testimony, you talk about
the ``Censorship Enterprise.'' You give a bunch of facts and
numbers here. You said Twitter disclosed that 84 government
officials communicated with them--or as Mr. Seligman said,
``gave them suggestions''--84 Federal officials gave Twitter
suggestions on tweets and things to take down, 45 officials in
the Federal government told the same thing to Facebook.
Is that right?
Mr. Sauer. They discussed disinformation and censorship
with those officials.
Chair Jordan. Yes. A handful of Federal agencies handed
over 20,000 pages of documents in the communications they had
had with these big-tech companies. Again, just suggestions,
though, according to Mr. Seligman. Twenty White House officials
were involved in these suggestions to these social media
platforms.
Mr. Sauer. That's conservative. It's probably higher.
Chair Jordan. Yes. FBI Agent Elvis Chan testified the FBI
alone sends encrypted lists to social media accounts sometimes
containing hundreds of accounts and URLs in each list to
platforms for censorship one to five times per month, 500 times
a month, five hundred different email address--or websites,
everything else they're sending to these social media
platforms, the FBI. Mr. Seligman says, don't worry, that's not
a problem with the First Amendment, that's a suggestion.
Mr. Sauer. Yes, over the course of years that's been
occurring.
Chair Jordan. The Election Integrity Partnership, a
censorship consortium of academics, think tanks, Federal, State
government officials, social media platforms, both said it
surveilled 859 million tweets, 21,897,364 tweets on ``tickets''
as ``misinformation.``
Is that right?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. You learned this in your discovery in your
lawsuit so far?
Mr. Sauer. Correct, Your Honor--or Representative.
Chair Jordan. The Virality Project, a mass surveillance and
censorship operation conducted by the EIP, has done over 200--
6.7 million engagements on social media, 200 million.
Now, let me just ask you this. Were most of those targets
toward conservatives?
Mr. Sauer. Virtually everything we've seen in evidence so
far, or at least the vast majority of what we've seen so far,
is conservative, right-leaning speech.
Chair Jordan. You would be just as outraged--I read your
testimony--you'd be just as outraged if it was the other way
around, right?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely, because--
Chair Jordan. Same here. Same here. Because the First
Amendment, again, is not just for some people, not just for one
political persuasion, not just for the so-called smart people
like Dr. Fauci. It's for 330-some million Americans. That's how
our Constitution works.
Is that right, Mr. Sauer?
Mr. Sauer. Every single American.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for his answers.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous
consent request.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I seek unanimous consent to enter
into the record a letter dated January 12, 2021, by Louisiana
Attorney General Jeff Landry, where he decries all political
violence and calls for an end to that and asks for respect for
all political viewpoints.
Chair Jordan. Without objection, so entered.
Ms. Plaskett. Another thing we can't examine because he's
not here. Very good.
Chair Jordan. No, you can examine it. It's a document. He's
going to enter it into the record.
Ms. Plaskett. No, examine him for what he wrote and the
intent behind what he said. OK.
Chair Jordan. Well, I would just point out that's--
unanimous consents are for documents, and we've got the
document right here that he handed to you.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent--
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Wasserman
Schultz for her five minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request,
Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. Pardon?
Ms. Sanchez. I have a unanimous--
Chair Jordan. Oh, OK. The gentlelady is recognized for a
unanimous consent request.
Ms. Sanchez. Yes. I have a unanimous consent request to
enter into the record the Merriam-Webster's definition of
``salacious,'' which says, ``arousing or appealing to sexual
desire or imagination, lecherous or lustful,'' so that my
colleague from Louisiana will not misuse that when describing
the testimony of our colleagues here in Congress.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, as Senator Schmitt said
earlier, there was a lust for censorship.
Ms. Sanchez. I would ask that it be entered into the
record--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'll withdraw the word.
Ms. Sanchez. I would ask that it be entered into the
record, Mr. Chair. It's a document.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I said ``outrageous,'' but I'll
withdraw it.
Chair Jordan. I don't think the gentleman is objecting, so
it's entered into the record.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is our third hearing, and unlike the previous two, I
find it ironic that the Republican majority brought us a
witness who actually weaponized the government himself.
Mr. Sauer, sunshine record requests show that you worked
with the Republican Attorneys General Association and its dark
money political arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. They also
indicate that you took part in these groups', quote ``war
games,'' unquote, on how to respond if Trump lost the 2020
election.
Very quickly, with a yes or no answer, please, Mr. Sauer,
is that correct?
Mr. Sauer. I would say yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes or no. The answer is yes?
Mr. Sauer. I think that you've mischaracterized the work of
the Committee--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. Yes or no, you worked with the
Republican Attorneys General Association and its dark money
political arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund? Sunshine record
requests show that you did.
To confirm that, I have an official State email that points
to your involvement in these political efforts, and I ask
unanimous consent to enter it into the record.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. [Presiding.] Without objection.
Mr. Sauer, make sure your microphone is turned on.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, the answer to that question is
yes, Mr. Sauer?
Mr. Sauer. That is not what I said. I said that you've
significantly mischaracterized those--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Mr. Sauer, I remind you that
you're under oath. Behind me, and I just entered it into the
record, I have a copy of an official State email where you
responded to a message on these war games very specifically.
OK. Mr. Sauer, the Rule of Law Defense Fund put out a
robocall recruiting people to march on the Capitol on January
6th to, quote, ``stop the steal,'' unquote
Can we play that, please?
[Video shown.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. It's also--you can see that
recorded message behind me.
I must say, Mr. Sauer, when you planned--
[Video shown.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Let's move on past the audio.
When you planned with these groups--what you planned with
these groups was certainly no game, but it definitely resembled
a war. You can see the pictures. This is an excerpt of the
audio call.
Now, these same dark money groups held at least 30 meetings
for State Attorney General senior staffers, including you,
during the 2020 Presidential campaign, even though I'm sure you
knew that Missouri law bars State employees from using State
resources for political activity.
Missouri lawmakers were wise enough to make it illegal to
weaponize State government facilities for political purposes,
or in this case to subvert America's democracy.
Approximately how many of these political meetings did you
attend while in your office and using State resources?
Before answering, let me remind you, your Fifth Amendment
protections against self-incrimination do apply here if you
need to use them.
Mr. Sauer. None of the meetings I attended were political.
I attended one meeting by Zoom that discussed legal issues
only. So, everything you've said about the--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.
Mr. Sauer. If I may--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Sauer. Everything you've said about that
characterization is misleading.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time.
Attorney General staff members also attended one of these
war games meetings on January 5, 2021, on the very eve of the
insurrection.
Mr. Sauer, did you attend or participate in this meeting on
January 5, 2021, and can you share with us what war game
strategies you discussed?
Mr. Sauer. I did not attend that meeting. I was unaware of
it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.
Mr. Sauer. I actually am not sure of the meeting you're
referring to.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. More bluntly, Mr. Sauer, did you
violate Missouri statute Section 36.157 by using State
resources on official time to collude with political groups to
prevent America's peaceful transfer of power?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, thank you for finally
bringing a witness before us that has personally weaponized the
government. Mr. Sauer did participate in war game meetings with
the dark money group the Republican Attorneys General
Association.
Given what we know and just heard, clearly my Republican
colleagues would support further investigation into this
matter. We have evidence. This is a State email suffix. It was
during the time of day during the work hours.
So, I move that the Chair issue subpoenas to Mr. Sauer
requesting any and all correspondence relating to their
political involvement in the January 6th insurrection and dark
money groups while using State resources.
That's my motion, Mr. Chair. We need to hold the time,
please.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, hold the time for just a
second.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We have to roll the time back by
about six or seven seconds.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. The gentlelady has moved to
issue a subpoena. We will have a roll call vote on that. The
gentlelady will suspend while we get the clerk prepared for
that vote.
Mr. Armstrong. I make a motion to table.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman has made a motion
to table the motion to issue a subpoena. As the clerks are
getting ready, let us sort this out.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just want to point out that
tabling the motion so that we can't get more information that
shows that Mr. Sauer weaponized government and violated
Missouri State law by--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Hold on. We have a motion
pending, so--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --by colluding with a political
association to overturn a Presidential election.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana The gentlelady will suspend. The
motion to table is not debatable.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Issa votes yes.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie votes yes.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Stewart votes yes.
Ms. Stefanik.
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz?
Mr. Gaetz. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz votes yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes.
Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Steube?
Mr. Steube. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Steube votes yes.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop votes yes.
Ms. Cammack?
Ms. Cammack. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Cammack votes yes.
Ms. Hageman?
Ms. Hageman. Yes.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Hageman votes yes.
Ms. Plaskett?
Ms. Plaskett. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Plaskett votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Sanchez votes no.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Wasserman Schultz says no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Garamendi votes no.
Mr. Allred.
[No response.]
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia?
Ms. Garcia. Nay.
Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia says nay.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The clerk will report.
Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Chair, there are ten ayes and seven noes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The motion carries, and it is
tabled.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlewoman is recognized to
complete her time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think we've made it very clear
that the Republican majority has no interest in investigating
true violations of the weaponization of government. They just
tabled a motion to get more information to demonstrate that.
I'd ask with the remainder of my time; I think the video is
ready so that we can play it. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, can we play the video, please?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is that video ready?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I guess it's still not working.
It would be nice if we could get the audiovisuals working here
in the Committee.
This hearing is fixated on a red herring. Studies show
conservative voices are more prevalent on social media.
We need to make sure that we are getting to the bottom of
the weaponization of the Federal government. This Committee is
only interested in selectively doing that, as evidenced by the
fact that the Republican majority on this Committee squashed
getting us more evidence than what I have behind me that I've
entered into the record to prove--that proves that this
witness, Mr. Sauer, weaponized government and participated in
violating Missouri State law--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --in politicizing and trying to
overturn an election.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to try and return
to the subject as much as I can of this hearing.
Mr. Sauer, are you familiar with the case in California
disputing the Governor's order for universal ballots?
Mr. Sauer. No, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. OK. Well, oddly enough, I was the plaintiff, so--
and oddly enough, the Governor then went to the legislature and
got the authority to have universal ballots and then the case
was dismissed.
Isn't part of free speech or the First Amendment the right
of redress?
Mr. Sauer. That is correct, to petition the government,
exactly.
Mr. Issa. Petitioning the government has been widely
considered to be including to make cases before the Federal
court when you believe that the Constitution is being violated
or your free speech is being violated or due process is being
violated. Those are all consistent with what we would broadly
say is the First Amendment.
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Mr. Issa. For the record, the First Amendment, incredibly
short, and if we read it in its purest sense, you would say
that Congress shall make no laws respecting, and that because
it only says Congress that it doesn't apply to anyone else.
Have our courts, including our Supreme Court, under 200-
plus years, have they ever considered it that narrow?
Mr. Sauer. No, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. So, isn't it true that they basically consider
censorship of free speech very broadly to include intimidation
by Federal, State, or local government authorities? Isn't that
right?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, intimidation and retaliation, among many
other things.
Mr. Issa. So, what was earlier called a suggestion by the
Federal government, the vast power of the Federal government,
which could even include the IRS, one might think, in this
case, that kind of suggestion has historically been viewed as
intimidation consistent with this relatively short statement
about our right of free speech?
Mr. Sauer. That's exactly right. There's overwhelming
evidence in our case that contradicts the notion that these
were mere suggestions from Federal officials. It's completely
factually baseless to State that.
Mr. Issa. So, you earlier testified that the vast majority
of this was one-sided and came from government officials who
wanted to take down things which disagreed with the government
in place at that time, which happened to be the government of
Joe Biden, correct?
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Mr. Issa. So, what we really have here is something similar
to historically Nixon v. IRS, if you remember that era, and
that's not the actual case name. What you have is the power of
the Executive Branch being used to reduce the opposition or the
redress or the free speech or the communication of people who
might disagree with what was being put out by the Executive
Branch, which happened to be a Democrat President.
Mr. Sauer. That's exactly right. We see not just
interference with free speech but interference with the
attempts to organize for political advocacy.
Mr. Issa. Now, is this an opinion or are these indisputable
facts based on the literally millions of events?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, and we've
submitted extensive evidence to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Issa. So, what we're dealing with here is tangible
evidence that the other side of the aisle seems to want to talk
around about the changing of what would have been public
opinion if public opinion were freely allowed to occur without
intervention by the Federal government and, candidly, agents on
behalf of them, including private entities that were paid to be
part of this program.
Mr. Sauer. That's correct. You do see a concerted effort to
change the subject.
Mr. Issa. So, I would like to use the remainder of my time
to give you an opportunity to speak to some of the personal
attacks that were just made on you, if I could.
Mr. Sauer. Very briefly, I would note that all the
questions that came from the other side, they were misleading
in the way they were characterized, they mislead my
involvement. There's no suggestion that anything I did before
the 2020 election was inappropriate or involved a misuse of
State resources. I categorically deny that. It is false. That
is misinformation.
However, I recognize the Member's right to say
misinformation, because you know what? That's protected by the
First Amendment, contrary to what Mr. Seligman is suggesting in
his testimony.
Mr. Issa. Well, I very much appreciate it. Hopefully we
will return to the debate that allows both sides to speak
without having personal attacks on their character.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Truth hurts. Truth hurts.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
I've been through a lot of hearings, seen a number of
panels, and I must say, I find it disconcerting that we are not
able to ask questions of two of our witnesses. If they're here
to simply present their thoughts and their idle opinions, so be
it. If they are presenting themselves as quasi experts on
censorship, I think we have a right to question them.
Even if Senator Schmitt and Attorney General Landry aren't
here, I think it's important to note that every single witness
of the majority took part in the effort to overturn the 2020
election, and all three of them have interconnecting
relationships, very convenient for a panel.
If we turn our attention to the screen, please, the email
sent to State Attorneys General.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Suspend the clock for me while we
get that going.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
I don't think that's it. It's the email from Mr. Sauer.
Mr. Chair, I don't understand our technical problems. Mr.
Sauer sent out an email to State Attorneys General--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Start the clock again for me if
you're going to testify. OK, the gentleman will continue.
Mr. Connolly. OK. Asked for responses by 12/9, 1 o'clock.
Mr. Seligman, this email is signed by John Sauer. Is that
the gentleman to your left?
Mr. Seligman. I believe so.
Mr. Connolly. When Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, Mr.
Sauer was working for then Missouri Attorney General Schmitt,
who testified here this morning, and they worked together to
find 16 other Republican State Attorneys General, including
Attorney General Landry, who is running for Governor, to join
them in an amicus in support of a lawsuit to overcome the
election.
Now, his team filed this case on December 8th, and the
Supreme Court rejected it three days later. Why did the Supreme
Court reject?
Mr. Seligman. Sir, the Supreme Court rejected--so it didn't
issue an opinion explaining why it rejected that, so I can't
speculate about what was going through the minds of the
Justices. I can tell you about the legal flaws in the
complaint--
Mr. Connolly. Please.
Mr. Seligman. --that rendered that decision correct.
So, the State of Texas sued other States, including
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona, for allegations
that there were flaws in the election in those States.
The State of Texas claimed that it was injured as a State
because the alleged maladministration of the election in other
States somehow undermined its own sovereign rights in the
electoral college. That is a radical and unprecedented claim
that no court has ever accepted.
Mr. Connolly. Including the Supreme Court.
Mr. Seligman. Including the Supreme Court.
Mr. Connolly. One must say, they kind of dismissed it with
dispatch.
Mr. Seligman. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. Three days later.
Mr. Seligman. Yes, it was three or four days later.
Now, the Supreme Court dismissed it unanimously.
A point of clarification about that. There was a
concurrence in the dismissal by Justice Thomas and I believe
Justice Alito explaining that they would accept the bill of
complaint because they think as a matter of Supreme Court
procedure the Supreme Court can't just refuse jurisdiction.
Then they went out of their way to say they would grant no
other relief, which is to say that they would reject the claim
on the merits.
Mr. Connolly. So, the allegations in the lawsuit range from
claims of illegal voting to accusations about Dominion voting
machines, now the subject of a civil defamation case with FOX
News.
Even FOX News reporters called the claims contained in the
lawsuit dangerously insane. Why might FOX News reporters call
this kind of lawsuit dangerously insane?
Mr. Seligman. Well, the factual allegations that I believe
they were referring to are demonstrably incorrect and have no
basis in reality whatsoever.
It was apparent at the time as well. This is not something
that just became apparent in the months and years after those
allegations came to light.
Mr. Connolly. Well, it's certainly comforting to know that
we have a panel that includes three people who are involved in
a lawsuit that has been declared dangerously insane by none
other than FOX News reporters. That's a comfort.
I thank you, Mr. Seligman, for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Seligman, I'm curious, just as a sidebar, were you
embarrassed by what happened at Stanford Law School a few weeks
ago?
Mr. Seligman. So, I'd like to clarify that I am--
Mr. Stewart. In regard to the suppression of free speech
with the Federal court, District Court judge?
Mr. Seligman. So, I'd like to clarify that I am
testifying--
Mr. Stewart. Never mind.
Mr. Seligman. --here on my own behalf and not on behalf of
Stanford.
Mr. Stewart. I understand that. I'm just curious. I mean, I
would imagine you would be embarrassed by that.
Are you familiar with GDR, East German Stasi secret police?
Mr. Seligman. I'm sorry, can you speak up a little?
Mr. Stewart. Are you familiar with GDR, the East German
Stasi secret police?
Mr. Seligman. Generally, yes.
Mr. Stewart. Generally, yes.
We know they used techniques of threats and intimidation,
censorship, to maintain and control and ensure continuation of
government power. They were one of the most repressive and
powerful forces that we've seen in our modern world.
Now, I'd like to quote some of their objectives and some of
their tactics that they would use.
The aim of the Stasi was to switch off a group or private
citizens by hindering any positive media or public exposure to
their thoughts, views, and policy positions, including
pressuring newspapers and other media.
Would you be comfortable with the government using that,
those kind of tactics, to suppress thoughts, views, and
policies?
Mr. Seligman. If your question is whether I'm comfortable
with the American government using the tactics of the East
German Stasi, the answer is no.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Sauer, do you see any difference between Stasi secret
police tactics and government suppression of individual
expression on social media?
Mr. Sauer. There's a very strong analogy to be drawn there.
It's based on overwhelming evidence.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Make sure your microphone is on.
Mr. Sauer. There's a very strong analogy to be drawn there,
and it's based on overwhelming evidence.
Mr. Stewart. Well, I see no difference at all.
Mr. Sauer. It's a close, a very close comparison.
Mr. Stewart. I think it's an incredibly close comparison. I
would reemphasize, including pressuring social--or pressuring
newspapers and other media to hinder any positive media or
public exposure to their thoughts, views, or policy positions.
There's no difference at all.
Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
Mr. Stewart. Let me give you another example. We're talking
about the East German Stasi and the tactics they used. Another
one:
Conspicuous visits to homes or workplaces so that citizens
would be aware of and intimidated by their presence and power.
We had a journalist here--who was not a conservative
journalist, by the way--he was here for a matter of a few hours
talking about the weaponization of the Federal government, and
during that time the IRS showed up at his house, something that
the Secretary of Treasury admitted only happens, so far as she
knows, when someone is under investigation for fraud and they
need a personal interview. That's the only time she knew of
some IRS agent appearing at someone's house. That happened
while he was here testifying before our Committee.
Mr. Seligman, does that appear as an unlikely coincidence
to you?
Mr. Seligman. I'm not familiar with the factual details of
Mr. Taibbi's taxes.
Mr. Stewart. As I've described it, does it seem unlikely to
you?
Mr. Seligman. I am not familiar with this incident, so I
can't comment.
Mr. Stewart. Well, I've explained the incident to you. He
was testifying before Congress, and the IRS went to his home.
Mr. Seligman. I have no idea whether it's a coincidence or
not.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Mr. Sauer, how does it appear to you?
Mr. Sauer. The timing is incredibly suspicious.
Mr. Stewart. It's incredibly suspicious. I will quote again
from Stasi secret police tactics.
Conspicuous visits to homes and workplaces so that citizens
would be aware and intimidated by their presence and power.
I think my description to you is sufficient that you could make
a judgment of that.
Mr. Seligman. Again, I'm not familiar with the details of
Mr. Taibbi's taxes.
Mr. Stewart. Well, OK. All right.
So, I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to condemn that.
I'm surprised you wouldn't want to say,
You know what? As you've described it to me, that makes me
uncomfortable, that the IRS would show up at someone's home
while they're testifying before Congress.
Mr. Seligman. As a matter of principle, government
retaliation for the exercise of free speech is problematic.
It's wrong. I have no idea whether that has taken place in this
case.
Mr. Stewart. OK. So, conceding that you don't know if
that's happened, you would be uncomfortable if that were the
case?
Mr. Seligman. I am uncomfortable with violations of the
First Amendment, yes.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
That's what we're talking about here. I know you've seen on
display the emotion of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. I'm shocked that they don't want to condemn it. I'm
stunned that they don't ask you the same questions that we ask.
How in the world could anyone sit and listen to this and
go, ``You know, that's OK with me, use the Federal government
as contractors to go suppress free speech.''? They don't do it
themselves. They instead pressure and intimidate and threaten
individuals and organizations to do it for them.
There is no difference between that and what the Stasi
secret police did. No difference at all. If someone wants to
stand and defend that, I will yield the last seven seconds of
my time to you.
Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Actually, the gentleman's time is
expired.
Votes have been called. The Committee will stand in recess
until the conclusion of this nine-vote series.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The Committee will come to
order.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Plaskett,
for her five minutes of questions. Oh, can't do that. We don't
have Mr. Sauer.
The Committee will suspend. I didn't look up.
There we go. Apologize to our witnesses. We had some votes.
Now, I turn to the Ranking Member for five minutes of
questions.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before the break, our colleagues were concerned and accused
Democrats of refusing to condemn something that we have no
actual facts about. The case is beyond our factual
understanding at this time other than what Republicans have
told us today.
Thanks to a long and exhaustive examination by the January
6th Committee, however, we do know for a fact that January 6th
was spurred by President Trump, who used disinformation and
violent rhetoric to egg on extremists and conspiracy theorists.
Senator Schmitt and Mr. Landry, the two witnesses who were
dismissed before their extreme and false claims could be tested
under cross-examination, played an active role in that. They
were a key part of the Republican Attorneys General Association
which sponsored a robocall urging people to come to the Capitol
on January 6th. That's what they were here for in their role as
Attorneys General during that time.
My colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, attempted to play that
call earlier, but technical difficulties prevented her from
doing so.
So, I have asked that we can play that now so that everyone
can see and hear exactly what Mr. Landry and Senator Schmitt
did and the violence and chaos that resulted.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Plaskett. We just witnessed--what was just given to us
right now was real evidence, facts. What we just witnessed are
very real crimes and violence that erupted because of what
these witnesses' actions did. If they had been here, I'd ask
them about that.
I want to know also, and I'll yield time, to see if any of
my colleagues would like to condemn the violence of January
6th.
Mr. Gaetz. I would.
Ms. Plaskett. Not just the violence of all things that--
Mr. Armstrong. I would.
Ms. Plaskett. --are happening in America, but the violence
on January 6th.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Plaskett. Are you going to condemn it? It's a yes or
no.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Armstrong. Same here.
Voice. Same here. We all have on the record many times.
Ms. Plaskett. No, you all have not, and we know that.
Yield--
Chair Jordan. Oh, wow.
Ms. Plaskett. Reclaiming my time.
So, Mr. Landry's appearance before the Committee today gave
him free publicity. We know that he's running for Governor. The
Chair's decision to dismiss him in his role as Attorney General
before questions means he can't be held accountable for the
efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Another--
Chair Jordan. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Plaskett. No, I would not, not at this time.
Chair Jordan. OK. Thanks.
Ms. Plaskett. One of the things I would ask him about is
other things that he was involved in with Donald Trump.
As you can see on the screen, this is testimony given,
deposition of General--the Attorney General Barr. It states:
Question: How about discussions, General Barr, about the
possible appointment of special counsel to investigate the
allegations of election fraud? Do you recall any of that?
Answer: Yes. I remember, there were some discussions about
special counsel, and I forgot how this came out--came up. But I
didn't feel there was any predicate or basis for naming a
special counsel, and I was opposed to it. And I think there was
a proposal made. I remember a proposal being made to take a
State attorney general being appointed. And I wanted to find
out--you know, I thought there might be a way to addressing
that without just saying no and it turned out State law
precluded it.
Question: Yes. Was that Louisiana? Do you recall?
Answer: I think it was Louisiana. I think it was Jeff Landry
maybe.
Mr. Landry was President Trump's choice to be the special
counsel to investigate allegations of election fraud.
Mr. Sauer--and I apologize for not having pronounced your
name properly before--yes or no, do you believe that the fraud
impacted the outcome of the 2020 election?
Mr. Sauer. I have no opinion on that.
Ms. Plaskett. I'm sorry, you have to hit the--
Mr. Sauer. I'm sorry. I have no opinion on that. That is
totally aside from the evidence that we've brought forth to the
Committee today.
Ms. Plaskett. So, you--at this time, you don't--you--that's
no opinion--you don't have an opinion on whether there was
fraud or not?
Mr. Sauer. I've never studied the evidence that you're
referring to.
Ms. Plaskett. But you were--
Mr. Sauer. I've never seen the deposition transcript you
just--
Ms. Plaskett. I didn't ask about the deposition transcript.
I asked you if you believe that there was election fraud in
2020.
Mr. Sauer. I don't have an opinion on that to express to
the Committee today.
Ms. Plaskett. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Seligman, same question, did fraud impact the outcome
of the 2020 election?
Mr. Seligman. No, without question.
Ms. Plaskett. Was there any evidence of fraud?
Mr. Seligman. There was no evidence of fraud in any amount
that was remotely close to what it would've taken to affect the
outcome of the election.
Ms. Plaskett. So, how did so many people come to believe
that such fraud existed?
Mr. Seligman. Because they were told that by people who
should have known better.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlewoman's time is expired and yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. White House staffers are some of the most
powerful people on the planet Earth. Oftentimes they get the
dispositive opinion on appointments to different positions
within the Federal government. They influence statements of
administrative policy. They initiate regulatory reform. They
often have a significant voice on legislation that is
considered and approved.
So, Mr. Sauer, I want to understand, how many of these
intensely powerful people who work in the Biden White House
were involved in this effort that you've been investigating
regarding the desire to shape discussions on social media?
Mr. Sauer. At least 20, and very likely more.
Mr. Gaetz. Was there a ring leader of this group, someone
who had pervasive and repeated efforts to try to coerce social
media companies to shape the truth according to the Biden White
House?
Mr. Sauer. Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty,
and also Andy Slavitt.
Mr. Gaetz. Who is Rob Flaherty?
Mr. Sauer. He is the, I believe, the digital coordinator
for the White House. His level is Deputy Assistant to the
President.
Mr. Gaetz. What behaviors of Mr. Flaherty did you observe
that you found troubling?
Mr. Sauer. We've seen many, many pages of emails between
Mr. Flaherty and social media platforms where he relentlessly
badgers them to increase the censorship of ordinary Americans'
free speech on social media.
He gets results. You see the platforms agreeing to censor
things that are truthful, that do not violate their policies,
at the behest and at the pressure of the White House.
Mr. Gaetz. Can you give an example of that?
Mr. Sauer. One great example of this is the Tucker Carlson
video that was going viral in April 2021 where Mr. Flaherty and
other White House officials were emailing Facebook privately
demanding that it be censored. Facebook responded:
This does not violate our policies. It has not been fact
checked. But nevertheless, we are substantially deboosting it
and limiting its distribution on our platforms, even though we
haven't identified anything false in it, and even though it
does not . . . .
They had a positive determination that it does not violate
their policies.
Mr. Gaetz. Did you assess that Facebook took that action as
a direct consequence of the badgering coming from Mr. Flaherty
and the Biden White House?
Mr. Sauer. That is a compelling inference from the email
traffic back and forth that we obtained in discovery.
Mr. Gaetz. Did Mr. Flaherty ever request any reports from
social media companies on specific censorship issues?
Mr. Sauer. Very frequently. In fact, he was demanding that
again and again. His steady drumbeat was what he called
borderline content, that the email traffic makes clear
borderline is what they call often true content, things like
personal anecdotes, opposition to vaccination expressed in
terms of political opposition, things of that nature.
That is what he wanted to target. He was frequently asking
for reports back. They were sending in biweekly CrowdTangle
reports to the White House. They did that through the close of
our discovery period last August in 2022.
So, there was an overwhelming effort to get them to check
their homework, if you will, to get them to report back on how
much censorship are you doing and is it going to meet our
standards as the White House.
Mr. Gaetz. An overwhelming effort, badgering social media
companies, demanding reports from those social media companies
directly to someone in the White House.
As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remind us,
not all speech is protected. Some speech is illegal.
Did you see Mr. Flaherty constrain his concern to unlawful
speech, or did you often see this badgering and this demand for
reports from entirely lawful speech?
Mr. Sauer. Virtually every--I can't remember a single
instance of them going after unlawful speech.
Mr. Gaetz. Almost all of it was after lawful speech?
Mr. Sauer. Virtually everything that I can recall here was
lawful, First Amendment-protected speech that was being
targeted.
Mr. Gaetz. We heard from the witness that the Democrats
brought today that these were but suggestions, that of course
the government should be able to make suggestions to social
media companies.
What would be your response to that testimony?
Mr. Sauer. The characterization of them as suggestions is
contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Calling Flaherty, for
example, Mr. Flaherty's communication ``suggestions'' is akin
to saying that the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green
cheese.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, and of course if someone shared those
viewpoints, that would be lawful speech, wouldn't it?
Mr. Sauer. You'd be allowed to say that on social media and
based on--
Mr. Gaetz. Not if Mr. Flaherty were in charge.
Mr. Sauer. That is the difference. In fact, what happened
was you had a de facto suppression of many, many views,
including truthful views, political organization, at the behest
of White House officials and other Federal officials.
Mr. Gaetz. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that when you have
these intensely powerful people with the ability to control so
many things, even a suggestion is coercive and problematic and
worthy of the Committee's review.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for his five minutes.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez, is recognized.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
I think it's interesting, the last line of questioning. The
video that's referenced, if I'm not mistaken, that you just
mentioned about Tucker Carlson, was on replacement theory.
I think it's interesting that you want to make a bogeyman
of Mr. Flaherty, because not one of the emails from Mr.
Flaherty or anyone else from the White House required or
demanded or mandated any action by social media companies. I
just want to clear the record on that.
Chair Jordan. Would the gentlelady yield for just a
clarification?
Ms. Sanchez. No. The time is mine.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Ms. Sanchez. The time is mine. I would like to use it
without interruption. Thank you.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep shouting
that the Biden White House somehow influenced a private company
to take down disinformation in 2020 before a Biden White House
even existed.
Chair Jordan wanted to make this point so badly that he had
the two Republican Attorneys General who began this sham
lawsuit come in and make five-minute statements where they
could make all kinds of wild allegations, and then he let them
scurry away so nobody could ask them any questions about their
claims.
I really want to focus in on the fact that this hearing
really isn't about social media companies, and it's really not
about COVID deniers. It's not even about Elon Musk. It's about
protecting former President Donald Trump.
I'd like to spend a few minutes looking at what
Congressional Republicans are doing to try to keep him out of
legal trouble. We have a video queued up, if they could show
that.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Seligman, the general counsel to the
Manhattan District Attorney called Chair Jordan's letter a,
quote, ``unprecedented inquiry into a pending local
prosecution,'' and said that it seeks ``nonpublic information
about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential
under State law.''
Can you please explain why it's incredibly inappropriate
for Congress to interfere in State and local prosecutions?
Mr. Seligman. Any political interference in pending
criminal investigations and prosecutions is inappropriate.
That's true of political interference into the Department of
Justice's prosecutorial decisions, and it's especially true of
interference by the Federal government into State and local
prosecutions.
The fundamental principles of federalism, which
conservatives tend to agree with, hold that State and local
government is free from the interference of the Federal
government into these police matters.
Ms. Sanchez. Chair Jordan apparently wrote to Mr. Bragg
after Trump's attorneys asked him and after Trump himself
claimed online that he was about to be arrested.
Why would it benefit Donald Trump for Congress to intervene
on his behalf in this criminal action?
Mr. Seligman. Well, it appears that the purpose and the
motivation is to try to influence the Manhattan District
Attorney into not pursuing the charges that it has been
publicly reported that he is pursuing.
Ms. Sanchez. Why is even the appearance of a former
President directing the action of Members of Congress dangerous
to democracy?
Mr. Seligman. Because the rule of law applies to all of us,
whether we're a former President or merely a lowly law
professor. All of us are protected by the procedural
protections of the Constitution, and all of us are subject to
the law without fear or favor.
Political interference into criminal prosecutions, whether
that's interference to bring cases that would otherwise not be
brought or interference to protect politically powerful
defendants from cases that ought to be brought, undermines the
rule of law and democracy.
Ms. Sanchez. To me, Chair Jordan's demand appeared to be an
intimidation tactic plain and simple, and he's using this very
Committee to carry out that intimidation.
Isn't that, in fact, the very definition of weaponization
of the government?
Mr. Seligman. I see why you say that, and it is
inappropriate for a Congressional Committee to inquire into a
pending criminal investigation.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank you for your testimony.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Steube, is recognized.
Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sauer, earlier this week I questioned HHS Secretary
Becerra before the Ways and Means Committee, and I asked him
about a report put out by a private research organization
called Cochrane that found masks may not be effective in
preventing COVID.
That same organization did an about-face a few weeks later.
In January, they issued the report finding there was no
scientific evidence or proof that masks worked, and then, on
March 10th, they issued a report that basically said: Well,
what we said before was not fully accurate.
Secretary Becerra claimed that he had no knowledge of HHS
or anyone in the administration pressuring Cochrane to withdraw
their findings, and I specifically asked him that. He was under
oath. I specifically asked him if he knew if anybody in HHS had
any information as it related to that.
From your experience, has HHS pressured private
organizations to take certain stances and censor information
regarding COVID?
Mr. Sauer. Yes. Our evidence includes pretty extensive
emails involving senior HHS officials, including within the
Office of the Secretary, involved in these kinds of pressure
campaigns to engage in censorship.
We also have extensive evidence of subagencies within HHS,
which is described in some detail in my written testimony,
including NIAID, NIH, and the CDC.
Mr. Steube. Well, and the Biden Administration and these
emails, much to the chagrin of my colleagues on the other side
who say there's no evidence that Mr. Flaherty was working with
Facebook, I mean, these emails that you put are actually part
of your statement today. Is that correct?
Mr. Sauer. That is correct.
Mr. Steube. You have conversations here about content, you
have conversations here about vaccines, you have Facebook
sharing attachments and research with Mr. Flaherty. You have
Mr. Flaherty telling them, I think, like actually telling them
what Facebook should be doing.
I'll just read a quick excerpt. Again, this is in the
materials that you provided to the Committee:
Generally, I think some combo of the following would be
effective, some kind of thing that puts the news in context if
folks have seen it, like COVID news panel.
He's directing Facebook of how they should promulgate
information, which I would say is disinformation, but their
opinion on certain information, and it's right there in your
testimony that you've given here today.
Can you just like expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Sauer. Sure. Thank you for the question,
Representative.
We see email after email after email from the White House,
from Mr. Flaherty, pressuring specifically Facebook, but also
other social media platforms to take down disfavored
viewpoints.
The emphasis in those emails is on true content. The reason
that the emphasis is on true content is because, he almost says
this in so many words in one of the emails, that the true
content is what they perceive to be doing the most to undermine
the narrative that the White House favored at the time.
So, it's viewpoint discrimination targeting truthful speech
that they perceive to be the most damaging to the narrative
that they're pushing.
Mr. Steube. Which you have actual emails from the White
House as part of your testimony today.
Mr. Sauer. We have submitted those, yes.
Mr. Steube. I would just--it's already in the record, but I
just want to bring people's attention to that.
As it relates to that, the Surgeon General also pressured
big tech companies to only allow on their platforms
administration-approved information about COVID.
Could you go into a little detail about that?
Mr. Sauer. That's exactly correct. What we see is what's
probably an orchestrated pressure campaign involving the
Surgeon General and the Surgeon General's office in what their
witness described in sworn testimony is their bully pulpit, to
engage in a pressure campaign that reinforced the pressure
campaign that was happening largely covertly from the White
House but also at key points became very public.
For example, May 5, 2021, July 15-16, 2021, you have very
public pressure from the White House. Then, behind the scenes
you have emails where the Office of Surgeon General and the
White House are in a sense teaming up with the social media
platforms to pressure them to remove the information that they
thought was unworthy of First Amendment protections.
Mr. Steube. I've only got a little less than a minute, but
could you use the remainder of your time to talk about the more
inappropriate ways that the administration sought to control
information related to COVID and vaccines?
Mr. Sauer. Yes. There's a whole series of these that are
set forth in my written testimony.
You have the pressure campaign from the White House that
involved both public and private components. That was executed
in, as I said, kind of in tandem with a similar pressure
campaign from the Surgeon General's office.
Also, you see both extensive evidence of federally induced
censorship out of NIAID under the leadership of Dr. Fauci, and
also the CDC, who we haven't mentioned today. You see the CDC
both having meeting after meeting after meeting and flagging
specific content, individual posts in large numbers, saying be
on the lookout for this, this is what we, the CDC, want you to
censor.
You see the platforms responding by kind of deferring to
the CDC and allowing the CDC to dictate what Americans can and
cannot say on social media.
Mr. Steube. My time is expired.
Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to
working with you.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi from California for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we broke for votes, the issue from one of my
colleagues came up about comparing the administration with the
German Stasis.
Mr. Seligman, I'd like you to talk about this inappropriate
comparison.
Mr. Seligman. It is an inappropriate and inaccurate
comparison.
The allegations in the lawsuit brought by Mr. Landry and
others are that the Federal government coerced social media
platforms into censoring content. There has been vague talk
about pressure campaigns in emails between White House
officials and social media campaigns.
In Federal court you have to make allegations about what
exactly the threats were. So, from the record of the case, here
is the Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency, the
emails that are cited by Mr. Landry's lawsuit as threats.
CISA will not take any action favorable or unfavorable toward
social media companies based on decisions about how or whether
to use this information. CISA neither has nor seeks the ability
to remove or edit what information is made available on social
media platforms.
In light of this absence of a threat in the communications
between government officials and social media platforms, the
lawsuit turns to other allegations of threatened action. It
turns to two.
The first is antitrust action against big-tech companies,
and the second is reform of Section 230. Now, these are
implausible bases for threats by the Biden Administration
against big-tech companies, and the reason is because there's a
growing bipartisan consensus that big-tech companies should be
subject to more antitrust enforcement.
For example, on May 19, 2022, Congressman Gaetz was among a
group of four bipartisan Congress Members who introduced
legislation that, quote, ``takes direct aim at Google and
Facebook's ad market duopoly.''
So, Congressman Gaetz introduced legislation that targeted
Facebook and Google for antitrust scrutiny. I don't think that
this makes him threatening, in violation of the First
Amendment, Google and Facebook such that their decisions on
content moderation are suddenly the responsibility of
Congressman Gaetz.
Similarly, on June 11, 2021, Chair Jordan introduced the
Protect Speech Act, which would have reformed Section 230 to
limit or eliminate the immunity that social media platforms
have for civil liability for content posted on their platforms.
This too was a legislative proposal that is exactly the
same type of legislative proposal that this lawsuit and
Republicans on this panel are suggesting constitutes a threat.
I don't think that Chair Jordan's introduction of
legislation constitutes a threat in violation of the First
Amendment.
So, once we move past the vague allegations of threatening
emails and look to what the lawsuit actually alleges, we see
there were no threats, and the challenged coercive action was
just legislative proposals that have been made both by
Republicans and by Democrats.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much. It's useful to note the
actions of the Members of this Committee in that regard. Thank
you very much.
As we look at what is going on here, our friends across the
aisle here continue to claim that there's censorship.
Last hearing, I provided substantive information and
multiple studies that showed that the social media actually
amplifies far-right voices more than left voices, including
their false claims about election interference and their
efforts to spread COVID disinformation. So, if there really is
a problem here, it obviously isn't working.
The Select Committee on the Weaponization of Government is
really missing the major weapon that was used by the previous
administration. President Trump used the Federal government,
used his position as President and his office of the presidency
and others in the administration to promote the big lie that
the election was stolen. There is no doubt the January 6th
Committee proved this beyond a doubt, that's exactly what
happened.
That is the example of weaponization that this Committee
should be paying attention to and should be looking for
legislation, that this kind of weaponization by the President
of the United States to stop the lawful transfer of power in an
election in which there was no proven fraud, that this is where
we should be spending our time.
My time having expired, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time
has expired.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. I yield to Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. I'm shocked that I have to explain to a law
professor that there's an obvious difference between engaging
in the legislative process that is open and transparent and
subject to our constitutional system rather than having some
skeevy White House staffers trying to threaten social media
companies under the auspices of some sort of allowed content
moderation.
I yield back to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sauer, Mr. Seligman's testimony asserts that the
Federal government didn't threaten or coerce the social media
platform. It says the Attorney General's complaint that you're
litigating in Federal court lacks a reasonable legal and
factual basis. It didn't mention--as I understand it, just last
week, the United States District Judge in that case denied the
administration's motions to dismiss. Doesn't that denial mean
the opposite of what Mr. Seligman testified?
Mr. Bishop. Turn on your mike. Is your mike on?
Mr. Sauer. Our Federal District Judge came to the opposite
conclusion.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. So, that conclusion is that the complaint
plausibly alleges, but it gives plausible factual allegations
in support of a legally sufficient legal theory that this
censorship scheme, in fact, violates First Amendment. Can you
summarize some of the allegations of fact concerning coercion
and threats that you tendered to the court to lead to that
conclusion?
Mr. Sauer. Yes, and I premise that by saying, in fact,
there's more than one way you can violate the First Amendment.
There is coercion. There's joint participation. There is
conspiracy. There is deception. There is pervasive entwinement.
There is significant encouragement. So, even if we hadn't
alleged threats, it would in no way undermine our claim that
there's a First Amendment violation. There's overwhelming
evidence of threats.
If I may, I can summarize some of those.
Mr. Bishop. I'll give you a little bit of time on that.
Mr. Sauer. Obviously, one of things we have alleged is that
the threats about anti-trust liability and Section 230 repeal
or replacement. Those on one side are tied to demands for
greater censorship. It's one thing for a Federal official to
say we should repeal or replace Section 230 immunity. It's
quite otherwise for them to say: You better censor private
Americans' speech on social media, or we will take that action
against you.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Sauer. It's the threat linked to the demand, which is
what violates the First Amendment. The case was abundantly
clear on this, and the evidence of that is overwhelming. That's
not all. We have all kinds of other threats. For example, in
Elvis Chan deposition, it was revealed that Congressional
staffers had been flying out to Silicon Valley to privately
meet with the social media platforms since 2017, bringing
proposed legislation with them to threaten them with adverse
legal counsels if censorship didn't improve. What Mr. Chan, the
government's FBI agent testified, is that this was effective.
How they experienced the pressure, it made a huge difference.
It censored--
Mr. Bishop. How FBI agents did Twitter say interacted with
Twitter?
Mr. Sauer. I can't remember off the top of my head--
Mr. Bishop. That was in eighties. Isn't it? Eighty-
something.
Mr. Sauer. Certainly, the Foreign Influence Task Force
includes about 78-80 agents, I believe. Then there's another
eight in San Francisco office alone that are involved in these
activities.
Mr. Bishop. I know your written testimony contains hundreds
of pages of these allegations. So, it's interesting.
Mr. Seligman, you refer to yourself as a professor. Now,
you're a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford
Law School. Isn't that right?
Mr. Seligman. That is correct. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. You are not on the faculty at Stanford Law
School.
Mr. Seligman. That's right. I didn't claim otherwise.
Mr. Bishop. You graduated from law school in 2011. Your
LinkedIn resume suggests you hadn't had any jobs longer than
about 3\1/2\ years since then. I looked on Lexis, I couldn't
find any case in which you've served as counsel of record in
which you've finally prevailed. Can you name one?
Mr. Seligman. I have worked on legal teams that have
prevailed at every legal of the Federal judiciary, including
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Bishop. Can you name a case?
Mr. Seligman. Yes, sure. So, Tyson v. Bouaphakeo, which is
a case that the Supreme Court--
Mr. Bishop. Tyson versus what?
Mr. Seligman. Bouaphakeo. It was a case about Rule 23 class
certification. It prevailed.
Mr. Bishop. OK. What reason is--so you're not a professor--
you don't--do you claim expertise in the First Amendment? Do
you claim to be a First Amendment expert?
Mr. Seligman. I am an expert in constitutional law,
including the First Amendment, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Interestingly enough, on your website, on the
Stanford website, it says you're an expert in election law. You
also have broad research interest in constitutional law. It
doesn't even mention First Amendment.
Mr. Seligman. As many legal scholars do, I have a diverse
set of interests.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Sauer, wouldn't it be squarely in conflict
with the First Amendment to censor Mr. Seligman's opinion just
because it conflicts with the official narrative as represented
by the District Court judge's opinion?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely. The First Amendment protects
everybody.
Mr. Bishop. Can you take, in the last few seconds I have
got, and talk briefly about how the Election Integrity Project
and the Virality Project have moved to censoring whole
narratives.
Mr. Sauer. Yes, there is. I see the time is almost up.
There was a concerted effort that we see in the evidence to
censor narrative or narrative level where a narrative could
contain hundreds of thousands of social media posts, and that
is operated out of Stanford University.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Allred, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sauer, when you came to the Capitol today, did you go
through security? Yes or no?
Mr. Sauer. Yes.
Mr. Allred. Did you interact with Capitol Police at all
when you did that?
Mr. Sauer. I may have said hello to one of them.
Mr. Allred. Well, just over two years ago, one of the
police officers you saw might have been more than 150 officers
who were injured when the Capitol was attacked by a violent
mob, or one of the hundreds more that are still dealing with
mental trauma from that day. That attack was organized, in some
cases orchestrated on social media. Those officers' lives were
put at risk, and seven people died in connection with the
attack on January 6th.
Are you familiar with the Internet Record Agency located in
St. Petersburg Russia? Yes or no?
Mr. Sauer. There is some evidence relating to it in our
case.
Mr. Allred. Are you familiar with it?
Mr. Sauer. So, I would say that a level of familiarity at
some level, but limited.
Mr. Allred. Sure. Well, it's a Kremlin asset that uses fake
accounts, bots, and hack materials to influence elections here
in the United States in 2016, 2020, even 2022. That's not my
opinion. It was at the center of a 2018 DOJ criminal indictment
for its efforts to interfere with elections in our political
processes. Do you know who was President of the United States
in 2018?
Mr. Sauer. President Trump.
Mr. Allred. President Trump was in office. I note the
attack on January 6th and the Russian misinformation efforts to
point out that our social media is being used to incite
violence and by foreign actors who do want to undermine our
democracy.
Despite that, as you noted in your testimony, Mr. Seligman,
the agencies responsible for our national security are not
requiring that content be taken down; they have flagged it. The
decision has rested with those private companies. Is that
correct?
Mr. Seligman. That's correct.
Mr. Allred. Maybe the most--one of the most egregious
examples that's come out in the series of Congressional
hearings we have held about this from a White House official
contacting a social media agency, a social media company, was
the Trump White House reaching out about a Chrissy Teigen tweet
and saying that it should be taken down because it said mean
things about the President. Can you imagine that? Do you think
that was a violation of the First Amendment, Mr. Sauer?
Mr. Sauer. We haven't seen that tweet. In our case, I'm not
familiar with it. I would emphasize that for any Federal
election--
Mr. Allred. Are you not familiar.
Mr. Sauer. --for any Federal elected official to demand
that content be taken down raises serious First Amendment
concerns.
Mr. Allred. Good. Well, then, OK, so you're saying that
when the Trump White House did that, that raises concerns for
you?
Mr. Sauer. I would say, if any Federal official, elected or
unelected, is communicating with social media platforms and
demanding that content be taken down, that raises grave First
Amendment concerns. We put in evidence of that occurring on--
Mr. Allred. Listen, listen--
Mr. Sauer. --the scale of hundreds, hundreds of millions--
Mr. Allred. The issue here is that much of the--some of the
discussions that we're talking about here occurred when Trump
was in office. There's a claim of some vast conspiracy led by
the Biden Administration, much of it centering on activity by
the FBI around the last election when Donald Trump was in
office. The Trump--I'm not asking a question yet. The Trump
White House itself was reaching out to social media companies,
trying to suppress certain discussions.
The truth is that, despite all the claims being made here
today, that social media is being used to censor Conservatives,
the truth is that their platforms have repeatedly failed to
prevent their own platforms from being used to incite violence,
to spread disinformation, and said Twitter actually changed its
own policies to allow Donald Trump to repeatedly spread lies
about the election. We have some examples I would like to put
up here really quickly.
[Slide.]
All the way back in May 2020, six months before the
election, President Trump was tweeting that this would be a
rigged election. That there will be massive fraud and abuse.
That 2020 will be the most rigged election in our Nation's
history. That content was not taken down. It was allowed to
stay up. That doesn't sound like censorship to me. Those
decisions were made by private companies during Donald Trump's
Presidency.
Mr. Seligman, I don't have a lot of time left, but I just
wanted to ask you as an expert, in a democracy, what does it do
when statements like this from a head of State are allowed to
attack the very democracy they're supposed to be leading?
Mr. Seligman. I think it inflames people's political
passions, and when hundreds of millions of people see claims
like that and believe them and believe that our elections are
not free and fair, contrary to fact, some of them ultimately
take extreme action in response to that. That is the danger of
misinformation.
Mr. Allred. It was still allowed to stay up.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Allred. Now, there's no ground of conspiracy. Take off
the tinfoil hats and understand what is really going on--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Allred. --and understand what's really going on.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Massie, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Seligman, are you familiar with the lawsuit
against President Trump where he blocked people on Twitter?
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Mr. Massie. Very briefly. As briefly as you can State it,
what was the issue there.
Mr. Seligman. It's been a while since I've looked at the
case, so I will speak from my recollection. So, President Trump
blocks people on Twitter and, of course, as a private user, if
had not been President, there would be no question that he had
the right to do that.
So, the question in the case was whether his taking that
action while he was President and therefore wielding
governmental power amounted to a violation of the First
Amendment.
Mr. Massie. Wasn't it a particular issue of the First
Amendment that these were constituents who were trying to make
their voices heard to the government?
Mr. Seligman. That's right, as Attorney General Landry, I
believe, mentioned before the right to petition for redress of
grievances is part of the First Amendment.
Mr. Massie. I think it's a very important part of the First
Amendment. If you can't communicate with your government, how
do you get any redress? So, I think it's really--we really have
to be concerned when constituents who are trying to address
their elected representatives, their voices get squelched.
Before I get to a particular instance of that, I want to
ask you, Mr. Sauer, how did the CDC, the Surgeon General, and
NIAID communicate with social media platforms to influence
them?
Mr. Sauer. They did it in different ways. You see a lot of
email traffic that was not public at the time where there's
censorship activities that were out of public view.
Mr. Massie. Like at CDC, what was the particular channel
there? I heard that they had some portal partnership that they
could access directly to Twitter. Who were the people involved?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct. You see both Twitter and
Facebook offering Federal officials privileged access to be
sort of privileged flaggers of misinformation, using something
that Twitter calls the partner support portal and something
that the Facebook emails describe as Facebook's mis-info
reporting channel. They would assure them: Hey, if you go
through this process, you'll get very prompt responses. We'll
prioritize escalation of your concerns.
Mr. Massie. So, the government literally signed up as a
partner with the social media companies?
Mr. Sauer. I think that's a very fair comment on our
evidence.
Mr. Massie. So, one other avenue that I want you to tell us
about that the government may have had influences is this
Virality Project. Can you tell us what that is and what they do
and if they receive taxpayer money?
Mr. Sauer. The Virality Project is a kind of consortium of
private entities working hand in glove with the Federal
government. It's really just an extension under a different
name with the Election Integrity Partnership. You're talking
about entities like Stanford Internet Observatory, the
University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public,
Graphika, and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab collaborating
closely with State, Federal, and local government officials,
and collaborating closely with the social media platforms, all
at once to engage in a mass surveillance and mass censorship
program for social media, the breadth of which is staggering.
Mr. Massie. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the
Virality Project was targeting my communications in social
media with my constituents. In June, they said Representative
Massie uses Cleveland Clinic study to allege, counter to CDC
guidance, that previously infected people do not need the
vaccine.
[Chart.]
They were concerned that my Fox News interview had gone
viral with 393,000 Facebook views. Then, finally, they said,
whether or not this is a case in which scientific consensus is
changing. In other words, whether this is true or not, they
said that natural immunity key narrative is a source of
uncertainty, not only among anti-vaccine activists, but also
among the questioning and hesitant. That uncertainty must be
addressed by experts and openly and responsibly communicated to
the public. This Virality Project, working with the government,
was advising the social media companies on what to censor. Is
that correct?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct. That's correct.
Mr. Massie. So, here's what I find disturbing, not
necessarily that my tweets were censored, but this is one of
the tweets where natural immunity's better than vaccine
immunity. There were multiple studies supporting that. I had
subsequent tweet, just like this, that references studies. It
got blocked, too. What concerns me is this statement down here.
This tweet can't be replied to, shared, or liked. OK. Shared.
When we do this to constituents, are we squelching their First
Amendment?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely. The Knight v. First Amendment case
that Mr. Seligman was talking about in the Second Circuit held
that liking, commenting, reposting, retweeting--there's case
law indicating these are First-Amendment-protected activities.
Mr. Massie. I think it's appalling that we've got evidence
that the First Amendment was violated by the Executive Branch,
particularly people trying to redress their government.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked President Biden what his
message was to social media platforms when it came to COVID-19
disinformation. He replied, quote: ``They're killing people,''
end quote.
I know one of our missing witnesses referenced that quote
earlier, but I can't ask him about those questions because he
has been excused.
[Chart.]
Now, if you look at the chart behind me, this represents
the consequences of vaccine signs' denialism. The arrow points
to May 2021 when the vaccine became widely available in the
United States. The deaths to the right of the arrow represent a
continued wrath of COVID on our country, mostly among
unvaccinated people in Texas and the Southern U.S. As you can
see, 200,000 lives could have been saved. That's how many
people were killed.
Now, if we used the same formula, that means that 15,000
lives could have been saved in Chair Jordan's State of Ohio or
5,000 lives could have been saved in Chair Johnson's State of
Louisiana. That's a lot of people. Many communities across the
United States have been utterly devastated by COVID.
You know I represent parts of Houston, a big city. I was
born and raised in a small Texas rural community. In Duval
County, where I was born, one out of 151 people died of COVID.
In a similar community like Lamb County, Texas, nearly one out
of every 100 people was killed by COVID. This death rate was
one of the highest in the country and three times that of the
Nation as a whole.
In fact, across the country, rural America's death rate has
been nearly 40 percent higher than that of those in cities.
This is tragically sad. I believe it's vaccine denialism that
have cost these Americans deaths. Only 56 percent of rural
residents are fully vaccinated versus 67 percent of their urban
counterparts.
In my home State of Texas, it's estimated that 2,000 lives
could have been saved if we had reached the vaccination levels
of places like Vermont or Connecticut.
Mr. Sauer, you cited Missouri v. Biden, plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunction. That motion claims that Biden's
statement that the social media companies are, quote, ``killing
people by letting vaccine disinformation spread'' was somehow
illegal censorship. I, frankly, could not disagree with you
more strongly. I have a simple fact question for you today.
Mr. Sauer, do you agree that the COVID vaccine saves lives?
Just a yes or no, please.
Mr. Sauer. In my view First Amendment--
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Sauer, I asked for a yes or no. Yes, two
simple words. Yes or no.
Mr. Sauer. I have no opinion to talk with the Committee--
Ms. Garcia. So, you're Harvard-trained. You pretend to be
an expert here, and you cannot answer the simple question of
whether or not you agree that COVID vaccine saves live?
Mr. Sauer. I have no--
Chair Jordan. Gentleman, Mr. Sauer, if you could hit the
microphone.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Seligman, will you answer my question since
it looks like our Harvard colleague over there cannot?
Mr. Seligman. Yes, I believe vaccines saves lives.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Sauer, you also signed a Missouri v. Biden Second
Amendment complaint which criticized Twitter for removing
content suggesting that, quote, ``face masks do not work to
reduce transmission or to protect against COVID-19.''
Well, a journalist in Texas did a lot of the work that
apparently you haven't and compiled 49 studies all showing that
masks effectively reduce the rate of COVID transmission.
Mr. Sauer, yes or no, again, do you agree that face masks
stop the transmission of COVID?
Mr. Sauer. I refer you to the--
Ms. Garcia. Sir, a yes or no again.
Mr. Sauer. Again, Congresswoman, I refer you--
Ms. Garcia. It is my time; I want a yes or no. If that's
too hard for you, then I'll just move on.
So, I'll ask you, Mr. Seligman, do you agree that face
masks stop the transmission of COVID?
Mr. Seligman. My understanding is the scientific evidence
is, yes, it does.
Ms. Garcia. All right. So, Mr. Sauer, your motion for
preliminary injunction claims that, even the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' efforts to gather information about
how widespread COVID-19 disinformation could somehow be
censorship. Knowing how the American people are being lied to
is not censorship. I guess you might be scared what the data
will show.
Mr. Sauer, again, a yes or no, do you believe that public
health experts need data about the impact of disinformation to
stop people in places like rural Texas from dying from this
pandemic.
Mr. Sauer. Federal officials should not be demanding data
about people's political and social opinions expressed on
social media.
Ms. Garcia. Please answer yes or no. Yes or no, please.
Mr. Sauer. I reiterate what I said. Under the First
Amendment--
Ms. Garcia. You are refusing to answer my question.
Mr. Sauer. Under the First Amendment, a Federal official
should not be demanding that.
Ms. Garcia. You are refusing to answer my question.
Mr. Seligman, do you agree that data on disinformation is
necessary to help stop these lies from spreading.
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you. You are on actual expert on
disinfor-
mation--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Seligman, your testimony describes that--State action
case law--and I'll try and boil that down in its simplest
terms, that it comes down to the distinction between convince
and coerce. You State that, because there was no overt threats
to the platforms, that the government is in the clear.
I want to be clear: I reject that premise and agree
significantly more with Mr. Sauer. For the sake of argument,
let's continue that each individual instance only constitutes
attempts to convince platforms by the administration. We still
have to view this in its totality.
There was an unprecedented level of continuous engagement
between the administration and social media companies to
address not only categories of speech, but specific
individuals, specific content, and specific viewpoints. The
sheer quantity has a quality all its own.
The administration performed this unprecedented level of
continuous engagement at several levels: The FBI, the CDC, the
Department of Homeland Security, essentially every single
alphabet soup agency; the White House. That's not even taking
into account the State Department funding a nonprofit whose
goal was to censor such radical media as The Federalist,
Reason, and the New York Post.
In one instance, a White House staffer, Rob Flaherty, sent
this exact message to Google: This is a concern that is shared
at the highest level, and I mean the highest levels of the
White House.
He's talking about the President of the United States. This
is coming from an administration that has supported and
advanced several policies directly targeting the business
models of social media companies.
Anti-trust enforcement, Section 230, encryption. The list
goes on and on. Regardless of which government agency is
pressuring these social media companies on any particular
issue, they were all being received by the same contract-
moderation teams at those social media companies. The
administration isn't going to say: Do this, or we will shut you
down.
To be quite honest, that's not how government coercion is
carried out. They are never going to directly threaten anyone.
The message is clear from a continuous request: Play ball or
else.
The end result is harming Americans' First Amendment right
to speak and also to receive information.
Understanding that content--Mr. Seligman, understanding
that content-based restrictions are unconstitutional, are you
not at all different concerned that the administration's
continuous actions have chilled Americans' free speech rights.
Mr. Seligman. I don't think that the administration's
actions constitute a First Amendment violation. As you noted, I
don't think there were any overt threats, and I don't think
there were any covert threats as well. The best indication that
we have of that is that social media platforms could and did
disagree with the suggestions that were offered by governmental
officials, and they made decisions that conflicted with those
recommendations without consequence, repeatedly.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, without consequences. They got a lot
of emails back and forth.
Mr. Sauer, we all understand that, if Federal law
enforcement wants to search the trunk of your car, you need a
warrant. The Federal government can't get around that warrant
by using a Capitol security guard to open that trunk and then
look what's in it. One of the biggest things that we've been
continuing to talk about in this context is the third party
doctrine. If the DOJ can't search my car without a warrant,
they can't use a security guard to search my car.
This administration, even though they can't directly censor
First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, is trying to use
social media companies to carry out their tasks. How do you
view that moving forward?
Mr. Sauer. That is a grave threat to liberty. It directly
undermines the First Amendment. Your statements are supported
by overwhelming evidence in the record.
Mr. Armstrong. The answer about the third party doctrine,
which we have carried out in different things and we're dealing
with it now just as simply new, and we continue to move
forward. What recommendation would you have for us as Congress
to start dealing with this issue?
Mr. Sauer. I believe that this Subcommittee should take a
very close look and scrutinize the various forms of First
Amendment violations we see in this case, again, not just
coercion but also joint participation and significant
entwinement. For example, when you have Federal and State
officials working hand in glove with nonprofits like the
Stanford Internet Observatory, which are also tightly connected
to social media platforms to engage in mass surveillance, to
engage in the censorship of--we're talking about millions and
millions of social media posts, systemic First Amendment
violations--that needs to be carefully scrutinized.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, just with the little time I have left,
I know it came up earlier with objectionable. Provided that
speech is lawful, content-based discrimination by the U.S.
Government is a First Amendment violation.
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. So, the fact that this speech is
objectionable, again, provided that it's constitutionally
protected, it's irrelevant to when you're dealing with
government discrimination.
Mr. Sauer. That's exactly right. Under the First Amendment,
government officials don't get to decide what is objectionable
or what is true and false. We get to decide that.
Mr. Armstrong. It absolutely has to be that way; otherwise,
who polices the policers?
Mr. Sauer. You're absolutely right. This is the heart of
the First Amendment.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. We now recognize--
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter
four documents into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. Can you identify the
documents first, though? Can you identify the documents?
Ms. Garcia. Sure. The first is a Time Magazine article is
entitled, ``In this Texas County, There's No Such Thing As
Moving on From COVID.''
From KXAN News in Austin, ``Do face masks work? Here are 49
scientific studies that explain that they do.''
From The Washington Post, an article entitled, ``The inside
story of how Trump's denial, mismanagement, and magical
thinking led to the pandemic's dark winter.''
Finally, a report published in PLOS Global Public Health by
Peter Hotez, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine
and Professor of the Departments of Pediatrics and Molecular
Virology and Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, and
the Endowed Chair in Tropical Pediatrics and Co-Director for
Vaccine Development at Texas Children's Hospital entitled,
``The Great Texas COVID Tragedy,'' be entered into the record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sauer, did you discuss the substance of your testimony
here today with any Members of this Committee?
Mr. Goldman. I can't hear you. Can you turn your microphone
on.
Mr. Sauer. Pardon me. I participated in a briefing
yesterday afternoon with Members of the Subcommittee when my
testimony had already been finalized.
Mr. Goldman. Were any Democratic members included in that
briefing?
Mr. Sauer. I can't say for sure. I don't know all the
Members who were involved.
Mr. Goldman. You don't know?
Mr. Sauer. I don't know. I'm not as familiar with the
membership of the Committee as perhaps I should be.
Mr. Goldman. Am I correct that--I'll just note, for the
record, there were no Democratic Members in that briefing. Am I
correct, sir, that you are one of the lawyers that brought the
lawsuit that we are discussing here today?
Mr. Sauer. That is correct.
Mr. Goldman. So, you're a party to that case?
Mr. Sauer. No, I'm an attorney. That's very different.
Mr. Goldman. Well, you represent Louisiana. You work for
the Attorney General's Office of Louisiana, and Louisiana
brought the case?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct. It would be inaccurate to
describe me as a party.
Mr. Goldman. OK. You don't decide whether or not your
arguments that you make in that case and that you're making
here today are valid or not, do you?
Mr. Sauer. They seemed very valid to me. The judge will
make a decision in our case.
Mr. Goldman. The judge makes the decision, right not you?
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Mr. Goldman. As you know, the District Court did not decide
in its opinion whether your assertions are correct, right?
Mr. Sauer. The District Court dismissed the pending motion
to dismiss by the Department of Justice, saying that we had
alleged sufficient facts to State claims, and we will have a
hearing in late May on our pending motion for preliminary
injunction. He has not ruled on that yet.
Mr. Goldman. So, just so laypeople can understand, a motion
to dismiss just says that, if the allegations that you make are
true, you can continue with your claim. A preliminary
injunction will actually address the evidence that you're
discussing, right?
Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
Mr. Goldman. OK. Now, are you expecting that the Department
of Justice will appeal the motion to dismiss order?
Mr. Sauer. You would have to ask them--well, actually, the
motion to dismiss order, it's very unlikely because there is no
procedural right to appeal that. So far, they haven't made any
attempt to do that. They would have to do by pursuing what's
called an extraordinary writ. That would be very unusual. That
said, I do not speak for them.
Mr. Goldman. Do you read the news, sir?
Mr. Sauer. I'm sorry?
Mr. Goldman. Do you read the news?
Mr. Sauer. Some news.
Mr. Goldman. Are you aware of reporting that Donald Trump's
defense attorney asked Republican Members of the House of
Representatives to intervene in an ongoing criminal
investigation into himself in a local prosecutor's office?
Mr. Sauer. I don't recall reading that.
Mr. Goldman. OK. If that were the case, would you consider
that to be called, quote, ``directing,'' unquote that the House
of Representatives act on behalf of Donald Trump?
Mr. Sauer. I would have to know much, many more facts
before I'm able to make any kind of judgment like that.
Mr. Goldman. Right. All right. Well, I just want to
understand because you talk a lot about directing here, that
the government is directing. Then you also say that there's a
compelling inference. Now, we lawyers understand that
inferences only occur when you don't have direct evidence to
support it. So, I would also just want to note that.
Mr. Sauer. We have overwhelming--
Mr. Goldman. There's no question--the sad reality here is
that we are continuing to go down this phantom narrative that
the White House or the Biden Administration coerced social
media companies into censoring anti-vaccine and election
disinformation and misinformation.
Now, we know why that is because the Members on the other
side of the aisle believe that disinformation and
misinformation, if it gets out there, is politically beneficial
to them. Unfortunately, neither you nor they have presented any
direct evidence to support this.
I would actually submit that this hearing is more notable,
not because of the topic and the witnesses, including two who
were too afraid to stay and answer questions, but because of
what we are not focusing on. Apparently, this Committee is no
longer focused on the so-called dozens and dozens of FBI
whistleblowers who were supposedly going to show some massive
government conspiracy to attack Conservatives. Three of them
have now come in for transcribed interviews over a month ago.
Where are those witnesses, Mr. Chair? Let's bring them in.
Bring them in right here so that the American people can see
for themselves what is the entire basis of this Subcommittee.
Now, you want to talk about censorship. You imagined in
your opening statement a world where the FBI sends a list of
books that should be pulled from their shelves. Luckily, we
don't have to imagine that, sir. Are you aware that recent laws
in Florida have resulted in the mass removal of books that are
now banned in public schools?
Mr. Sauer. I don't know about Florida. I do know that we
have sworn testimony from FBI agent Elvis Chan that directly
backs up the analogy I drew in my opening statement.
Mr. Goldman. OK. Well, you should go look into it--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Goldman. --because Florida right now is banning books.
You would agree that's a violation of the First Amendment, do
you?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Goldman. Can the witness answer the question.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No, because you were over your
time. Because you addressed the Chair, I will stay tuned, Mr.
Goldman; there's much more to come in this Committee.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Cammack, is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for appearing before us here today. I have heard your
last name pronounced a couple of different ways today. How is
it properly pronounced?
Mr. Seligman. Seligman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Cammack. Seligman.
Mr. Seligman. Seligman.
Ms. Cammack. OK. Thank you, Mr. Seligman. You stated you
are an expert in constitutional law, correct.
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Ms. Cammack. OK. Excellent. In your testimony, your written
testimony, which was provided to us late last night, it says
that, quote--this is your writing:
No government official ever threatened any social media
platform with adverse action if a platform declined to moderate
content flagged by the official or if a platform decided not to
take an official's suggestions.
Do you stand by your testimony?
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Ms. Cammack. OK. Now, a few minutes ago just prior, you
said that Members of the Legislative Branch don't qualify for
this particular statement, despite the fact that you said no
government official ever. Does a Representative in Congress
constitute a government official?
Mr. Seligman. Well, let me clarify from earlier.
Ms. Cammack. Please do.
Mr. Seligman. I don't think that legislative proposals that
were brought by Republicans or Democrats constitute threats
against social media platforms. That's true whether--with
respect to Section 230 reform.
Ms. Cammack. Sure.
Mr. Seligman. It's true with respect to anti-trust
enforcement.
Ms. Cammack. So, that would then lead us to the natural
inclination to believe that you are talking about the Executive
Branch, correct? Being government officials? So, government
officials like the Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of the Digital Strategy, like Robert Flaherty, or the
White House Senior Advisor, like Andrew Slavitt, or the NSC
staffer Katy Colus (ph), or the Deputy Assistant to the
President, or the White House Digital Director, or the Press
Secretary for the First Lady, or the NSC Director for
Counterterrorism, the Chief of Staff for the Office of Digital
Strategy, the Director of Strategic Communication and
Engagement, the White House Associate Counsel, Associate
Director for Communications, the Deputy Director of Digital
Strategy, and the Strategic Director of Digital Communications,
those are government officials, correct?
Mr. Seligman. Yes.
Ms. Cammack. What's so interesting is that all these
members of the Executive Branch, all of them have
communications, thousands of emails between them and Twitter
and Meta officials where they demand that posts be taken down
and censored.
I'll give you a couple of examples, and then we'll see if
you still feel so strongly about your words. January 23rd,
three days after the inauguration, at 1:04 a.m., Clarke
Humphrey of the White House emails Twitter and says:
We're flagging this post for you. Hey, folks, wanted to flag
this tweet, wondering if we can get moving on the process to
have it taken down . . . ASAP.
Then, on February 7th, an email exchange took place between
Twitter and White House Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty and asked for the
steps that he could take to, quote, ``streamline the process
for the White House's demands for Twitter censorship.''
Then, two days later on February 9, 2021, he follows up
again with Facebook with a more aggressive demand for more
information along with an accusation that would be repeated
many times in the future, that Facebook was failing to censor
speech on its platform, and it was causing, quote, ``political
violence.''
Fast forward, you have March 15th, White House senior
advisor then made an ominous statement threatening unspecified
executive action against Facebook in retaliation for Facebook's
perceived lack of cooperation with the White House's list of
demands--that have been documented and will be entered into the
record for this hearing--on censorship of, quote, ``borderline
content.''
The line that I think is particularly troubling is saying,
``Internally, we have been considering our options on what to
do about it.''
Do you consider that to be nonthreatening?
Mr. Seligman. I am not familiar with the particular
documents that you're referring to.
Ms. Cammack. I just read you multiple examples.
Mr. Seligman. Yes, and so I don't think that emphatic
impressions of their concerns about the problem of
misinformation is a threat. I don't.
Ms. Cammack. So, when President Biden said that social
media companies are killing people, and then there is a direct
line from the White House to the social media companies
demanding posts be removed, going so far as to say there has to
be a quick and devastating takedown, a published takedown, that
is not a threat?
Mr. Seligman. I don't believe so.
Ms. Cammack. Wow.
Mr. Seligman. I also don't believe when President Trump
made comments about social media.
Ms. Cammack. I am so glad we have this on the record.
Again, my apologies to you, sir, for what you have had to
endure here today.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Hageman from Wyoming for five
minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Sauer, you and your colleagues have truly provided a
great service to this Nation by exposing what we can rightfully
describe as the Surveillance Industrial Complex, the Censorship
Industrial Complex, the Corruption Industrial Complex. Take
your pick. Your testimony today is stunning, as is your written
statements, and I encourage everyone to read the information
that you have provided.
The breadth and scope of this vast censorship complex is
stunning and extends from the Halls of Congress to the
Executive Branch to the Office of the President of the United
States.
As one of the last questioners today, I wanted to give you
the opportunity to speak directly to the American public, and
I'd like you to give us examples of just one or two takeaways
that you believe are paramount as we continue our work and as
we seek to hold this administration and these corrupt
government hacks accountable for their blatant violation of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Mr. Sauer. Thank you very much, Representative. I would
emphasize maybe two or three points. First, Federal censorship
activities are not in retreat. They are expanding. Federal
executive officials are expanding the topics on which they seek
censorship. It's expanding to more and more agencies, and it's
expanding to any social media platform they can reach to. So,
we are not in a situation where this is something that occurred
in the past. We have overwhelming evidence that it's growing
and growing and growing, and there's little indication that
there will ever be any voluntary relinquishment of the power to
dictate what ordinary Americans can say on social media. So,
it's a problem that is growing. It's a looming threat.
The second point that I would make is that censorship, as I
said in my opening statement, both now and every other time
when there's been censorship throughout human history, is not
about truth; it is about political power. It's about obtaining
power. It's about preserving power, and it's about expanding
power. The evidence of this, again, is overwhelming. You see it
right there in the documents, some of which were just quoted.
You see the White House saying: What we really want you to take
down, Facebook, Twitter, and so forth, is borderline content--
borderline content that's described in the emails is often
true; it's often true; it involves core political speech--we
want you to take that down because that is what most effective
undermining the narratives that we want to be out there on
social media.
That's an egregious violation of First Amendment. It is
viewpoint discrimination.
I would also point out that many of the comments that have
been made on the other side today have said: We can't let there
be misinformation on social media because the tiny minority of
the hundred million people who might see it might take it and
do something bad.
You might call the minority report approach to the First
Amendment. It's absolute poppycock. It turns the First
Amendment absolutely on its head.
The promise of the First Amendment is that no official,
high or petty, will be able to dictate what Americans do.
Americans can make their own opinions. They're adults. They can
read the evidence. They can form their own factual opinions and
their own opinions. That is the core in the heartland of the
First Amendment, which we see radically perverted, radically
perverted in the communications between the White House and
virtually every other Federal agency has discussed in my
extensive written testimony.
I would also emphasize censorship does not make Americans
safer. It does not make them healthier, and it does not protect
our democracy. Censorship is what kills, not freedom. Freedom
is what preserves our liberty. Freedom is what makes us safe
and healthy as a society. So, this notion that we've got to
have censorship because it's going to be a threat to our
democracy--what could be more antidemocratic than Federal
censorship dictating what ordinary Americans can say on social
media.
The First Amendment in social media radically Democratized
speech. The First Amendment is the most pro-democratic
political statement in history perhaps. Because what it says is
every ordinary citizen can decide for themselves without
interference from Federal officials as to what their opinion
is. We can participate in a free market of ideas with freedom
of impression, freedom of association to engage in that. That's
what we see under direct assault by a whole army of Federal
officials in this case.
Finally, I would emphasize that this should not be a
partisan issue. Censorship violates the First Amendment no
matter what viewpoint Federal officials are going after.
Everyone, everyone in this Chamber should oppose the sorts of
pressure, collusion, deception, all the things you see in our
evidence in this case. Federal officials should not be in the
business of saying what Americans can and cannot say on social
media. Those are the conclusions that I would offer the
American people.
Ms. Hageman. Again, thank you for what you have just
described. What an incredible summary and a statement of where
we are in this country. We appreciate what you have done, what
you've been willing to expose. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentlelady's
expired.
I will yield to myself five minutes as we wrap this up
today. We've heard a lot.
Mr. Sauer, what you said was extraordinary, and I wish
every American could watch that clip because you summarized it
so well. I thank the gentlelady for giving you the opportunity.
What you said earlier this morning summarizes it well,
also. You said censorship impedes the pursuit of truth in the
free marketplace of ideas. That's the summary.
Look, we brought in exceptional witnesses this morning. We
brought in the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and
the former Attorney General of Missouri, now a U.S. Senator,
because their litigation has revealed overwhelming direct
evidence, as you pointed out, that the Executive Branch has
undertaken a broad campaign to censor the American people.
That's the headline. That's the takeaway today.
Rather than one-off instances of censorship in coordination
between Federal agencies and the private sector, your cases
revealed how Federal agencies and officials have taken a whole-
of-government approach to censoring online speech about topics
that they think are disfavored.
The Federal government exchanged in two blatantly
unconstitutional acts. First, they coerced technology companies
to engage in censorship. They did this in a number of ways. At
least 20 officials in the White House itself were involved.
Then the Federal government colluded with the Big Tech
companies and others to censor content.
We know that Federal agencies met frequently with social
media companies and received internal platform data and other
special privileges that empowered censorship.
Third, third parties, such as certain nonprofit
organizations, also worked as intermediaries to help the
Federal government effectuate its censorship scheme.
This litigation in Missouri v. Biden offers the American
people a unique window into the Federal government's operation
of what's now being called the Censorship Industrial Complex.
This litigation, led by Missouri and Louisiana, continues to
unveil the extent of Federal coercion and of collusion with
tech companies to censor disfavored content.
Of course, the censors have been wrong time and time again,
but that's not the point here. The point we're trying to make
is that the U.S. Government is pressuring these platforms,
which nearly every American uses every day to censor speech.
Whether you agree with the speech that's being shared or not,
that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is these
actions are wrong, and they have to be stopped. We have to
protect the First Amendment and the free exchange of ideas.
The gentleman here, the Democrat's witness says in his
closing statement, he quotes, ``he decries baseless conspiracy
theories,'' end quote. He says social media platforms must be,
quote, ``uncorrupted by misinformation.'' He doesn't seem to
recognize how dangerous that position is.
Who decides what is baseless, and what is misinformation?
You provided, sir, a recipe for blatant viewpoint
discrimination and tyranny. I would suggest that you attend all
those mandatory First Amendment training courses that your dean
at Stanford Law School has just been forced to order.
I yield to Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Sauer, did the government pressure social media to
censor Americans for saying things like natural immunity is
real?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Did the government pressure social media to
censor Americans for saying things like gain-of-function
research happened in that lab in China?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Did the government pressure social media to
censor Americans for saying things like the virus likely came
from a lab?
Mr. Sauer. That is right with the heartland of our
evidence.
Chair Jordan. Did the government pressure social media to
censor Americans for saying things like the vaccinated don't--
getting vaccinated doesn't prevent COVID and it doesn't
necessarily stop transmission of COVID?
Mr. Sauer. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. So, all those were true statements, but
according to the Democrats, it's fine for government to
pressure social media to take those statements down. In fact,
this administration started doing that on day two. Day three,
excuse me. January 23, 2021, here is what the suggestion, as
Mr. Seligman says, the Biden White House said to Twitter.
Clarke Humphrey, Executive Office of the President, White House
Office: ``Hey, folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and
wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it
removed''--then, in all capitals--``ASAP.''
Is that a suggestion or maybe something a little stronger
than a suggestion from the White House on the second day, third
day, excuse me, of this administration.
Mr. Sauer. Stronger than a suggestion.
Chair Jordan. Heck, yes, it's stronger than a suggestion.
Here is the scariest thing of all, the bulletin the Democrats
put up earlier--the National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin
for February 27, 2022, talks about mis-, dis-, and mal-
information.
Mr. Sauer, tell me, what is mal-information.
Mr. Sauer. Mal-information by their definition is truthful
information that the Federal official thinks lack appropriate
context. It's an Orwellian term.
Chair Jordan. So, it's true, but the government says: We
don't want the people seeing that, hearing that, repeating
that, liking that, sharing that; we don't want that to happen?
Mr. Sauer. Correct.
Chair Jordan. Now, that is scary. That is exactly what the
Chair just said. That is this dystopian crazy world they want
to go. That is exactly what they were doing on day three.
Because you know what the underlying tweet was? The underlying
tweet said this,
Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of the wave of suspicious
deaths among elderly closely following the administration of
the vaccine.
He received the vaccine on January 5th. True. Hank Aaron,
true--real American. Great American. Amazing athlete. Wonderful
human being. He got the vaccine on January 5th to inspire
others to get it, and then he passed--there's nothing false in
that whatsoever. Nothing false. These guys in the Biden White
House said: ``Take it down.'' Not just take it down; they said,
``Take it down as soon as you possibly can.''
Mr. Seligman, Mr. Professor of Law says: You know what?
That's just fine.
That is a scary, scary world that the Democrats want to
take us to.
As you said earlier, if it was the other way around, if
this was Republicans doing this to Democrats, you would be here
testifying, too, and you'd be just as ticked off about it, and
so would I.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman--the Chair
of the Committee.
We thank all our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent .aspx?EventID=115611.
[all]