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




         HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-38

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov 
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
53-145                   WASHINGTON : 2023               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

            SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
CHRIS STEWART, Utah                  STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOHN GARAMENDI, California
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           COLIN ALLRED, Texas
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 DAN GOLDMAN, New York
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
           CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel  
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, July 20, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio.     1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands........................................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Attorney
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12
Emma-Jo Morris, Journalist, Breitbart News
  Oral Testimony.................................................    21
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    24
D. John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana 
  Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28
Maya Wiley, President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil 
  Rights
  Oral Testimony.................................................    42
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    44

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below    88

Materials submitted by the Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking 
  Member of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the 
  Federal Government from the Virgin Islands, for the record
    An excerpt from a transcribed interview with Laura Dehmlow, 
        from the Committee on the Judiciary, Jul. 17, 2023
    An article entitled, ``An Anti-Vaccine Film Targeted To Black 
        Americans SpreadsFalse Information,'' Jun. 8, 2021, NPR
    A letter to McCarthy Denning Limited from Lewis Silkin LLP, 
        Sept. 20, 2021
    An article entitled, ``Pro-RFK Jr. Super PAC Has Deep Ties to 
        Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos,'' Jun. 23, 2023, 
        Rolling Stone
An excerpt from a transcribed interview of Laura Dehmlow, Jul. 
  17, 2023, submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Ohio, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Dan Goldman, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government of New York, for the record
    A pages from a transcribed interview with Laura Dehmlow, from 
        the Committee on the Judiciary, Jul. 17, 2023
    An article entitled, ``New York Post Published Hunter Biden 
        Report Amid Newsrooms Doubts,'' Sept. 13, 2021, New York 
        Times
    A link to a video showing the Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 
        discussing the COVID-19 vaccine
A Decloration from John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff, 
  in the case of Peter Strzok v. Attorney General Merrick 
  Garland, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 
  submitted by the Honorable Stephen Lynch, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Massachusetts, for the record
An appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
  Circuit, Jul. 14, 2023, submitted by the Honorable Linda 
  Sanchez, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  California, for the record
An article entitled, ``Shock Poll: 8 in 10 Think Biden Laptop 
  Cover-Up Changed Election,'' Aug. 24, 2022, Tipp Insights, 
  submitted by the Honorable Elise M. Stefanik, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of New York, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of 
  the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Kentucky
    A document entitled, ``New insights into genetic 
        susceptibility of COVID-19: An ACE2 and TMPRSS2 
        polymorphism analysis,'' 2020, BMC Medicine
    A study entitled, ``FDA Review of Efficacy and Safety of 
        Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use 
        Authorization Request,'' Dec. 10, 2020, Vaccines and 
        Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, 
        U.S. Food & Drug Administration
An Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
  Circuit Administrative stay from the Fifth Circuit Court of 
  Appeals in Missouri v. Biden, Jul. 17, 2023, submitted by the 
  Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Select Subcommittee on 
  the Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of 
  Louisiana, for the record
An article entitled, ``New York Post Published Hunter Biden 
  Report Amid Newsroom Doubts,'' Sept. 13, 2021, The New York 
  Times, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of 
  the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Texas, for the record

                                APPENDIX

A statement submitted by the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member 
  of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Virginia, Jul. 20, 2023, for the 
  record

                                  VOTE

RC #1--Vote on Motion to Table--Passed, 10 ayes and 8 noes

 
              THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 20, 2023

                        House of Representatives

   Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Jordan, Massie, Stewart, Stefanik, 
Johnson, Gaetz, Armstrong, Steube, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman, 
Plaskett, Lynch, Sanchez, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly, 
Garamendi, Allred, Garcia, and Goldman.
    Also present: Representative Roy.
    Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida to 
lead us all in the pledge of allegiance.
    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, 
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    I thank the lady for leading us.
    Without objection, Mr. Roy will be permitted to participate 
in this hearing. The Chair now recognizes himself for an 
opening statement.
    On the third day of this administration, January 23, 2021, 
the White House sent an email to Twitter. The email said this: 
``WANTED TO FLAG THE BELOW TWEET, AND I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN 
GET MOVING ON THE PROCESS FOR HAVING IT REMOVED ASAP,'' in all 
caps.
    That third day, what did that tweet say? A tweet from Mr. 
Kennedy said this:

        Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious 
        deaths among elderly closely following administration of the 
        vaccine. He received the vaccine on January 5th to inspire 
        other Black Americans to get the vaccine.

Now, what's interesting about the email that the White House 
sent to Twitter is the subject line says: ``Flagging Hank Aaron 
misinformation.''
    Now, misinformation is when you don't have the facts right; 
you're saying things that aren't true. When you look at Mr. 
Kennedy's tweet, there was nothing in there that was factually 
inaccurate. Hank Aaron, real person, great American, passed 
away after he got the vaccine. Pointing out--just pointing out 
facts. Yet, the White House, on the third day, was trying--
actually 1:04 a.m. on January 23, 2021, 37 hours into the 
administration, they were trying to censor Mr. Kennedy. I find 
that interesting. The irony here trying to censor the guy who 
is actually their Democrat primary opponent. Go figure.
    Three months earlier, the FBI helps censor our second 
witness, Ms. Morris' story, her story in the New York Post 
about emails on the Hunter Biden laptop. We know the FBI 
censored her because of work this Committee has done to uncover 
what happened and because of our third witness, Mr. Sauer, the 
lawsuit that he argued on behalf of Florida--excuse me, 
Louisiana and Missouri in Federal Court in a case that they got 
the amazing ruling from on July 4th, just two weeks ago.
    Go back to the course of that investigation, course of that 
lawsuit from Missouri and Louisiana, Yoel Roth, former head of 
site integrity at Twitter, in his sworn declarations brought 
out in this lawsuit, in sworn declaration in from of the 
Federal Election Commission, he said this:

        During weekly meetings, Federal law enforcement agencies 
        communicated that they expected hack-and-leak operations before 
        the 2020 Presidential election, likely in October.

These expectations discussed throughout 2020--were discussed 
throughout 2020.
    I also learned in these meetings that a hack-and-leak 
operation would involve Hunter Biden. Now, think about it. 
Weekly meetings throughout 2020 hack-and-leak operation, in 
October involving Hunter Biden. Five key things they pointed 
out throughout that year. Guess what? It all happens. It 
happens just like they predicted. How did they know? How did 
they know it was going to happen like that? Because they had 
the laptop. They had the laptop for 10 months before Ms. 
Morris' story on October 14th.
    Her story breaks that day. That same day, October 14, 2020, 
Twitter meets with the FBI, specifically the Foreign Influence 
Task Force at the FBI. Later that same day, again the day her 
story comes out, Facebook also meets with the FBI. The head of 
the Foreign Influence Task Force now is Laura Dehmlow, and this 
Committee interviewed her just three days ago. What an 
interesting interview that was. We asked her about these 
meetings, she stated, in the first meeting--the FBI and Twitter 
in that first meeting she said someone from Twitter asked, is 
the laptop real? They asked a fundamental--that story broke; it 
was big news. Twitter asked the FBI--they are right there in 
front of them; they've been preparing them for a year--they 
asked the FBI, ``is the laptop real?'' Ms. Dehmlow conveyed to 
the Committee this week an FBI agent answered, ``yes, it is.''
    Another FBI agent, a lawyer, very quickly followed up with 
``no further comment.'' So, again, here's the scenario: The 
story breaks. Twitter is meeting with the FBI later that same 
day. Someone from Twitter asks, is this story real? Is the 
laptop real? The FBI answers, yes, and then quickly followed 
by--again, all this conveyed by Ms. Dehmlow--the FBI lawyer 
says: ``No further comment.''
    In the later meeting with Facebook, again that same day, 
the FBI was asked the same question, and this time the FBI gets 
their story straight, and Ms. Dehmlow is the only one who 
comments. She says: ``No comment.''
    Obviously, by the second meeting, the FBI had coordinated, 
and she conveyed this in her deposition that they had 
deliberated what they were going to respond when that question 
was asked. So, think about this: After being repeatedly told a 
hack-and-leak Russian info operation is coming for a whole 
year, it arrives on October 14th in the form of Ms. Morris' 
story, an accurate story. Our government knows the laptop is 
real. They know it's not a Russian information op, and they 
know the story is true. When directly asked, they say: ``No 
comment.''
    Of course, Ms. Morris' story is censored. Visibility 
filtered the term that the tech companies use. No, you can't 
direct this--you can't send it, keeping the American people 
from valuable information just days before the most important 
election we have, an election for Commander in Chief, election 
for the Presidency of the United States. That's why Ms. Morris 
is here today. She knows what it's like to be censored. It's 
why Louisiana and Missouri filed the case. It's why Mr. Sauer 
argued the case. Frankly, it's why Mr. Kennedy is running for 
President. It's to stop--help us expose and stop what's going 
on. This aligns Big Government pressuring private entities to 
censor Americans.
    In Ms. Morris' testimony, which I read this morning, Big 
Tech, Big Government, working together, Big Media working all 
together to censor American speech.
    So, we look forward to your testimony over the next few 
hours, but I will tell you this: Just get ready, I think these 
guys--Ms. Morris, get ready--the last time we had a journalist 
sitting there, they were trying to get them to divulge their 
sources, so be ready. I know you can handle it. We appreciate 
your willingness to come forward. We appreciate your 
willingness to fight for the First Amendment.
    With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to 
everyone. I just have some administrative matters first.
    I wanted to introduce into the record page 55 from the 
Committee's interview with FBI employee Laura Dehmlow, who you 
just spoke about, which took place on July 17, 2023. In that 
line she says--the question was asked:

        Okay. So if someone were to leave here today, were to leave 
        this interview and were to suggest or imply or state that when 
        you said ``the laptop was real,'' that it meant that the FBI 
        had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the laptop 
        belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to Hunter 
        Biden, that the contents had not been manipulated in some way, 
        they would be misrepresenting what you said, correct?

Answer by Ms. Dehmlow:

        They would be misrepresentng what I said because I don't have 
        much knowledge of that.

Because this Committee likes to misrepresent or leave off 
complete sentences of what individuals said, I'd like to 
introduce this into the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    As to ``no comment'' by the FBI, that's usually what they 
say when there's an ongoing investigation, particularly when 
it's a couple of days before an election.
    Why are we here? Why? That's been the question that quite a 
number of people have been asking me: Why are you having this 
hearing? What does this have it to do with inflation? What does 
this have to do with the cost of living? What does this have to 
do with the everyday lives of Americans, the thing that the 
Republican Party said that they would focus on if they had 
control of the House?
    Why would the Republican leadership and the Committee 
majority give a hearing and a platform to the witnesses today?
    Specifically, to Mr. Kennedy. A man who has recently 
claimed that COVID-19 has targeted to attack Caucasians and 
Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews 
and Chinese. Before that, in his film ``Medical Racism: The New 
Apartheid,'' that film stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not 
work for Black children because of their, quote,

         . . . kick-ass kind of immune system, that hyper super human, 
        subhuman kind of language.

He also said:

        Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps to 
        Switzerland. You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank--to 
        imply Jews in Nazi Germany had more freedoms than unvaccinated 
        Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Now, many of my Republican colleagues across the dais will 
rush to cover that they have Mr. Kennedy here because they want 
to protect his free speech, that they do not believe in 
American censorship.
    This is not the kind of free speech that I know of; the 
free speech that is protected by the Constitution's First 
Amendment. Free speech is not an absolute. The Supreme Court 
has stated that. Others' free speech that is allowed, hateful 
abusive rhetoric, does not need to be promoted in the halls of 
the people's House.
    This Republican charge of free speech is being used by 
Republican Members to promote quasi science, things such as the 
replacement theory that says that Brown people are replacing 
good White Americans here in this country. Let's not remember 
that this country first belonged to Brown Native American 
people. It's a rallying cry for bigotry and hate.
    There are Members of the Republican Conference who also 
frequently suggest that Americans have to deal with COVID rules 
is the same as oppression of Nazi Germany. Indeed, some have 
even questioned whether the Holocaust took place. We have 
staffers who openly follow White supremacy without any 
condemnation of the Republican Conference. Some give it 
chuckles, slaps on the back, shrugs, all under the mantra of 
free speech. It's a free country. You absolutely have a right 
to say what you believe. You don't have the right to a 
platform, public or private. We don't have to give one of the 
largest platforms of our democracy, Congress, this hearing. Our 
right does not mean that we as Americans are not free from 
accountability. That's what's distressing about this hearing, 
even knowing what they know about Mr. Kennedy's hateful, 
evidence-free rhetoric, and even though they've invited any 
number of witnesses to make their point, Speaker McCarthy, 
Chair Jordan, affirmatively chose to give this a platform. They 
intentionally choose to elevate this rhetoric to give these 
harmful, dangerous views a platform in the halls of the U.S. 
Congress. That's endorsing that speech. That's not just 
supporting free speech. They have cosigned on idiotic, bigoted 
messaging. It's a conscious choice.
    There's no doubt as to why they are making the choice. It's 
not to guard free speech or to ensure equality for all. All of 
this, as you'll hear throughout this hearing, is to show us by 
their conduct over and over again that any attack on Joe Biden 
to get Donald Trump back in the White House is what they need 
to do. They think that by hurting the Biden Administration, by 
putting Mr. Kennedy on display, they have said that he's only 
running for censorship. I think people run for the President of 
the United States because they want to advance the American 
people.
    Over the last eight months, the extreme MAGA majority has 
spent its time, not to mention tons of taxpayer money, 
something that they are always so cautious about on baseless 
investigations that have gone nowhere, all in an effort to 
serve as a legislative arm of the Trump campaign and to 
discredit any agency that dares to hold the President or those 
that work with him or who have the same ideals that he has 
accountable for those that are such as White supremacy, such as 
election deniers, such as inciters and those who engaged in the 
riots of January 6th.
    Truth be told, I've no idea whether the Chair actually 
believes any of this stuff, I don't. That's not a question I've 
asked him or one that's necessarily even important. It's clear 
that one aim of this investigation is to bully tech and media 
companies into turning a blind eye to right-wing extremist 
conspiracies, from QAnon to the great replacement theory, as 
they spread across their platforms, even when those theories 
violate very basic terms of service about deliberate 
disinformation and promoting violence. Let's not even think 
about what happens in 2024 with Russian trolls, Iran, China 
trying to interfere in our elections.
    The bullying extends far beyond tech companies. Witness 
after witness have testified to the treatment that they 
received from Chair Jordan and his team. One of our earliest 
witnesses Nina Jankowicz told the Committee about receiving 
thousands of death threats and being told to go into hiding 
while she was pregnant with her first child after Chair Jordan 
first posted a doctored video of her.
    When Politico asked Chair Jordan about the threats, his 
office responded: ``She deserves to be held accountable.'' 
Anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view deserves 
whatever hatred and threats are thrown at them.
    Now, I'm across the hall from Chair Jordan and several 
months ago, I saw somebody who seemed to be threatening to his 
office and the Capitol Police were moving them away. I was 
grateful that they were doing that because I don't want anyone 
to harm him or his staff for their rhetoric, for the things 
that they say. That's inappropriate. That's unconscionable.
    Another witness, this one a current member of Federal law 
enforcement, who spent years protecting Americans from harm, 
described receiving threatening mail not just to her work 
office but to her home address. Someone out there has figured 
out where this person lives and is targeting them based on 
disinformation this Committee itself spread. She summed it up 
in a single sentence: ``I'm frankly scared.''
    Why does the Chair send this movement to intimidate 
witnesses? To change their behavior of course, to make it less 
safe for law enforcement officers to enforce the law and less 
likely that researchers and companies will combat the spread of 
hate and violence online. One witness, an academic whose 
organization help identify disinformation threats to election 
processes and procedures, described the threats sent to him and 
his family in detail. When the Republican staff asked him if he 
would consider performing the same research for 2024 elections, 
he said, quote:

        Since this investigation has cost the university now 
        approaching seven figures in legal fees, it's been pretty 
        successful I think in discouraging us from making it worthwhile 
        for us to do a study for 2024.

    Another witness, a researcher who analyzed massive data 
sets to assess the way that rumors spread online, was explicit 
and personal about the effects of the threats on her life:

        I mean quite frankly I don't have kids. And, if I did, I would 
        no longer be doing this work. I'm worried about my students. I 
        know they are worried about doing this kind of work because of 
        these kinds of threats and what they see that I'm going 
        through. And, at the same time, I just think the work is so 
        important, and I want to make sure it keeps going. So, I don't 
        want to step off that stage. I don't want--I think with we 
        have, like, special skills that can be really useful and 
        helpful and help our country grow stronger and this is having a 
        chilling effect. And it's not just me. Other researchers are 
        experiencing the same thing.

These are the fruits of this Committee's majority 
investigations.
    If MAGA Republicans agree with you, you're given a platform 
to spread any conspiracy theories, no matter how harmful. If 
they disagree with you, you get death threats until you have to 
go away. These folks have a plan: They want to force social 
media companies to promote conspiracy theories because they 
think that's the only way their candidate can win in the 2024 
election. They want to bully the experts into abandoning their 
work on disinformation to pave the way. They want to give 
expression to the most vile sorts of speech here in this 
Committee room because it prepares the ground for their own 
conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. They apparently don't 
care how many people are hurt or die as a consequence of their 
actions, either through lies about vaccines or threats to the 
safety of witnesses, because nothing--nothing--is more 
important to them than power.
    It's a free country. Both Chair Jordan and Mr. Kennedy are 
free to say whatever they want. It's the Chair's right to 
promote any of the views he wants to promote. That freedom 
doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see what they are doing 
and demand something better from our Representatives, from my 
colleagues, from this Congress. Be better than the witnesses, 
my colleagues, let's be better. Let's get about the business, 
the real business of the American people and stop the division, 
the divisiveness that is being promoted through this Committee.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record from 
page 29 of Ms. Dehmlow's testimony from three days ago.

        Question: Do you recall whether any of these social media 
        companies you were meeting with asked you any questions about 
        the laptop story?

        Answer: I do.

        Question: And what is your recollection? Who--

        Answer: So I remember having a conversation with or being 
        involved in a13 conversation with Twitter, and I honestly can't 
        recall if this was repeated to me--I might14 have been a few 
        minutes late to the meeting--or if--or if I was--I actually 
        overheard it.15 But it was--it was relayed to me later that 
        somebody from Twitter--I don't recall16 who. I'm not sure who. 
        Somebody from Twitter essentially asked whether the laptop17 
        was real. And one of the FBI folks who was on the call did 
        confirm that, yes, it was18 before another participant jumped 
        in and said no further comment.

        Question: Do you recall who from the FBI said it was real?

        Answer: I do.

        Question: And who was that?

        Answer: It's a non-SES employee. I'd have to take that back.

Without objection, we'll enter that into the record.
    We now want to introduce our witnesses.
    I want to start with Ms. Emma-Jo Morris. Ms. Morris is a 
Politics Editor at Breitbart News. She previously served as the 
Deputy Politics Editor the New York Post, where she authored 
the Post coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents 
in 2020.
    Ms. Maya Wiley is the President and CEO of the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She previously served as 
Counsel to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, at the American 
Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Education Fund.
    Welcome you as well, Ms. Wiley.
    Mr. John Sauer is a Special Assistant Attorney General for 
the Louisiana Department of Justice. He is one of the lead 
lawyers in the Missouri v. Biden case that I referenced in my 
opening statement. He previously served as Deputy Attorney 
General for special litigation with the Missouri Attorney 
General's Office and Solicitor General of Missouri. He clerked 
for Judge Michael Luttig and Justice Antonin Scalia.
    Then our final witness is Mr. Kennedy. I will turn to our 
colleague Mr. Roy, a Member of the Judiciary Committee and 
waived onto the Subcommittee to introduce Mr. Kennedy.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the son of a former Attorney 
General, Robert F. Kennedy, and the nephew of America's 35th 
President, John F. Kennedy, the third of 11 children. He 
graduated from Harvard University. We won't hold that against 
him because he went on to receive his law degree from the 
University of Virginia School of Law, my alma mater, as an 
undergraduate. So, I am viewing Mr. Kennedy through his last 
name. That does a tremendous disservice to his life's work, 
whether you agree with it or not.
    Out of law school, Mr. Kennedy built his career as an 
environmental lawyer, representing New York City 
environmentalists and environmentalists across the globe in 
numerous legal battles. His work culminated in the landmark New 
York City watershed agreement focused on cleaning of New York 
City's waterways.
    After the 2008 election, Politico reported that President-
elect Obama strongly considered Mr. Kennedy to head the 
Environmental Protection Agency. He went on to found Children's 
Health Defense, a national organization intended to address 
childhood chronic disease and toxic exposures. I assume that 
being a father of seven, in addition to being one of 11 
children himself, fuels his interest in children's health.
    Following the 2016 election, Mr. Kennedy met with then 
President-elect Trump to discuss his potential for a committee 
to examine vaccine safety and scientific integrity. Their 
conversation also touched on the CDC and ways to increase 
independence from financial conflicts.
    Most recently, Mr. Kennedy announced his campaign for 
President of the United States. During his campaign 
announcement, he stated, quote:

        My mission over the next 18 months of this campaign and 
        throughout my Presidency will be to end of corrupt merger of 
        State and corporate power that is threatening to impose a new 
        kind of corporate feudalism in our country.

    It is for this that Mr. Kennedy finds himself receiving the 
scorn of both the political left and right, because, if one 
dares challenge the orthodoxy of the powers that be, then one 
is their enemy.
    As a graduate of the University of Virginia, Mr. Kennedy no 
doubt knows the following quote: ``For here we are not afraid 
to follow truth wherever it may lead.'' Thomas Jefferson.
    That truism was lost during the COVID pandemic: Individuals 
receiving scorn simply for asking questions. People being 
silenced for challenging the status quo. These are the kinds of 
questions that should have been publicly debated in this 
hearing.
    Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Roy. This hearing is focused on that truth, and we 
welcome Mr. Kennedy.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Kennedy, we're glad you're here.
    We will now proceed with opening statements. Before I do, I 
want to introduce the guy sitting behind you, Mr. Kennedy, who 
was a former colleague of ours and, maybe more importantly for 
me, a good friend of mine, Dennis Kucinich, who served in the 
U.S. Congress for 14 years I believe and a great Buckeye.
    So, we welcome Dennis, and I know Elizabeth is here as 
well.
    We appreciate your service, Dennis, and your commitment to 
the First Amendment.
    We'll now go with opening testimony.
    Mr. Kennedy, you are recognized for your opening statement.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, are you going to swear in the 
witnesses?
    Chair Jordan. If you will please stand and raise your right 
hand.
    Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that 
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the 
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you 
God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you. You may be seated.
    Mr. Kennedy, you are now recognized for your opening 
statement, and then we'll go right down the line.
    Ms. Plaskett. Excuse me, point of order. I know that the 
witnesses normally have five minutes. I see 10 minutes on the 
board. Is it going to be 10 minutes?
    Chair Jordan. We will give you five minutes, but we're 
pretty lax with this. We will let him go for--
    Ms. Plaskett. We are?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Ms. Plaskett. I've seen you gavel down on quite a number of 
witnesses.
    Chair Jordan. I have given Senators and former Democrat 
Members of Congress and all kinds of folks--
    Ms. Plaskett. He's neither, he's neither.
    Chair Jordan. I'm just saying in past history.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK, OK.
    Chair Jordan. In the Committee.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK, OK.
    Chair Jordan. We'll give--
    Ms. Plaskett. Let's just watch the time for all the 
witnesses then.
    Chair Jordan. If you want to cut him off and censor him 
some more, you're welcome to do it.
    Ms. Plaskett. Oh, that's not my job. That's your job. Why 
don't you threaten the witness so that they cannot want to be a 
witness?
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Kennedy is recognized for his opening 
statement. We will give him five minutes more or less, and then 
we'll move to the next one.
    Mr. Kennedy, go right ahead.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, maybe we could put five 
minutes on the clock then, not 10.
    Chair Jordan. Put five on the clock and start--

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.

    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to start--I want to put aside my written statement 
for a moment and address one of the points that was brought up, 
I think an important point, by the Ranking Member that this 
body ought to be concerning itself with the issues that impact 
directly to the American people, the rising price of groceries 
76 percent over the past two years for basic food stuff, the 
war in Ukraine, the inflation issues, the border issues, many, 
many other issues that concern us all as a Nation. We can't do 
that without the First Amendment, without debate.
    When I gave my speech, my announcement speech in Boston two 
months ago, YouTube--I talked about all those issues. I focused 
on groceries. I focused on the fact that working class people 
can no longer afford to live in this country. I talked about 
inflation, all the issues that deeply concern you and that 
you've devoted your career to alleviating those issues. Five 
minutes into my speech, when I was talking about Paul Revere, 
YouTube deplatformed me. I didn't talk about facts in that 
speech. I didn't talk about anything that would be a verboten 
subject. I just was talking about my campaign and the things 
that in conversation we should be having with each as 
Americans, but I was shut down. That is why the First 
Amendment's important. Debate, congenial respectful debate is 
the fertilizer. It's the water. It's the sunlight for our 
democracy. We need to be talking to each other.
    This is a letter that many of you have signed, many of my 
fellow Democrats. I've spent my life in this party. I've 
devoted my life to the values of this party. This, 102 people 
signed this. This itself is evidence of the problem that this 
hearing was continuing to address. This is an attempt to censor 
a censorship hearing. The charges in this--and by the way, 
censorship is antithetical to our party. It was appalling to my 
father, to my uncle, to FDR, Harry Truman, and Thomas 
Jefferson. As the Chair referred to, is the basis for 
democracy. It sets us apart from all the previous forms of 
government. We need to be able to talk--and the First Amendment 
was not written for easy speech. It was written for the speech 
that nobody likes you for.
    I was censored not just by the Democratic Administration; I 
was censored by the Trump Administration. I was the first 
person censored, as the Chair pointed out, by the Biden 
Administration two days after it came into office to order to 
truthful--and by the way, they had to invent a new word called 
``malinformation'' to censor people like me. There was no 
misinformation on my Instagram account.
    Everything I put on that account was cited and sourced, 
from peer-reviewed publications or government data bases. 
Nobody has ever pointed to a single piece of misinformation 
that I published.
    I was removed for something they called malinformation. 
Malinformation is information that is true, but is inconvenient 
to the government, that they don't want people to hear. That is 
antithetical to the values of our country.
    After I announced my Presidency, it became more difficult 
for people to censor me outright. So, now I'm subject to this 
new form of censorship, which is called targeted propaganda 
where people apply pejoratives, like anti-vax--I've never been 
an anti-vaccine, but everybody in this room probably believes 
that I have been because that's the prevailing narrative. 
Antisemitism, racism, these are the most appalling, disgusting 
pejoratives, and they are applied to me to silence me because 
people don't want me to have that conversation about the war, 
about groceries, about inflation, about the war on the middle 
class in this country that we need to be having.
    By the way, I want to say this, while I'm on the record, 
that in my entire life--and why while I'm under oath--in my 
entire life, I have never uttered a phrase that was either 
racist or antisemitic. I have spent my life fighting, my 
professional career fighting for Israel, for the protection of 
Israel. I have a better record on Israel than anybody in this 
Chamber today. I'm the only person who has publicly objected to 
the $2 billion payout that the Biden Administration is now 
making to Iran, which is a genocidal program. I'm the only one 
who's objected to that. I fought more ferociously for Israel 
than anybody.
    I am being censored here through this target, through 
smears, through misinterpretations of what I said, through 
lies, through association, which is a tactic that we all 
thought had been discredited and dispensed with after the Army-
McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. Those same weapons are now 
being deployed against me to silence me.
    I know many of the people who wrote this letter. I don't 
believe there's a single person who signed this letter who 
believes I'm antisemitic. I do not believe that. There is no 
evidence of that.
    I want to say something. I think it's more important, and 
it goes directly to what you talked about, Ranking Member, 
which is the need to defeat this toxic polarization that is 
destroying our country today. How do we deal with that? We are 
more--this kind of division is more dangerous for our country 
than anytime since the American Civil War. How do we deal with 
that? How are we--every Democrat on this Committee believes 
that we need to end that polarization. Do you think you can do 
that by censoring people? I'm telling you, you cannot. That 
only aggregates and amplifies the problem. We need to start 
being kind to each other. We need to start being respectful to 
each other. We need to start restoring the comity to this 
Chamber and to the rest of America, but it has to start here.
    My uncle, Edward Kennedy, had more legislation with his 
name on it than any Senator in United States' history. Why is 
this? Because he was able to reach across the aisle, because he 
didn't deal in insults, because he didn't try to censor people. 
He brought home people who were antithetical to what he 
believed in. He came home almost every weekend with people like 
Orrin Hatch to our house at the compound in Hyannis Port. At 
that time, Orrin Hatch to me was like Darth Vader, because I 
was an environmentalist, and I was saying: Why, why is Teddy 
bringing this guy home?
    He knew, he was effective because he understood that comity 
and respect and kindness and compassion and empathy for other 
people is the way that we--the only way to restore the function 
in this Chamber. More importantly, today we need to give an 
example in the leadership of our country of being respectful to 
each other. If you think I said something that's antisemitic, 
let's talk about the details.
    I'm telling you all the things that I'm accused of right 
now by you. In this letter are distortions, they are 
misrepresentations. I didn't say those things. There are 
fragments that I said, but I denounce anybody who uses the 
words that I have said to imply something that is negative 
about people who are Jewish. I never said those things.
    I want to point out also that the Chair pointed to Dennis 
Kucinich, who is right behind me. There is no two people in the 
country who feel differently about--more differently about 
American politics than these two people, and yet they were 
friends. Dennis attended his children's basketball games, 
attended his daughter's wedding. This is what we need, how we 
need to start treating each other in this country. We have to 
stop trying to destroy each other, to marginalize, to vilify, 
to gaslight each other. We have to find a place inside of 
ourselves, a light of empathy, of compassion. Above all, we 
need to elevate the Constitution of the United States, which 
was written for hard times, and that has to be the premier 
compass for all our activities.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 
follows:] 


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Jordan. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair I'd like to 
raise--I'd like to raise a point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady will State her point of order.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Point of order, pursuant to House 
Rule XI, clause 2, which Mr. Kennedy is violative of, I move 
that we move into Executive Session because Mr. Kennedy has 
repeatedly made despicable, antisemitic and anti-Asian comments 
as recently as last week.
    Rule XI, clause 2, says,

        Whenever there is asserted by a Member of the Committee that 
        the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, 
        degrade, or incriminate any person or it is asserted by a 
        witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would 
        give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
        the witness,

and it goes on.
    Mr. Kennedy, among many other things, has said:

        I know a lot now about bioweapons. We put out hundreds of 
        millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The 
        Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, COVID-19, there was 
        an argument that it was ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks 
        certain races disproportionately. The races that are most 
        immune to COVID-19 are . . .

    Chair Jordan. Is the gentlelady making a motion or a 
speech?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I hadn't--I've made a motion to move 
into Executive Session because Mr. Kennedy's testimony--
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I move to table the motion.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky has moved to 
table.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I ask for a roll call 
vote on the motion to table.
    Chair Jordan. Well, let me ask the question. The question 
is on the motion to table. The gentlelady has asked for a roll 
call vote. The clerk will have to--we'll have you step back for 
a second. The clerk will have to come in, and we'll call the 
roll on the motion to table, and then we can get back to 
testimony.
    Ms. Plaskett. I think the witnesses can sit in the Chairs 
sitting behind.
    Chair Jordan. I'll leave that up to the clerks. If the 
clerks are comfortable with that. Yes, why don't we do that? 
Maybe we can go right down here--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is it the custom of this 
Committee to censor viewpoints that we disagree with from 
witnesses?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I have a motion on the 
table.
    Mr. Goldman. That's not a point of order.
    Chair Jordan. There is a motion and the votes--
    Ms. Plaskett.
    [Inaudible.]
    Chair Jordan. We're waiting for the--we're waiting for the 
clerks.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is violative of Rule XI--
    Chair Jordan. We're waiting for the clerks. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. Yes, to not censor.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Massie votes yes.
    Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Stewart. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Stewart votes yes.
    Ms. Stefanik?
    Ms. Stefanik. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Stefanik votes yes.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes yes.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Steube?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop?
    Mr. Bishop. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Bishop votes yes.
    Ms. Cammack?
    Ms. Cammack. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Cammack votes yes.
    Ms. Hageman?
    Ms. Hageman. Yes.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Hageman votes yes.
    Ms. Plaskett?
    Ms. Plaskett. No. I want to follow the rules that the 
Republicans made at the beginning of this conference with these 
House Rules, so no.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Plaskett votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No, because it is violative of the rules.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Sanchez votes no.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No to allowing a witness to 
degrade--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This is not speech time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. --and violate the rules and not have 
his testimony and degradation amplified rather than given in 
Executive Session.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair--
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. No, to--
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Connolly votes no.
    Mr. Garamendi?
    Mr. Garamendi. No.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Garamendi votes no.
    Mr. Allred?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. No.
    Ms. Bidelman. Ms. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No to hate speech.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Gaetz?
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Aye.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
    Chair Jordan. The clerk will report.
    Ms. Bidelman. Mr. Chair, there are 10 ayes and 8 noes.
    Chair Jordan. The motion to table is agreed to.
    We will now move to our second witness.
    Ms. Morris, you are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF EMMA-JO MORRIS

    Ms. Morris. Thank you. Thanks so much for inviting me.
    My name is Emma-Jo Morris, Politics Editor at Breitbart. 
I'm here today because I published a series of news stories 
three years ago in October 2020 about Hunter Biden's now 
infamous laptop, also known as the laptop from hell, which is 
seen as some of the most scandalous reporting of the last 
decade.
    What was more scandalous than the reporting itself, though, 
was the fact that it exposed the unholy alliance between the 
intelligence community, social media platforms, and legacy 
media outlets.
    At the time, I was Deputy Politics Editor at the New York 
Post and my reporting showed that despite then candidate Joe 
Biden's repeated and furious denials, he was apparently 
involved in the foreign business deals of his family.
    Over several days, just weeks before Americans would vote 
for their next President, I revealed verified authentic emails 
from the Biden scion's hard drive showing Ukrainian business 
partners receiving leaks from the Obama White House. I 
documented an off-the-books meeting between then Vice President 
Biden and a Ukrainian energy executive and introduced the world 
to the big guy who got action on a deal with CEFC China Energy 
company.
    The Post published exactly how the material for the 
reporting was obtained, even identifying our sources, as well 
as a Federal subpoena showing the FBI was in possession of the 
material and the story was based on and had been since December 
2019. When the stories appeared on social media that morning, 
the venue where millions of Americans go to find their news and 
editors to get their angles, within hours, the reporting was 
censored on all major platforms on the basis of being called 
hacked or Russian disinformation.
    Twitter refused to allow users to share the link to the 
stories, banned the links from being shared in private 
messages, a policy, by the way, that's used to clamp down on 
child porn and locked the Post out of its verified account. 
Facebook said it would curb distribution and reach of the links 
on its platform.
    However, the stories were not based on hacked materials, 
nor were they Russian disinformation. Despite those claims 
appearing to come out of thin air at the time, we would 
eventually learn that they actually didn't come out of thin air 
at all. On October 19th, five days after the Post began 
publishing, Politico ran a story headline: ``Hunter Biden's 
story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials 
say''--God, I can't even say that with a straight face--
Politico printed a letter completely uncritically from veteran 
members of the U.S. intelligence community falsely claiming the 
Post expose has, quote, ``all the classic earmarks of a Russian 
information operation.'' My God.
    Most notable among the signatories of that letter were Jim 
Clapper from--former DNI; Michael Hayden, former CIA; John 
Brennan, former CIA, despite having such damaged credibility 
following their participation in the Russia collusion 
conspiracy theory.
    A few days later, on October 22nd, when Biden appeared in 
the second Presidential debate and was confronted with the 
facts of the Post reporting he said to Trump: ``Fifty former 
national intelligence professionals said this,'' what he's 
accusing me of is a Russian plot.
    It was not, and he knew that.
    Now, fast forward to this year, three years later, just 
last spring, House investigators revealed it was a call by now 
Secretary of State Antony Blinken to former acting CIA Director 
Michael Morell that prompted the spy letter published by 
Politico, which bypassed the agency approval processes that 
would have been normally applied.
    It is also now known that, ahead of my reporting, Federal 
agencies were priming social media companies to execute an 
operation to discredit it. According to internal documents 
released by Elon Musk on his acquisition of Twitter, the FBI 
and other intelligence community members essentially directed 
the platform censorship operation in part externally by working 
with top management and in part internally by social media 
companies hiring eye-popping numbers of agency alumni.
    Journalist Michael Shellenberger reported, based on 
documents he obtained from Musk, that during all 2020, the FBI 
and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Twitter 
executives to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden's laptop as a 
Russian hack-and-leak operation, Feds arranged for top secret 
security clearances to be granted to Twitter management, and 
even had encrypted messaging networks set up, which they dubbed 
a virtual war room.
    To this day, hundreds of people from the intelligence 
community work at social media companies. Over the last few 
years, my reporting has been confirmed by virtually every 
mainstream news outlet, from The Washington Post to The New 
York Times to Politico, when the stakes were nothing, by the 
way, two years later. No one denies that the laptop is real, 
that the origin story is exactly what I told you it was in the 
first place.
    This elaborate censorship conspiracy wasn't because the 
information being reported on was false. It was because it was 
true, and it was a threat to the power centers in this country. 
What this relationship between the U.S. Government officials 
and American corporations represents is an unprecedented push 
to undermine the First Amendment, the right to think, write, 
read, say whatever we want. How we respond will determine 
whether we see a free press as inalienable or as optional.
    Thanks.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Morris.
    Mr. Sauer, you are recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF D. JOHN SAUER

    Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the 
Subcommittee.
    On July 4, 2023, Independence day, Judge Terry A. Doughty 
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Louisiana entered a historic injunction against the White House 
and other Federal officials. This injunction prevents them 
from, quote,

         . . . urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any 
        manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of 
        content containing protected free speech posted on social media 
        platforms.

Judge Doughty's opinion contains 82 pages of detailed factual 
findings supported by 577 citations of the evidence which is 
drawn from roughly 20,000 pages of the Federal Government's own 
emails and communications with social media platforms in six 
full-length depositions.
    In its recently filed stay motions, the government is 
hardly bothered to dispute any of these factual findings. The 
court of appeals has entered a, quote,

         . . . temporary administrative stay of this injunction and 
        granted expedited argument and briefing an argument on August 
        10th.

Contrary to some recent suggestions, a temporary administrative 
stay is, quote, ``routine practice in the Fifth Circuit.'' 
That's a direct quote from a recent decision in re Abbott. It 
does not reflect any judgment of the merits.
    Today, I want to offer seven observations drawn from the 
Louisiana opinion. First, a Louisiana court found, based on 
overwhelming evidence, that Federal officials are the cause of 
the censorship of the viewpoints they disfavor. The government 
likes to claim that social media platforms acting on their own 
would apply their policies and censor all this content anyway. 
This is demonstrably incorrect. Again and again, the Louisiana 
court found that the platforms would not have suppressed this 
speech but for the fact that the Federal officials were pushing 
for it. The deplatforming of Alex Berenson, the throttling of 
Tucker Carlson's content, the silencing of the so-called 
disinformation dozen, which includes Mr. Kennedy, the 
suppression of much of the so-called borderline which is, 
quote,

         . . . often true content on Facebook's platforms, the 
        censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and much more; all 
        these were suppressed because of the efforts of Federal 
        officials.

    Second, the scope and reach of Federal censorship is 
staggering. As the Louisiana court repeatedly found, it 
affects, quote, ``millions of social media posts and speakers 
all across America.'' It affects virtually every American who 
reads, listens, engages on posts on social media about great 
disputed political and social questions that Federal censors 
have stuck their fingers into.
    Third, Federal censorship is ongoing, and it shows no signs 
of relenting. Federal officials' censorship efforts are in full 
swing, and they are expanding to new frontiers. Left unchecked, 
Federal censorship will reach virtually any disputed social and 
political question over which Federal officials want to impose 
their power.
    Fourth, the Louisiana Opinion shows that Federal officials 
are most eager, most focused on silencing truthful speech and 
to muzzle the most influential critics of the administration 
and its policies. Tucker Carlson, Alex Berenson, and many 
others were targeted not because what they were saying was 
necessarily false, but because it was the most effective 
criticism of the narrative line that the administration was 
pushing at the time. Censorship is not about truth. It is about 
power, preserving and expanding the power of the censors and 
the political narratives they prefer.
    Fifth, Federal officials are deeply intertwined with what 
other witnesses have called the censorship industrial complex. 
The Louisiana court made very detailed findings about the close 
connections between many Federal officials in that mass 
surveillance and mass censorship enterprise that calls itself 
the election integrity partnership and The Virality Project. 
Not just CISA officials, but White House, State Department, and 
surgeon general officials have deep ties to that enterprise. As 
the Louisiana court found, CISA and the EIP were completely 
intertwined.
    Sixth, Federal officials don't just dictate the outcomes of 
specific content moderation decisions. They also directly 
induce changes to the content moderation policies, policies of 
major social media platforms to ban disfavored viewpoints in 
advance.
    Seventh, the Federal censorship enterprise has succeeded in 
transforming online discourse by rendering entire viewpoints 
virtually unspeakable on social media, which is the modern 
public square. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental 
American freedom, the right to free speech is intolerable under 
the First Amendment.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. John Sauer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Sauer.
    Ms. Wiley, you're recognized.
    Microphone.

                    STATEMENT OF MAYA WILEY

    Ms. Wiley. I'm usually quite loud, but thank you for 
pointing that out.
    Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, Members of the 
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for having me here today.
    I have introduced written testimony. I did have a summary 
of my oral testimony, and I am going to depart from it after 
listening to the openings in these proceedings.
    This week began the sentencing of Robert Bowers who 
murdered 11 people, wounded six others because their faith was 
Judaism and because they were in a synagogue to worship. Robert 
Bowers expressed on social media for a very long time deeply 
antisemitic, hateful statements. He did it and used Gab, which 
is a platform that was deplatformed by Twitter because of its 
constant space it provided to hate, that has actually become 
embodied in the most violent antisemitic act we know to have 
happened on our shores in the history of this country.
    I will tell you, as a Black woman who lived through COVID 
in New York City, where we watched too many images of 
refrigerated trucks with the bodies of loved ones because there 
were too many deaths to accommodate in morgues, that surpassed, 
surpassed the deaths during the Spanish flu and where in this 
country we have lost over one million of our loved ones. For 
the Black community, for the Native American community, for so 
many communities of color, in particular, where our rates of 
death were three to four times those of some other groups, 
three to four times.
    I want to agree with Mr. Kennedy. I want to agree that it 
is incredibly important for us to be kind and respectful to one 
another. It is incredibly important for us to be able to 
understand our experiences across our differences and to have a 
platform for those communications. It is deeply vital that they 
be based in fact, not fiction, and without regard to the intent 
or what is in the mind of anyone, which I cannot say, including 
what is in the mind of any of those who are testifying here 
today.
    What I can say is, when you make a statement that suggests 
that based on race, based on religion, based on anything other 
than facts, that you may have somehow not been targeted but 
other racial groups have. That by definition feeds into 
something very dangerous in this country, that is actually 
impacting lives and, in some instances taking them.
    Now, what I will say about the opinion in this case, and I 
came here to talk about Missouri v. Biden, is that, in this 
case, we can talk all day about the very specific facts, and 
there is factual inaccuracy in some of the fact statements in 
Judge Doughty's Opinion, but the most important one is the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals widely, widely believed by all 
for very good reason, to not be out of step with Conservative 
ideology vacated that preliminary injunction.
    I want to point to something else, because one of things 
that this injunction said was that our government, responsible 
for public health, responsible for national security, which, by 
the way, even under the Trump Administration, the Department of 
Homeland Security said it is domestic terrorism that is our 
greatest national threat, that even that it had in the 
injunction a statement that the Federal Government could not 
collaborate or partner or jointly work with institutes, 
researchers, including the Stanford Internet Observatory, could 
not in terms of identifying, understanding or even talking 
about the deletion or removal of anything even if, even if that 
research actually demonstrated that those social media 
companies were violating their own policy in a way that was 
dangerous for people and for our democracy. So, yes, let's be 
kind, let's be respectful and let's descend into a real 
discussion of facts where we can disagree about their meaning 
but not about their existence.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wiley follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    We will now turn to five minute questions.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Bishop, for five minutes.
    We will go a couple rounds here, I think, and then we--they 
have called votes. So, we will get to votes pretty quick.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm going to focus on the testimony the Chair made 
reference to and that the Ranking Member was so concerned with 
damage control that she opened her comments about it. I'd ask 
staff to put the blowups on the screen as we proceed.
    Ms. Morris--and begin with No. 1 while I'm getting my first 
question out. Ms. Morris, in your statement, you had an 
interesting term or phrase. You said that no one denies that 
the laptop is real. What an interesting turn of phrase because 
that's exactly what Twitter was asking about the day your story 
appeared, and it was interacting still further with Twitter and 
with Facebook.
    Ms. Dehmlow testified--here it is on the screen for those 
who are visual learners like me:

        Question: Are you familiar with the October 2020 New York Post 
        story on Hunter Biden's laptop?

        Answer: I am.

This is Ms. Dehmlow under oath.

        Question: Do you recall whether any of these social media 
        companies you were meeting with asked you any questions about 
        it?

        Answer: I do.

Please proceed to the next slide. Here's how--on the same page:

        Answer: But, it was relayed to me later that somebody from 
        Twitter--I don't recall who. I'm not sure who. Somebody from 
        Twitter essentially asked whether the laptop was real. And one 
        of the FBI folks who was on the call did confirm that, yes, it 
        was before another participant jumped in and said, ``No further 
        comment.''

Proceed to the next slide. So, you said here was one example.

        Do you recall other social media companies?''

Proceed to the next slide. Ms. Dehmlow says:

        I believe Facebook--we met with Facebook soon thereafter. Can't 
        remember if it was the same day or within a couple of days.

        And they also asked, and I said, ``No comment.'' That was the 
        decision we made in those post-meeting deliberations, which is 
        pretty typical. It was an ongoing investigation, and we don't 
        generally comment on ongoing investigative matters when asked.

    So, Ms. Morris, to your point, I think this shows one thing 
for sure. You credited Michael Shellenberger and some of his 
reporting. One of the things that he asked in one of his 
Twitter file stories was whether the Foreign Influence Task 
Force, people, the FBI folks who were interfacing with the 
social media companies, whether they knew about the Hunter 
Biden laptop contents that the FBI had since September 2019. 
So, now we know. Right? The Foreign Influence Task Force knew 
it was real, and it wasn't just a few people. It was common 
knowledge. An analyst on that telephone call before they got 
their act together admitted that it was real.
    We also know that the social media companies wanted to know 
if it was real. Of course, they did because the FBI had been 
telling them for months to be prepared for a hack-and-leak 
operation and, also, to be prepared for something involving 
Hunter Biden. Of course, they wanted to know.
    So, what do you think about the fact that the FBI, in 
response to Twitter, told them it was real, then they covered 
that up or stopped, no further comment, and to Facebook, with 
its billions of users, said, ``No comment,'' and we're not 
going to tell you?
    Ms. Morris. Yes. We know that the FBI knew that it was 
real. They knew it was real since, not just December 2019, 
which is when the subpoena that I published is from, which was 
in the original story, the ``thanks for the meeting with your 
father from Ukraine'' story. We published the subpoena. They 
had already confirmed, though, which we would learn later, they 
had already confirmed that the laptop was real and, the, quote, 
``not manipulated in any way,'' in November 2019, a month 
before they actually obtained the laptop to keep, which is when 
they gave that subpoena to John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of 
the Mac store where Hunter Biden forgot the laptop. I think 
that something that gets glazed over in this reporting--I'm so 
familiar with it, it's nauseating--which is that Jim Baker was 
the Deputy Counsel at Twitter. If that name doesn't sound 
familiar, I'll remind you all who that is. He's the former 
Deputy Counsel of the FBI. Like, are we supposed to all sit 
here and pretend that he didn't know what that subpoena was 
when he saw it in the New York Post? I mean, let's not insult 
our intelligence here and the intelligence of the American 
people. Obviously, he knew what it was.
    Mr. Bishop. Point well taken, Ms. Morris.
    My time has expired. What we have always understood in all 
likelihood was true, yet we now have yet one more piece of 
evidence from the folks at the FBI that they interfered. Comey 
interfered in 2016. Was it Director Wray himself who interfered 
in 2020? We still need to know.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes. I 
think we'll do Ranking Member and one more, and then we'll have 
to take a break.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I know that we talked earlier about a post that Mr. Kennedy 
had at the beginning of the Biden Administration. I just want 
the record to reflect that this post has not been taken down, 
so I'm wondering about the extent of censorship when the post 
is still there.
    More importantly, again, I go back to just the fact that we 
are creating a platform for this kind of discussion, not about 
the censorship, not about free speech, but the content of some 
of that speech that we are amplifying in this room.
    I'm appalled and just so troubled by colleagues that I have 
to work with that these are individuals who would bring a 
witness who's promoted a video that compared the COVID vaccine 
to the Tuskegee trials. The Tuskegee trials were a very 
difficult time in Black America where individuals who were 
already sick with the disease were then reviewed, experimented 
on, who already had a disease, to see how far that disease went 
and making the comparison that manipulates and preys on Black 
people's feelings about the atrocities of the past to prevent 
them from seeking life-saving vaccines in the present and 
knowing that this is dangerous.
    I cannot also be unaware that this comes from an individual 
who, by Mr. Roy's introduction, is very smart and understands 
the implications of this.
    Mr. Kennedy's own family decries his stance on vaccines, 
and families disagree on a lot of things. I've got family 
members that--we all disagree. So, that doesn't mean anything. 
The fact that he has famously sent a request to a party guest 
that they had to be vaccinated to come to his party--and I 
would like to introduce into the record a letter from Lewis 
Silkin, a law firm representing Mr. Kennedy, which states, as 
he has stated repeatedly, ``he vaccinated all his children.'' I 
would like that to be introduced into the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Tells the Black community and myself, a 
mother of five Black children, that I should really be careful 
and not necessarily have the same safeguards to protect my 
family, my children from a virus that has killed millions of 
people because I'm Black.
    There's no secret that this is an amplification of his own 
platform. I'm not going to talk about the money that's received 
from the Children's Health Defense, from his anti-vaccine 
organization that's responsible for a majority of the false 
information out there about COVID and the notoriety that's 
gained from it by manipulating Black and other vulnerable 
communities to propagate these pseudosciences.
    Ms. Wiley, are you aware of the phrase ``super human, yet 
subhumanization''?
    Ms. Wiley. I can't say I'm aware of the phrase. I am aware 
of the viewpoint.
    Ms. Plaskett. Can you share what you believe that to mean 
when it comes to Black people?
    Ms. Wiley. Well, sadly and unfortunately, we have a history 
in this country where Black people were both, by law and by 
social view, viewed as inferior and subhuman and that there 
were stereotypes attached to that includes all kinds of myths 
about the ability to disregard both the health needs, health 
conditions, and disparities that exist for Black people and in 
Black communities to the detriment not only of the health of 
people who are Black, but also to public health by not taking 
good sound positions.
    Ms. Plaskett. Yes. In chattel slavery, you don't have to 
feed them the same way because they can take it. They can 
handle that. They don't need as much.
    Now with COVID, they've got superhuman genes that they 
don't need to get the same vaccines, and they may be more 
susceptible if you get vaccines.
    Ms. Wiley, why do you think someone might choose to target 
the Black community for false health information about 
vaccines?
    Ms. Wiley. Well, I can't say that I can sit in a position 
to explain anyone would do that. I can only say that, for those 
who wished to prevent people from getting a vaccine, it was 
very clear that one of the ways in which you could convince 
people not to is to play on fears that have basis in historic 
experience sadly. Frankly--and I can say this personally 
speaking from having conversations with friends, with people I 
worked with--
    Ms. Plaskett. From family members.
    Ms. Wiley. --who were terrified of whether or not there 
might be some adverse consequences for them because of the 
Tuskegee experiments, explicitly referring to times in which 
Black people had been tested on without their permission, or 
denied access to medical intervention despite awareness that it 
would be detrimental to their health. That distrust has 
historical fact.
    We have come to a point where in terms of the COVID vaccine 
and what we were being told by scientists, including the ways 
in which both the CDC, the World Health Organization, and 
others were examining, were actually putting out factual 
information both about the degree to which testing in trials 
before approval had included people who were Black, people who 
were Asian and, therefore, had more basis in fact to be able to 
State scientifically that the vaccine was safe.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I would like to yield my time to Representative Massie.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota.
    Wow, the irony and cognitive dissidents from the other side 
of the aisle is deafening. You could cut it with a knife. They 
are at the same time denying that censorship is occurring but 
suggesting that there's more material that needs to be 
censored.
    This is a hearing on censorship that began with an effort, 
with a formal motion from the other side of the aisle to censor 
Mr. Kennedy. They do not want him to speak. Yet, that is the 
topic of this hearing. They have kept him from speaking, a 
collusion between the government and private organizations.
    Mr. Kennedy, in your opening statement, you introduced us 
to this word ``malinformation.'' Can you tell us more about 
this made-up word, what it means, and some of the things that 
you've said or tried to say that you've been censored for 
that's been characterized as malinformation?
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Congressman Massie. By your leave, I 
would just like to respond very briefly--
    Mr. Massie. Please.
    Mr. Kennedy. --to some of the, what I would call 
defamations that have been just applied to me by the Ranking 
Member.
    I'm happy to talk to you about my opinions on these issues. 
What you have stated and tried to associate me with, through 
guilt by association is simply inaccurate. Virtually 
everything, every statement that you just made about me is 
inaccurate.
    I have never advised Black Americans not to receive 
vaccines. At one point, you say I'm antivax, and that's a bad 
thing. The other moment, you point out that all my children are 
vaxed. I'm fully compliant with the vaccine schedule myself, 
except for COVID. I took flu vaccines for 20 years straight. I 
have never been antivax. I have never told anybody--I have 
never told the public to avoid vaccination. The only thing I've 
asked for--and my views are constantly misrepresented, so that 
the truth of what I believe is not allowed to have a 
conversation about with the American people, which I believe 
that vaccines should be tested with the same rigor as other 
medicines and medications.
    You tried to associate me a moment ago with a replacement 
theory, which is racism--
    Ms. Plaskett. No, I did not say you--
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman from 
Kentucky.
    Mr. Kennedy. I denounce that theory. It is racist, and I 
have never endorsed it or had any association with it. Our film 
on ``Medical''--
    Ms. Plaskett. ``Medical Apartheid''?
    Mr. Kennedy. By the way, Bill Buxton, Bill Buxton, who is 
the Black CDC official, who ultimately exposed the Tuskegee 
experiment, tried for years and years to appeal to the CDC to 
stop it, for 40 years. Finally, he got relief by walking into 
my uncle's office in the building next door. Teddy held 
hearings and ended the experiment. I remember that very well.
    To say that I created a film that encourages Blacks not to 
get adequate medical care is just completely abhorrent. If 
the--
    Ms. Plaskett. Don't misuse my words there.
    Mr. Massie. It's the witness' time. Do not censor the 
witness.
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm not censoring the witness. I'm not 
censoring the witness. He's still talking.
    Mr. Massie. It's my time, and I've given it to the witness. 
Do not censor him.
    Ms. Plaskett. I'm not censoring him.
    Mr. Kennedy. If the views that you and others have applied 
to me, have attributed to me, if they were actually true, I can 
see why I shouldn't be able to testify here today. Those are 
not true. These are defamations and malignancies that are used 
to censor me to prevent people from listening to the actual 
things that I'm saying.
    I think, Ranking Member, that we should have a real 
conversation rather than an exchange of ad hominem attacks.
    In answer very quickly to your question, the term 
``malinfor-
mation'' was coined to describe information that Facebook and 
Twitter and the other social media sites understood was true, 
but that the White House and other Federal agencies wanted 
censored anyway for political reasons because it challenged 
official orthodoxies.
    I'll give you one example. There was a--I was included in a 
group called the disinformation dozen. Facebook and others were 
asked to censor us, which they did. by the way, my post, it was 
taken down. My whole Instagram account with 900,000 people was 
taken down because of that. Oh, they knew. Facebook knew that 
the disinformation dozen claim--and what they said was 
disinformation came from this very shady group called The 
Center for Preventing Digital Hate in England that was funded 
by dark money that should be looked into. They claimed that 65 
percent of the vaccine misinformation on the internet was 
generated by those 12 people. Facebook itself said that is 
impossible. That is false information. We know that not to be 
true. Yet, when the White House asked them to censor this 
disinformation dozen, including me, they did it anyway when 
they knew it to be untrue.
    Mr. Massie. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent motion 
before we head to votes.
    Chair Jordan. UC from the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Goldman. I would like to introduce page two of the 
transcript of Laura Dehmlow where specifically she says--if 
someone--she's asked:

        Question: If someone were to leave here today, were to leave 
        this interview and were to suggest or imply or State that when 
        you said, quote, ``the laptop was real,'' that it meant that 
        the FBI had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the 
        laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to 
        Hunter Biden, that the contents had not been manipulated in 
        some way, they would be misrepresenting what you said. Correct?

        Answer: They would be misrepresenting what I said because I 
        don't have much knowledge of that.

    Chair Jordan. Without objection. I think that's already 
been introduced. Without objection, we'll do it again.
    Chair Jordan. We stand in recess for approximately five 
minutes, and we'll be right back at it. Thank you all.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yield to Mr. Roy.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady can State her point of order.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I just missed two votes on the House floor 
because we were not given--we did not recess on time. I think 
many of my colleagues--
    Chair Jordan. That's not a properly stated point of order.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
    Ms. Garcia. The point of order is, what is the intent of 
the Chair in future recesses so that we can avoid the 
censorship of the voice of my constituents because I was not 
able to voice their views on important items on the agenda.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, that's right. Actually, the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for his five 
minutes. I apologize.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, may I introduce--ask unanimous 
consent to introduce an article from NPR, June 8, 2021, 
discussing the film ``Medical Racism,'' where viewers are 
warned that in Black communities something is very sinister and 
the same thing that happened in the 1930s during the eugenics 
movement is happening again.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection, it will be entered in the 
record.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his five minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, one of the saddest parts of this fabricated 
circus of outrage is the drumbeat of attacks that I have seen 
against the men and women of the Department of Justice and the 
FBI, many of them Armed Service veterans who in their early 
careers actually put on the uniform for this country and served 
honorably, as well as attacks against the Department of 
Homeland Security, CDC, and Health & Human Services.
    As evidenced at today's hearing, the Republicans are 
continuing to go to great lengths to invoke wild and seemingly 
race-based conspiracy theories, disinformation, and propaganda 
to allege that those same men and women who at one point served 
our country in uniform are now somehow targeting the American 
people.
    Meanwhile, this same Subcommittee on Weaponization has 
turned completely a blind eye to the actual and well-
documented, blatant, and egregious weaponization of the Federal 
Government undertaken by the previous President. We are, in 
fact, still receiving reports of actual weaponization committed 
by President Trump. In fact, we now have a recent sworn 
declaration from former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly 
indicating that President Trump suggested utilizing the IRS and 
other Federal agencies to investigate his perceived enemies, 
who at the time happened to be two FBI agents who were 
examining his conduct.
    I ask for unanimous consent--
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Lynch. --that this record--this sworn statement to be 
entered into the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Lynch. We also have another recent disclosure from 
Miles Taylor, former Chief of Staff of the Department of 
Homeland Security, reporting that President Trump sought to 
wiretap the phones of his own White House aids to detect any 
leaks.
    To the great detriment of the American people, however, we 
are not investigating any actual Weaponization of the Federal 
Government. Worse yet, this Committee has come to embody 
weapon-
ization itself, misusing Congressional oversight to protect 
Donald Trump, an attempt to divert attention from the multiple 
Federal and State criminal investigations surrounding President 
Trump's misconduct in office.
    In the midst of the ongoing State prosecution in New York 
of President Trump, Chair Jordan has repeatedly sought to 
interfere and influence that case, threatening to subpoena Mr. 
Bragg, and even holding a field hearing on Mr. Bragg's 
prosecutorial record blocks from his Lower Manhattan office, 
deliberately interfering in the rule of law being applied in 
that case.
    The Republican Members of this Committee have also followed 
the shameful example set by the former President in targeting 
the independent Federal law enforcement personnel that have 
sought to hold Donald Trump accountable. These are the good and 
patriotic Americans trying to uphold the rule of law within the 
FBI and the Department of Justice.
    In the same vein, as President Trump describing the 
Department of Justice and the FBI, my colleagues have 
described--my Republican colleagues have described these 
individuals as scoundrels, quote, ``vicious monsters.'' The 
Chair and the other Republican Members of this Committee have 
continually described these agencies as, quote, ``corrupt, out 
of control, and rotten to the core.'' These are the men and 
women who are serving our country in the Department of Justice 
trying to uphold the rule of law.
    Ms. Wiley, what is the underlying threat to American 
democracy and the rule of law to baselessly claim that the 
Federal agency and the individual personnel at the Department 
of Justice and FBI are being weaponized to attack everyday 
Americans? What's the impact of that on our democracy?
    Ms. Wiley. Unfortunately, there's more than one--
    Mr. Lynch. You're mike. Yes.
    Ms. Wiley. OK. Unfortunately, Congressman, there's more 
than one impact. One impact that's very clear and obvious, 
sadly, for far too many is that foreign governments who have 
deep interests in sowing distrust in the American people 
against our own government and our own civil servants utilize 
that to generate and propagate mis-and disinformation that then 
it puts out under disguise on social media platforms to help 
incite and spread the notion seemingly, in a way that suggests 
that it is not coming from a foreign government so that it is 
sowing the seeds not just of distrust. Fundamentally, in any 
democratic country, it is critically important that we be able 
to have a relationship with our government and with law 
enforcement to make sure that people are coming forward to law 
enforcement, sharing information truthfully with law 
enforcement and that law enforcement can engage in 
investigations into any version of potential crimes that have 
been committed in violation of our own laws without 
interference and without the refusal or inability to do so in a 
manner that also holds the privacy and protection of people's 
rights, by also keeping that quiet, which is centrally 
important to the investigations.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yield to Mr. Roy.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Roy is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlemen from Florida. I thank the 
Chair.
    Mr. Kennedy, first, your father served as the Attorney 
General of the United States. I'm a former Assistant United 
States Attorney. Do you believe that it is a proper function 
and role for Congress and for all of us to question whoever 
happens to be in the seat at the Office of the Attorney General 
or in the FBI or in upper levels of government generally to 
seek the truth, wherever it may lead?
    Mr. Kennedy. It is the function--
    Mr. Roy. Make sure your mike is on, your microphone.
    Mr. Kennedy. That is exactly the function that the United 
States Constitution assigned to the people of--to the Members 
of Congress. I would say this. I don't want President Trump 
misusing the FBI. I don't want President Biden--
    Mr. Roy. Amen.
    Mr. Kennedy. I don't want anybody.
    Mr. Roy. Amen. I agree with that completely.
    Let me characterize my understanding of something and get 
your perspective on it. Following the 2016 election, Dr. Fauci, 
Dr. Collins, and Peter Marks met with you, to the best of my 
understanding, regarding vaccine safety, in part as a result--
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. --of your engagement with President Trump.
    At that meeting, you requested evidence of a vaccine 
undergoing placebo-controlled trial safety tests prior to 
licensing. After making a show of looking for the document, Dr. 
Fauci informed you, to the best of my understanding, that the 
document was back in Bethesda and that he would eventually send 
the document to you.
    The document, to the best of my knowledge, was never sent 
and that you sued HHS for documents showing and trying to 
figure out the truth of the matter, and that you found that not 
one study was done on prelicensing safety testing for COVID 
vaccines. After a year, HHS finally sent you a letter stating 
basically: We don't have any.
    This means, to the best of my understanding, that nobody 
knows the risk profiles for these products or whether they 
avert more harm than they cause. As a result, there's no real 
science behind these statements, but rather guesswork.
    Is that a fair characterization of what you've experienced?
    Mr. Kennedy. That is a fair characterization. We have 
looked for many years to find a prelicensing safety trial of 
any of the 72 vaccine doses that are now essentially mandated--
they're recommended, but that's effectively mandated--for 
American children, and we have not been able to find any. Every 
other medication requires prior to licensing by FDA that the 
company perform a safety trial that compares health outcomes in 
a placebo group and a similarly situated vaccine group.
    My assumption was that was done for vaccines. We found out 
that it hadn't been, that it was not. They were exempt. I made 
that statement publicly. Dr. Fauci contradicted me, and when 
President Trump ordered him to meet with me, him and Francis 
Collins and a group of my colleagues, I said to him at that 
time: You said publicly that I've been dishonest about that. 
Can you show us a single prelicensing safety trial, placebo-
controlled safety trial, for any of the 72 vaccines required 
for American children?
    He made that show of looking through a file, and he said: 
``Oh, they're back in Bethesda.''
    I said: ``Will you send them to me?'' I never heard for him 
again, so we sued the HHS under the Freedom of Information Law. 
After a year of litigation, they sent us a letter, which is 
posted on CHD's website, that acknowledges that they are now 
not able to locate a single prelicensing safety trial, placebo-
controlled, for any of the vaccines that are now mandated for 
children. These are zero-liability vaccines.
    Mr. Roy. So, if I might interject, just limited time--and I 
hope you can expand on that further. I know my friend from 
Kentucky, Mr. Massie, will probably expand on this later. Your 
uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, was a pretty strong opponent of 
sweeping immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines. 
Did he not introduce an amendment to repeal the so-called PREP 
Act, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, when 
he was a Senator?
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes, he did. The immunity, which was passed in 
1986, neither the Republicans or Democrats wanted it. Ronald 
Reagan at that time, who signed the bill, said--and Wyeth was 
the company that was pushing it, and they were saying that they 
were losing $20 in downstream liabilities for every dollar that 
they made in profits from vaccines. They were going to get out 
of the business if they were not granted immunity.
    Ronald Reagan said to them at that time: ``Why don't you 
make the vaccines safe?''
    Wyeth said: ``Because they're unavoidably unsafe, which is 
true of most medicines.''
    I'm not anti-vaccine, but I think we need to be honest, and 
we need to have good science. That's all I've ever argued.
    Mr. Roy. In closing out my time here, I will just say this: 
My father had polio. I understand the ravages of that disease. 
I'm grateful that we have the opportunity to have the polio 
vaccine, but I also want the truth being sought. I want to know 
the health impacts of the polio vaccine going forward and every 
other vaccine that's being administered.
    I'll just close by saying and asking, I know that this is 
informed by a great deal of conversations you've had with 
mothers and moms who came up to you. If you could expand on 
that, I'll yield back.
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I was dragged kicking and screaming into 
this space because I was confronted by--I was touring the 
country suing companies about mercury and fish. By the way, 
people--I spent 30 years trying to get mercury out of the fish 
in this country, and nobody ever called me anti-fish. At that 
time, we were trying to get mercury out of vaccines. These 
mothers were coming and saying: My child was injured by the 
vaccine.
    These were many, many, hundreds literally, of mothers with 
children with intellectual disabilities. They said: ``Nobody is 
listening to us. The Democrats aren't listening to us. The 
Republicans aren't listening to us.''
    I felt like I should listen to them and actually read the 
science. That is what got me down into the--and, by the way, 
it's the worst career decision I have ever made.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentlelady from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member Plaskett.
    During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-Asian hate 
and violence skyrocketed as some racists blamed a virus coming 
out of China on all Asian Americans. Since March 2020, Stop 
AAPI Hate, a nonprofit organization aimed at tracking and 
addressing anti-Asian hate, reported more than 11,000 anti-
Asian acts of hate and violence. This same report found that 49 
percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have 
experienced some form of discrimination. These acts of hate 
include Asian Americans being beaten, spit on, screamed at, and 
even killed. The increases in these types of attacks during 
COVID accompanied a slew of anti-Chinese sentiments related to 
the virus, like calling it the, quote, ``China virus'' and even 
disgustingly, quote, ``Kung Flu.''
    Many Asian Americans were harassed, physically accosted, 
and told that they, quote, ``created the virus.'' Yet, one of 
our Republican witnesses encourages this appalling rhetoric and 
promotes anti-Asian hate with dangerous and unfounded claims.
    Just last week, Mr. Kennedy suggested COVID-19 was a 
bioweapon and said it was, quote, ``targeted to attack 
Caucasians and Black people,'' end quote, and that, quote, 
``the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and 
Chinese,'' end quote, suggesting that the Chinese people didn't 
suffer like others during the pandemic. Despite asserting that 
he should become their President, Mr. Kennedy seems to 
disregard the correlation between anti-Asian rhetoric and 
violence.
    Ms. Wiley, do you frequently work with minority 
communities, including Chinese-American or other Asian-American 
communities?
    Ms. Wiley. I do.
    Ms. Sanchez. Do you think Mr. Kennedy's theory is racist?
    Ms. Wiley. I think that Mr. Kennedy's statements fuel the 
theories that suggest that there's a biology to race and that, 
therefore, we can actually identify people in communities as 
possibly either being benefited by or being people who are not 
sharing the same interests and needs as the rest of us. Yes, 
that has served to drive hate and bias and, sadly, including 
violent incidents.
    Ms. Sanchez. Now, it was said earlier in this hearing that 
Mr. Kennedy is a smart man. Now, so far as I know, he does not 
have any specific education or training in medicine. He is not 
an epidemiologist, one who studies infectious diseases. He has 
never conducted clinical trials in a professional setting. He 
has never done scientific research in a professional laboratory 
and published scientific findings in a peer-reviewed 
publication.
    Ms. Wiley, what kind of harm does someone with absolutely 
no medical training or knowledge do when they espouse unfounded 
anti-Asian vaccine theories during a fraught time like COVID?
    Ms. Wiley. One of the things that happened in this historic 
pandemic was that there was certainly a need to get on top of 
very quickly what the science said. I am not a scientist 
either, and so what social media platforms did was go and speak 
to government agencies because their own policies and their own 
user agreements required them to look and figure out what the 
facts were so that they could assess what was responsible and 
what was not responsible to post.
    I say that because it was incredibly important to ensure 
that people were getting real-time information as possible, but 
also ones that really demonstrated what all of us need, rather 
than where and how we should ascribe blame or where and how we 
should consider who benefits and who doesn't, because we were 
all harmed.
    I say this in part because it was the social media 
platforms themselves that reached out to government agencies, 
including Health & Human Services and CDC, to get that 
information.
    Under the vacated, the vacated opinion, which it's really 
important to understand--it has been vacated by the Fifth 
Circuit, this preliminary injunction on all these incidents 
we're talking about, because one of the things it would do, in 
my view, just in my legal view, is that it was actually saying 
that the government could not respond to such requests under 
this injunction, which is incredibly overbroad, dangerous, and 
doesn't allow government agencies to do what they are chartered 
to do.
    Ms. Sanchez. Now, I'm an attorney by training, and one of 
the things I learned very early on in Constitutional law is 
that no right given to the people of the United States is 
absolute, and that includes the right to free speech, because 
you do not have the right to shout ``fire'' in a crowded 
theatre because it could produce harm and death of people by 
being false.
    These social media platforms have user policies to try to 
prevent that kind of harm. Is that not correct, Ms. Wiley?
    Ms. Wiley. That is correct.
    Ms. Sanchez. So, we are not trying to censor speech; we are 
simply trying to create factually correct information to 
prevent harm to people, including death. That's what we were 
trying to do during COVID. Is that not correct?
    Ms. Wiley. Legally speaking, absolutely. I say that as a 
matter of law, which is that court cases say that the 
government has the--in fact, it's its role to ask for 
compliance with policies. The policies on the books of social 
media platforms were violated and they said those--
    Chair Jordan. The time--
    Ms. Sanchez. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but the last questioner 
got an additional extra minute. I'm at 35 seconds over. I would 
just ask for her to finish her sentence.
    Ms. Stefanik. Point of order, Mr. Chair. The Democrats 
beforehand got an extra minute.
    Chair Jordan. I'm trying to be generous, even when the 
response is that the government determines the truth. I'm 
trying to be generous.
    Ms. Sanchez. I would like for her to be able to finish her 
sentence, Mr. Chair. Then I will yield back.
    Chair Jordan. OK. Ms. Wiley, you can finish your sentence.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
    Ms. Wiley. I am not sure I remember the sentence, but thank 
you. I just think the point was--
    Chair Jordan. I do.
    Ms. Wiley. --it was the--
    Chair Jordan. You were saying the government should be the 
arbiter of what's true.
    Ms. Sanchez. Could you please not put words in the mouth of 
the witness and let her respond? It's her answer.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
New York.
    The gentlelady from California's time has expired.
    Ms. Sanchez. I love how you follow the rules, Mr. Chair. 
It's really indicative of what a kangaroo court this is and 
what a circus it is.
    Ms. Garcia. It's censorship by the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, Lord.
    The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Morris, isn't it true that your October 2020, ``Hunter 
Biden's Laptop from Hell'' story has been proven to be 100 
percent factually accurate?
    Ms. Morris. I was 27 when I published that story. It better 
have been.
    Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it true that the FBI obtained Hunter 
Biden's laptop a full 10 months before your story broke?
    Ms. Morris. That's correct, according to the subpoena that 
I published.
    Ms. Stefanik. Isn't it also true that we now know that the 
FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force coerced social media 
companies into an alleged forthcoming Russian, quote, ``hack-
and-leak operation and, as a result, illegally censored the 
Hunter Biden laptop story''? Isn't that true?
    Ms. Morris. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. This for forced censorship by government 
agencies like the FBI was paid for by the taxpayers, since the 
taxpayers fund the FBI. Isn't that true?
    Ms. Morris. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Hunter Biden's laptop from hell, it has 
everything. It's a hell hole and cesspool of corruption and 
criminal conduct. It has hard drugs, prostitution, pornography, 
and money laundering. It has Biden family shell companies, 
Communist Chinese, corrupt foreign government deals from tens 
of millions of dollars in exchange for access to the Biden 
family. The Hunter Biden laptop from hell has all of this. 
Correct?
    Ms. Morris. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. The American people are smart. They know that 
this was not a hack and dump. This was illegal government 
censorship to protect and prop up Joe Biden on the eve of the 
2020 election. According to polling, of people who were now 
made of aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53 percent 
would have changed their vote, including 61 percent of 
Democrats.
    So, do you agree that the censorship of the Hunter Biden 
laptop story was determinative in the 2020 election, Ms. 
Morris?
    Ms. Morris. Yes. There are various polls that say that 
there would have been a change in the outcome of the election. 
Obviously, it's immediately relevant to a decision on who to 
vote for, so obviously.
    Ms. Stefanik. Do you believe that this government 
censorship was election interference?
    Ms. Morris. Yes. Any censorship of speech prevents your 
ability to think clearly. Yes, of course, yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Kennedy, I want to turn to you. You've 
heard me lay out this example of egregious and illegal 
government censorship. You've been censored yourself.
    Do you believe that government censorship is a form of 
election interference?
    Mr. Kennedy. I think democracy is dependent on the free 
flow of information. If that information is distorted, if the 
public is lied to and it interferes with election--and, by the 
way, it interferes with public health, and the Wall Street 
Journal did an article a couple of weeks ago suggesting that 
the censorship of important health information cost American 
lives.
    Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Kennedy, I want to ask you specifically 
about the Hunter Biden laptop story. The total blackout on all 
social media outlets, as well as telecom, you couldn't text the 
link to the Hunter Biden laptop story, this specifically was a 
form of election interference by the U.S. Government in the 
2020 election.
    Mr. Kennedy. I don't know enough about it. I know that 
there was censorship on that story and other stories that 
presumably could have changed people's minds about the 
election.
    Ms. Stefanik. We know the polling demonstrates that now. 
People have said they would have changed their vote had they 
been made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Kennedy. I'm not aware of that, but I'm not surprised.
    Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Sauer, I want to turn to you. I want your 
reflection on this form of government censorship, specifically 
in the 2020 election, as a form of election interference and 
what I believe is some of the most egregious political scandals 
that I will live through in my lifetime.
    Mr. Sauer, what are your reflections?
    Mr. Sauer. I strongly agree with your characterization of 
that form of censorship as election interference. The evidence 
in our case strongly supports that. It strongly supports--
actually, we have judicial findings now that the suppression of 
the Hunter Biden laptop story was done at the instigation of 
Federal officials in the FBI at a very high level of that 
organization. It was an orchestrated campaign of deception that 
was anticipatory. It was planned in advance. It was consummated 
with the testimony that I hadn't seen before that's been put up 
today from Ms. Dehmlow characterizing how, at the very end, the 
FBI then clammed up at the last minute after spending months of 
seeding the record in these endless ceaseless meetings with 
social media platforms about: ``There's a hack-and-dump coming. 
It's going to involve Hunter Biden.''
    When it actually came, they said: ``Whoop, no comment.''
    Our judge focused on that particular issue as kind of the 
coup de grace in this form of election interference.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, point of order.
    Ms. Sanchez. I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from California is recognized 
for a unanimous consent.
    Ms. Sanchez. My majority counterparts have repeatedly cited 
a District Court Opinion from Louisiana, and I would like to 
introduce for the record the Fifth Circuit order staying that 
opinion almost as soon as it was issued.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Florida.
    Mr. Goldman. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. The distinguished gentlelady from New York 
mentioned a poll. I would just ask that she identify what poll 
that is, and if we could enter it into the record.
    Chair Jordan. I'm sure she will be happy to do that.
    Ms. Stefanik. We will submit it for the record.
    Mr. Goldman. Can you identify what it is?
    Ms. Stefanik. Sure. I will submit it for the record, and 
you will be able to review it.
    Chair Jordan. We'll get it.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, for five minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, we respectfully requested that you rescind Mr. 
Kennedy's invitation to appear here due to his repeated and 
very recent statements that spread dangerous antisemitic and 
anti-Asian conspiracy theories and attempted to move into 
Executive Session because House rules prohibit public testimony 
that degrades or defames people.
    His reckless rhetoric helped fuel antisemitic incidents, 
which for the record are at the highest level in the United 
States since 1970. They have nearly tripled in the last 6 
years.
    Since you gave Mr. Kennedy a megaphone today, I want to 
give him a chance to correct his statements and repair some of 
the harm that he's helped caused.
    Mr. Kennedy, you're well educated, so yes or no, please. 
Are you aware that for centuries Jews have been scapegoat and 
blamed for like causing illnesses like Black Plague and more 
recently COVID?
    Mr. Kennedy. Those are known as blood libel, and they are 
one of the worst and most disturbing parts of human history.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. I'm glad to know that you 
acknowledge that.
    Of course, it's true and well documented that this 
pernicious form of anti-Semitism led to centuries of 
discrimination, even horrific pogroms and massacres, and it 
still fuels deadly violence today. Yet, last week you floated a 
baseless conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was 
bioengineered to target Caucasians and Black people, but to 
spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.
    Mr. Kennedy, your bizarre, unproven claim echoes that same 
historic slander of labeling Jews and Chinese people as a race 
and that Jews and, in this case, Chinese people somehow managed 
to avoid a deadly illness that targets other groups for death. 
You do see that? Yes or no?
    Mr. Kennedy. You're misstating--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, no. I quoted what you said 
earlier, and it is directly what you said. So, just answer me 
yes or no.
    Mr. Kennedy. I was describing an NIH-funded study--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, no. You didn't cite any--
    Mr. Kennedy. I was describing an NIH-funded study by 
Cleveland Clinic scientists that--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my 
time, you did not reference.
    Mr. Kennedy. Published in--there.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, the time is mine. I'm 
reclaiming it. Please ask the witness to stop talking.
    Mr. Kennedy. You asked me a question. Allow me to answer my 
question.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I would like about 10 
seconds.
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs--
    Mr. Kennedy. You are slandering me incorrectly. Also 
dishonest, and I need an opportunity to defend myself.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chair, I would like 15 seconds 
back.
    Chair Jordan. We will be happy to give you that back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    You did not cite any study like you're citing here now. 
During that conversation, you referenced no study at all. You 
simply labeled Jews and Chinese people as a race, and you also 
said that somehow, they managed to avoid a deadly illness that 
targets other groups for death.
    You don't see that? You're trying to rewrite history here.
    A few months ago, Mr. Kennedy, you compared COVID public 
health policies to barbaric murderous tactics of Nazi Germany, 
saying that Jewish people in Nazi Germany had more freedom than 
Americans facing COVID health restrictions.
    In hindsight, Mr. Kennedy, do you reject this absurd and 
deeply hurtful and harmful comparison, or do you still stand by 
it?
    Mr. Kennedy. Congressman, what you're saying is a lie.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm a Congresswoman. You said it. 
It's--
    Mr. Kennedy. No, I did not. I never ever compared COVID--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Mr. Chair, I would be happy to 
enter into the record when Mr. Kennedy said that. I reclaim my 
time.
    In discussing COVID public health measures, you made light 
of the genocide against Jewish people by saying, and I quote:

        Even Hitler's Germany you could cross the Alps to Switzerland. 
        You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did.

    Mr. Kennedy, do you think it was easy for Jewish people to 
escape systematic slaughter of Nazis? Yes or no?
    Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Good.
    Mr. Kennedy, do you think it was just as hard to wear a 
mask during COVID as it was to hide under floorboards or false 
walls, so you weren't murdered or dragged to a concentration 
camp? Yes or no?
    Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That's a question. Yes or no?
    Mr. Kennedy. I didn't hear your question.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I said, do you think it was just 
as hard to wear a mask during COVID as it was to hide under 
floorboards or false walls, so you weren't murdered or dragged 
to a concentration camp?
    Mr. Kennedy. Of course not.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. That's a comparison that you 
made.
    Mr. Kennedy. I did not make that comparison.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Were the measures taken to contain 
the spread and fatalities related to COVID in any way at all 
comparable to the murder of six million Jews? Yes or no?
    Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Let's be very clear here. 
There's no legitimate comparison to the Holocaust. It doesn't 
matter if you're talking about AI, vaccine mandates, or 
anything else, there's no comparison. If this were a slip of 
the tongue, Mr. Kennedy, or a one-off comment, we would all 
move on, but there's a deeply disturbing pattern.
    In 2015, you apologized to all those, quote: ``Whom I 
offended by my use of the word `holocaust' to describe the 
autism epidemic.''
    When discussing efforts to encourage others to get 
vaccinated for COVID-19, you said ``Nazis did that in the camps 
in World War II; they tested vaccines on gypsies and Jews.'' 
That was a quote.
    Like before you apologized for invoking the Holocaust 
saying, quote: ``To the extent my remarks caused hurt, I am 
truly and deeply sorry.''
    These are not real statements of contrition or remorse. 
They are passive aggressive nonapologies that blame the 
listener for reacting to the lie you just spread.
    I'm deeply saddened that this is a conversation we're 
having today. I have deep respect for what Mr. Kennedy's family 
did and still does to make life better for all Americans. What 
you are doing now, Mr. Kennedy, and the forces you aligned 
yourself are reckless, dangerous, and disturbing by echoing 
dangerous claims such as, quote: ``Jews don't really suffer as 
much as we do,'' which you said.
    Your rhetoric creates a climate of mistrust, antagonism, 
and even hatred or violence against Jewish people. My own 
children have been the targets of brutal anti-Semitism on 
social media. You fan those flames and jeopardize their safety. 
You've marginalized other groups too, like Asian Americans and 
the LGBTQ+ communities. Worse you don't seem to care or brush 
it all off to misquotes and misunderstandings. Frankly it's 
disgusting.
    Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 
UC.
    Mr. Massie. I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the 
record a study that Mr. Kennedy just referenced, ``New Insights 
into Genetic Susceptibility of COVID-19.'' The main body said 
that they investigated genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 by 
examining DNA polymorphisms and ACE2 and TMPRSS 2--those are 
receptors for COVID--in 81,000 human genomes, and they found 
unique genetics susceptibility across different populations.
    I have another document that I would like to ask unanimous 
consent--to submit.
    This is from the FDA, ``FDA Review of Efficacy and Safety 
of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.'' This is dated December 
10, 2020, and it shows that the Pfizer trial and the USDA broke 
down the effectiveness of the vaccine into seven different 
racial categories because this was also a concern of theirs. It 
would, frankly, be delinquent not to study the effects across 
the--
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Kennedy said it was 
bioengineered to target Blacks and Caucasians.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese 
people. That is different--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Kennedy, you've had some accusations thrown at you 
today. I'm going to ask my questions briefly and give you a 
chance to respond to that at the end of my time here.
    Ms. Wiley, if I could talk to you.
    Ms. Wiley. Sure.
    Mr. Stewart. Maybe you're busy with something else there, 
but do you trust the government to determine what facts and 
views the American people should be exposed to?
    Ms. Wiley. I trust that we have a process whereby we can 
interrogate what we hear and learn from the government, but 
certainly I expect the government to share facts and 
information.
    Mr. Stewart. That wasn't my question. I didn't say ``share 
facts and information.'' I said, do you trust the government to 
determine what facts and views the American people should be 
exposed to and which ones they should not?
    Ms. Wiley. Well, I think I'm struggling with the question 
because that is not the facts of the case in Missouri--
    Mr. Stewart. Simple question, simple question.
    Ms. Wiley. --in Missouri v. Biden--
    Mr. Stewart. I'm not talking about Missouri. Hey, hey, hey. 
I'm not talking about Missouri. This is a very simple question: 
Do you trust the government to determine what facts and views 
the American people are exposed to?
    Ms. Wiley. I am not aware of any action of the government--
    Mr. Stewart. OK. I'm going to take that--
    Ms. Wiley. --that tells the American public what facts they 
should be exposed to.
    Mr. Stewart. You're not aware of that?
    Ms. Wiley. No, I am not.
    Mr. Stewart. Oh, my gosh. Where have you lived for the last 
three years?
    Ms. Wiley. In the United States of America.
    Mr. Stewart. OK. Let me tell you--let me ask you. China 
suppresses free speech. Is that a good thing?
    Ms. Wiley. No, of course not.
    Mr. Stewart. Iran, mullahs there, they suppress free 
speech. Is that a good thing?
    Ms. Wiley. No, of course not.
    Mr. Stewart. Vladimir Putin suppresses it. Is that a good 
thing?
    Ms. Wiley. No. We all agree we should not suppress free 
speech.
    Mr. Stewart. OK. We agree then that the government should 
not--government leaders should not suppress free speech. We 
agree with that?
    Ms. Wiley. Oh, that's a different question. Yes, it is 
unconstitutional for the government to pass laws which would 
abridge free speech.
    Mr. Stewart. OK. Or not pass laws, but to create pressure 
that would suppress free speech. They don't--Vladimir Putin 
doesn't pass a law. He exerts his force and influence to 
suppress free speech.
    Ms. Wiley. Yes. The case law says that the government 
cannot coerce private entities--
    Mr. Stewart. We agree that's a bad idea, don't we?
    Ms. Wiley. Yes. I would absolutely agree when Donald 
Trump--
    Mr. Stewart. We agree then the government shouldn't--wait, 
wait--
    Ms. Wiley. --when Donald Trump threatened social media 
companies with the Federal regulation shutdown, that was 
coercion.
    Mr. Stewart. That's not my question.
    Ms. Wiley. Oh, I know, but I think it was consistent to 
show that we agree--
    Mr. Stewart. Here's my question for you. We agree the 
government shouldn't be responsible for restricting views that 
the American people are exposed to. We agree on that. Right? 
You wouldn't answer it at first, but it's clear that you do 
agree with that, because when--
    Ms. Wiley. That's a different question.
    Mr. Stewart. OK. So, to my question, do you agree with it 
or not?
    Ms. Wiley. I agree that the government should not violate 
our Constitution.
    Mr. Stewart. Do you agree with my question?
    Ms. Wiley. Your question is--
    Mr. Stewart. Should the government--
    Ms. Wiley. --whether or not the government--
    Mr. Stewart. This is so simple.
    Ms. Wiley. No, it is not so simple because--
    Mr. Stewart. I am going to ask it one time, and it is so 
simple a seventh grader could understand this question. Should 
the government be responsible for the views and the facts that 
the American people are exposed to?
    Ms. Wiley. The problem I have is that I don't know any 
facts with which the government tells us what--
    Mr. Stewart. I'm going to say that you're unable to answer 
the question, which for me is fairly shocking as an American 
citizen.
    Let me ask you now then, having concluded that you're 
unaware of suppression of free speech in the last several 
years, what about for--
    Ms. Wiley. That's not actually what I said, but thank you.
    Mr. Stewart. Do you think it was appropriate for the FBI to 
pressure private companies to censor and take down posts that 
the government disagreed with? Was that appropriate?
    I'll give you an example that you were unaware of. I'm glad 
you're aware of it now. Was that appropriate for the government 
to do that?
    Ms. Wiley. Sir, the only thing that is appropriate for the 
government to do is what it is lawfully allowed to do both 
under the Constitution and the laws of this country.
    Mr. Stewart. Which is?
    Ms. Wiley. Which is to conduct its criminal investigations 
appropriately to our laws and to our policies.
    Mr. Stewart. So, they didn't have the ability, then, to go 
to these private companies and to say they can't--
    Ms. Wiley. There are instances, in which, to protect the 
integrity of a criminal prosecution, they may ask. Sometimes 
news agencies and others--
    Mr. Stewart. I certainly agree with that. Was that the case 
here? Were there any criminal prosecutions involved with these 
cases? Not that I'm aware of.
    Ms. Wiley. There were criminal--criminal investigations are 
not prosecutions and also the integrity of--
    Mr. Stewart. --were there any criminal investigations 
regarding these examples?
    Ms. Wiley. Which examples are those, sir?
    Mr. Stewart. For example, anything regarding the Hunter 
Biden laptop?
    Ms. Wiley. Well, there are lots of things that have been 
said in the public media about Hunter Biden's laptop. There was 
a criminal investigation, in fact, a plea in that case.
    Mr. Stewart. Does it bother you that 51 former intelligence 
officials made a determination that the Hunter Biden laptop was 
Russian disinformation? Which they admit, by the way, they have 
no evidence at all that this was true, zero evidence that this 
was true. Does that bother you they did that?
    Ms. Wiley. What bothers me tremendously is that, while 
there are a lot of things we should be talking about with 
regard to whether or not the government at times exceeds its 
authority, that includes whether or not government exceeds its 
authority when it tries to censor or interfere with research or 
research institutions, where any White House official, such as 
Donald Trump, actually threatens the full power of the Federal 
Government, including the threat to shut down social media 
because they put a fact-check label on a tweet--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
    Ms. Stefanik. I'd like to submit for the record a tip 
insight to New Jersey-based Institute of Policy and Politics 
Poll conducted of over 1,000 adults between August 2-4, 2022, 
showed that 8 in 10 voters, if they were made aware of the 
Biden laptop, that would have been determinative in changing 
the outcome of the election. It also demonstrates that 61 
percent of Democrats included in this poll would have changed 
their vote. Submit it for the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I've been in this Congress 15 years, and I never thought we 
would descend to this level or Orwellian dystopia. Suddenly, 
the tools of the trade are not to get at the truth but to 
distract, distort, deflect, and dissemble.
    To disagree is censorship. To try to correct the facts is 
to infringe on my right of free speech. It only works one way. 
The name of Dr. Fauci has been invoked. I'd love to have him 
here as a witness to describe his travail in being censored. Of 
course, with that right-wing censorship comes intimidation and 
threat and the intimations of violence and a wink-blink that, 
by the way, violence can be justified. The violence, for 
example, here on January 6th has been explicitly excused by 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as a bunch 
of tourists who got a little out of hand, a little overexcited. 
Five are dead, including my constituent, a Capitol Hill police 
officer, who died the next day from the trauma and shock of 
that experience. Ironically, talk about free speech and duty, 
he voted for Donald Trump. His duty was to be here that day, 
Officer Sicknick.
    Somehow my freedom to harm with the words I use is 
considered further evidence of censorship. We know words have 
power, and that's why we take care with the words that we use.
    We have mass killings in America. We buried people recently 
in Pittsburgh because of their identity. Hate speech has 
consequences. Distortion of the truth has consequences. It's 
not censorship to try to correct that rhetoric.
    Vaccination denial would have cost millions of more lives 
in America: 1.1 million fellow Americans are dead today because 
of the pandemic, and millions are saved because of a vaccine 
that was developed in record time, and we ought to be 
celebrating that, not caviling about it.
    Protective measures were taken to take down disinformation 
about vaccines and about the nature of the virus and about 
protective measures we could take, including masks, including 
social distancing. It was not Big Brother government trying to 
exercise its will on an innocent population. It was public 
health measures to protect lives, again, something that should 
be celebrated. No, there's an opportunity to have a conspiracy 
theory here. There's an opportunity to make political points.
    No matter what you may think, Mr. Kennedy--and I revere 
your name--you're not here to propound your case for 
censorship. You are here for cynical reasons to be used 
politically by that side of the aisle to embarrass the current 
President of the United States, and you're an enabler in that 
effort today. It brings shame on a storied name that I revere. 
I began my political interest with your father, and it makes me 
profoundly sad to see where we have descended today in this 
hearing.
    I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia.
    We don't have a lot of time to dig into questions, but I 
would just note for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who are former prosecutors, you well know that the 
opinions of a journalist don't amount to actual evidence of 
anything. It is a sign of the desperate attempt to satisfy your 
conspiracy theories that you're bringing a fringe-right 
reporter to provide evidence for your investigation.
    Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentleman's out of time.
    Mr. Goldman. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson from Louisiana for--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm so grateful for that segue 
from Mr. Goldman, because we are about to talk about hard 
evidence here.
    It's really ironic this hearing is covering the left's 
censorship of opposing viewpoints, and you've all seen it on 
display all day long. They've been doing exactly that. They've 
been trying to bully and defame our witnesses and try to cover 
up their opinions. They actually began the hearing with a 
motion to prevent them from testifying. You can't make this 
stuff up. It's on broad display for everybody.
    They did the same thing yesterday in the hearing with the 
IRS whistleblowers. You know why? Because the Democrats are 
panicked right now. They're panicked because it's impossible to 
cover up the inescapable conclusions of the last few weeks.
    Let me give you two of them.
    (1) The hard evidence, Mr. Goldman and everybody else, now 
proves that the Biden family is hopelessly corrupt and has 
apparently engaged in a long pattern of extortion, bribery, 
influence-peddling, and tax fraud and staggering abuses of 
power.
    (2) We are highlighting here today that we now know that a 
growing list of the most important Executive-Branch agencies of 
the Biden Administration are in on it. They've also been 
corrupted. They've been weaponized to help cover all this up, 
the First Family's crimes.
    When we summarize all this stuff, it sounds like a premise 
of a dystopian novel or something, but it's actually happening 
right now on our watch. This is not conspiracy theories; this 
is evidence.
    Our hearing today is to put a spotlight on one more of 
these incredible avenues of unprecedented corruption and 
government cover-up. Here again, a Federal Court has just 
affirmed all that hard evidence. It proves that the White 
House, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, among other 
agencies, threatened and coerced the social media platforms to 
censor and suppress disfavored viewpoints and conservatives' 
social media posts online.
    I'm grateful we have with us today two individuals, Mr. 
Kennedy and Ms. Harris [sic], who were directly impacted by 
that censorship, and the third, Mr. Sauer, who we're about to 
speak with, serving as lead counsel in the landmark lawsuit 
against the Federal Government on this issue.
    Let's talk facts. The American people are not aware of the 
magnitude of this case, Mr. Sauer, and its profound 
implications because most of the mainstream media is in on it, 
too, and they're trying to bury the story.
    In brief, in May of last year, the attorneys general of my 
State, Louisiana, and the State of Missouri filed suit in the 
U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana of 
this blatant censorship. They went after the blatant censorship 
of the Biden White House and nine of its Federal agencies.
    Two weeks ago, on Independence Day, the District Court 
issued a truly extraordinary, 155-page court opinion, a ruling, 
granting the plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction.
    Mr. Sauer, you're lead counsel in that litigation. You 
referenced some in your opening statement, but let's do it 
again here, because they don't seem to be paying attention.
    Can you give a summary again of some of the key components 
of that opinion and the basis for it? I know you mentioned 
there were 82 pages of detailed factual findings, right?
    Mr. Sauer. That is correct, 82 pages, 577 citations of the 
record evidence. That evidence is drawn from about 20,000 pages 
of the government's own communications with social media 
platforms and six full-length depositions of senior Federal 
officials with firsthand knowledge of Federal censorship 
practices.
    Mr. Stewart. It's absolutely staggering.
    Now, they've tried to bury this and say, well, the Fifth 
Circuit entered a temporary administrative stay. They granted 
an expedited briefing and oral argument, however, for August 
10th.
    What's the impact of that? Isn't that routine practice in 
the Fifth Circuit?
    Mr. Sauer. That's a direct quote from the recent Fifth 
Circuit decision in re Abbott, which is cited in my written 
testimony. It's legally incorrect, clearly legally incorrect, 
to describe them as vacating the injunction, which has happened 
multiple times--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. They either don't know the law 
or, I don't know, they're trying to obscure the facts. That's a 
theme around here.
    The White House and their fellow Democrats disputed almost 
none of the factual findings in the court. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Sauer. So far, we've had two emergency stay motions 
from the Department of Justice--one in the District Court, one 
in the Court of Appeals. What really struck me in reading those 
is they just don't dispute those pages and pages of factual 
findings. Almost none of them are directly disputed in what 
they've filed so far.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, at the very beginning of this 
lengthy opinion, the court explains the staggering scope of the 
government censorship uncovered here. At page 2, the court 
explains, quote,

        If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present 
        case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech 
        in United States history.

The court called it ``dystopian,'' and ``Orwellian.''
    How broad has the attack been? How many Americans have been 
censored, do you think?
    Mr. Sauer. There are judicial findings again and again in 
the opinion of millions--millions of American voices silenced 
by these efforts.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It had profound impacts, we know. 
We just saw the poll and the data that's been entered here. 
Facts, not conjecture, that it probably changed the outcome of 
the election. The court noted that they suppressed, among other 
topics, the Hunter Biden laptop story. The court noted--not 
you, not me, not Republicans--that millions of Americans were 
not exposed to that story. Had they been, we know they might 
have voted differently. We'll never be able to unwind history, 
but, wow, I mean, the profound impacts.
    What are some of the other categories of speech that the 
government suppressed with its unconstitutional scheme?
    Mr. Sauer. Well, the court made findings on that. I'd just 
quote them: Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines, opposition to 
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns, the lab leak theory of COVID-
19, opposition to President Biden's policies, statements that 
the Hunter Biden laptop story was true, oppositions to the 
policies of government officials in power--all were suppressed.
    That's just some examples. Many other examples in the 
court's findings and in the discovery in the case.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I so wish I weren't out of time. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allred from Texas for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I yield my time to Ms. Plaskett.
    Ms. Plaskett. Let me thank the gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Kennedy and others here are claiming that they've been 
censored, but they actually have a huge megaphone.
    The rules that my colleague tried to bring up are rules 
that the Republicans made at the beginning of this Congress. 
They did not allow the Democrats to be part of that. One of 
those rules was that if information or testimony might 
potentially defame an individual that we would go in Executive 
Session. No one was trying to stop him from testifying, but not 
to give him the megaphone that this group has allowed him to 
have.
    I also note, in terms of censorship, that the far-right 
media has already issued articles about me playing the race 
card. The race card is something that's often used against 
Black people for bringing up when they see race, hatred, being 
promulgated against them, and it's a means to try and keep us 
quiet and keep us in our place. ``Oh, you're playing the race 
card'' by bringing up what is obvious in our lives, what is 
obviously happening--race. So, you can keep saying I'm race-
baiting and try and censor me, but I'm going to continue to 
tell the truth.
    I want to be abundantly clear about what else is happening 
in this room. The MAGA Republicans are trying to scare social 
media companies into not taking down blatantly false 
information in the lead-up to our 2024 Presidential election.
    Chair Jordan knows, as we do, that when conspiracy theories 
succeed, so does Donald Trump. Russia interfered in our 2016 
election, they attempted in our 2020, and they're going to try 
to interfere in the 2024 Presidential election.
    We note that Russian trolls sought to suppress the Black 
vote by unleashing a torrent of social media posts designed to 
stoke racial tensions and spread incorrect voting information.
    In 2021, our national intelligence agencies found that 
proactive information-sharing between the government and social 
media companies facilitated the expeditious review and in many 
cases removal of social media accounts covertly operated by 
Russia and Iran.
    Ms. Wiley, if the government is not able to proactively 
share information with social media companies in 2024, what is 
likely to be the ramifications?
    I'd ask that you make your answer as succinct as possible 
because there's a lot of information I need.
    Ms. Wiley. I will just quote one thing. Mr. Prigozhin, who 
has been in the news of late, actually said explicitly and 
openly that, ``they would continue to try to spread mis- and 
disinformation into the United States and interfere with our 
elections.''
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. They know that Russian 
interference--that is, the MAGA Republicans know that Trump 
benefits when Russia interferes.
    The super-PAC that supports--the same super-PAC that 
supports Mr. Kennedy and has raised significant funds on his 
behalf is run by a man named Jason Boles. Here's Jason Boles' 
Twitter profile, as you can see up on the screen.
    Jason Boles isn't just a MAGA supporter; he also ran the 
super-PAC for MAGA Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren 
Boebert, and George Santos. In 2022, he supported Herschel
Walker.
    So, the person behind Mr. Kennedy's super-PAC is an 
individual who personally and professionally wants the 
Republican Party to succeed. Yet, Mr. Kennedy is running as a 
Democrat.
    Ms. Wiley, will it benefit Mr. Kennedy, as well as the 
other individuals that are supported by the super-PAC, if 
social media companies are less able to detect and, if needed--
if they determine that it's needed--to remove Russian covert 
information designed to suppress votes in this country?
    Ms. Wiley. It is possible.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Kennedy. Could I--
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Steube from Florida for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Mr. Kennedy, you wanted to respond to that. Can 
you do that quickly?
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I've never heard of Mr. Boles, and I've 
never heard of that super-PAC.
    This is typical of the accusations against me at this 
hearing. They are baseless, every single one. I've been 
subjected to a string, a parade, of defamations. If I believed 
those things about myself, I wouldn't want to hear me either. 
I'd want to gag me and lock me in a room somewhere. None of 
those are true.
    They were all of this parade of accusations and defamations 
were made against me in a way that was calculated to make sure 
that I could not respond to any of them. Every one of them I'd 
like to respond to, but I was not allowed to.
    Mr. Steube. To further the disinformation going on, Ms. 
Wiley, in response to a question, you stated that the decision 
in Missouri v. Biden was vacated by the Appellate Court. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Wiley. I did, and I want to correct that, because Mr. 
Sauer's right. The appropriate word is ``stayed.''
    Mr. Steube. Administratively stayed. So, it hasn't been--
    Ms. Wiley. Stayed.
    Mr. Steube. --vacated or dismissed, like Ms. Sanchez said.
    Ms. Wiley. It's stayed, which means it cannot be 
implemented right now.
    Mr. Steube. OK. Because, I didn't want us to censor your 
disinformation that you stated as a factual assertion earlier, 
so--
    Ms. Wiley. I did misspeak, and I apologize.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you for clarifying that for us.
    To talk about more evidence about--I think it's 
interesting--there's a lot in this opinion, and I have limited 
time, but I think illustrating some of the actions that the 
Biden Administration took to censor speech is very important. 
I'm going read specifically from the opinion.

        Explicit threats are an obvious form of coercion, but not all 
        coercion need be explicit.

I'm on page 97 of the opinion.

        The following illustrative specific actions by Defendants are 
        examples of coercion exercised by the White House Defendants.

        (a) Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved 
        immediately. Please remove this account immediately.

Sounds like a directive from the White House, to me, to social 
media companies.

        Accused Facebook of causing ``political violence'' by failing 
        to censor false COVID-19 claims.

        (f) This is exactly why I want to know what ``Reduction'' 
        actually looks like--if ``reduction'' means pumping our most 
        vaccine hesitant audience with Tucker Carlson saying it does 
        not work . . . then . . . I'm not sure it's reduction.

Implying that they're reducing the information on that.

        Questioning how the Tucker Carlson video had been ``demoted'' 
        since there were 40,000 shares.

        Wanting to know why Alex Berenson had not been kicked off 
        Twitter because Berenson was the epicenter of disinformation 
        that radiated outward to the persuadable public.

I'm just skipping through here. I'm not even going through all 
these.

        Flaherty stated: ``Not to sound like a broken record, but how 
        much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at 
        mitigating reach and how quickly?''

        Flaherty told Facebook: ``Are you guys [F-ing] serious? I want 
        an answer on what happened here and I want it today.''

Sounds like a pretty explicit threat, to me.

        (m) White House Press Secretary Psaki stated: ``We are in 
        regular touch with these social media platforms, and those 
        engagements typically happen through members of our senior 
        staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We're flagging 
        problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.'' 
        Psaki also stated one of the White House's ``asks'' of social 
        media companies was to ``create a robust enforcement 
        strategy.''

        (o) Psaki stated at the February 1, 2022, White House Press 
        Conference that the White House wanted every social media 
        platform to do more to call out misinformation and 
        disinformation and to uplift accurate information.

Another one:

        Hey, folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if 
        we can get moving on the process of having it removed. ASAP.

Sounds like a pretty explicit demand from the White House, to 
me. Again, quoting the opinion:

        ``These actions are just a few examples of the unrelenting 
        pressure the Defendants exerted against social media companies. 
        This Court finds the above examples demonstrate that Plaintiffs 
        can''--likely prove--``that White House Defendants engaged in 
        coercion to induce social media companies to suppress free 
        speech.''

    Mr. Sauer, in the limited time that I have, can you just 
comment further on, these are just some of the highlights that 
are in the opinion, and illustrate to us all the evidence of 
the White House censoring the American public and working with 
social media companies to accomplish that?
    Mr. Sauer. Yes, it's very telling that the judicial 
findings are quite specific on the specific threats.
    So, there are several ways you can violate the First 
Amendment if you're a government official. One is coercion. One 
is significant encouragement. One is joint participation, where 
you've insinuated yourselves into private decisionmaking. The 
court found all those present here.
    With respect to those White House communications, there's a 
series of specific judicial findings that these statements were 
threatening; they were threatening adverse legal consequences. 
There are multiple findings, for example, that White House 
spokesperson Psaki's public statements explicitly linked the 
threat of adverse legal consequences to the White House's 
demands for censorship, which we didn't know at the time, but 
now know were being very aggressively peppered on the social 
media platforms while she was making those public statements.
    So, have your public statements from the White House, also 
White House Communications Director Bedingfield--there's a very 
specific judicial finding on that--threatening adverse legal 
consequences in public if there's not greater censorship, and 
in private you've got Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, other White 
House officials saying: ``Take this down, take this down, do 
more to take down borderline content.''
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    The gentleman--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous 
consent request.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There's a lot of talk about this 
preliminary injunction, so I'd like to enter into the record 
the 155-page Court Opinion, the ``Memorandum Ruling on Request 
for Preliminary Injunction'' in the matter of the State of 
Missouri and Louisiana v. Biden from the U.S. District Court, 
Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division; and also, the 
Fifth Circuit's administrative stay which does not address the 
merits.
    Chair Jordan. Yep.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, I'd like unanimous consent to 
enter into the record an article that states ``Pro-RFK Jr. 
Super PAC Has Deep Ties to Marjorie Taylor Greene, George 
Santos,'' which discusses the super-PAC titled, ``Heal the 
Divide,'' which states that, ``Only Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can 
unite the Nation to start healing America,'' and also discusses 
Mr. Kennedy's discussions with Mr. Trump about working in his 
administration.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Texas, I believe? Is that the queue?
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you--
    Chair Jordan. Ms. Garcia, you're recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I live in Houston, but I was born and raised in rural South 
Texas. Shamefully, rural South Texas and all of rural Texas has 
been utterly devastated by COVID-19.
    In fact, only 56 percent of rural Americans are fully 
vaccinated versus almost 70 percent of their urban 
counterparts. We know that being unvaccinated makes you up to 
17 times--17 times--more likely to die of COVID compared to 
people who are vaccinated and boosted. A recent study found 
that nearly 2,000 lives could have been saved in Texas if it 
had reached the vaccination levels of places like Vermont or 
Connecticut.
    However, today, despite the horrific COVID-19 tragedies--
and thank you for describing those refrigerated morgues, if you 
will, because that was horrible to even see, but I'm sure there 
are some deniers, just like they deny the climate that this 
even happened. These tragedies have also plagued rural South 
Texas and families all around the country. Yet, we give a 
platform to one of the biggest spreaders of anti-vaccine 
propaganda in the country.
    He has claimed that vaccines have caused widespread death. 
They have not. He has claimed that vaccines are unsafe for 
pregnant people. They are not. He has claimed that vaccines 
cause autism. They do not. He has even suggested that vaccines 
implant government-controlled microchips into patients. They do 
not.
    As crazy as Mr. Kennedy's theories are, he has been able to 
effectively spread false medical information throughout our 
communities due to his prestigious family's name, his deep 
pockets, and his websites that publish patently false health 
and medical information.
    By inviting him here today, extreme MAGA Republicans 
elevate a man who tells others that vaccines aren't safe, but 
vaccines his own children for protection and, it was noted 
earlier, even asked guests to his party to be vaccinated.
    Three million lives were saved by the COVID-19 vaccine. If 
anti-vaccine advocates like Mr. Kennedy did not continuously 
flood our communities with false health and medical 
information, more lives could have been saved.
    Ms. Wiley, thank you for your opening remarks, because that 
was the reality that New York and so many communities across 
the country faced.
    We know that sensational, false information spreads much 
faster than accurate information. From your personal 
experience, is that true?
    Ms. Wiley. It is true.
    Actually, one of the ways that the social media companies, 
which are the places where the rules are determined--and I 
think it's important when we keep talking about censorship 
that--they have the power and the legal right to decide what 
content is on their site. We're talking about their policies 
here and their enforcement, or failure to enforce them.
    We've actually raised alarm bells at the Leadership 
Conference for Civil and Human Rights about the fact that they 
have not sufficiently enforced their own policies and that this 
has led to harm--very dangerous harm, which we've talked about.
    I just want to point this out as well: The social media 
companies actually use algorithms to elevate content that it 
finds draws users. That's why there is research that shows, far 
from suppressing right-wing and extremist speech, that actually 
the algorithms used by social media has elevated them--has 
elevated them.
    That's true from the New York Stern School that has a study 
out from 2021. That testimony has occurred in Congress. Even 
Twitter's own analytics shows that it has elevated conservative 
speech.
    Which, by the way, that the research shows that, while 
we're sitting here talking about this as if there is somehow a 
targeting of viewpoint, it's actually been about targeting 
whether or not the content is consistent with the policies of 
the platforms that they themselves set.
    Ms. Garcia. So, this year, it really is literally putting 
even more lives at risk for elevating all these what I think 
are crazy theories. Because as long as these anti-vaccine 
theories continue to spread, it makes people not only question 
the vaccine but other vaccines.
    Wouldn't you agree?
    Ms. Wiley. I would.
    I also want to say, it also occurs in our democracy in 
terms of voting. Mis-and disinformation about whether or not 
voting laws are being violated and whether individuals are 
violating them have led to death threats. That is also in 
violation of the social media policies.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, and it happens--
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, for five minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. --it happens, I got a death threat after the 
last Weaponization hearing.
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentlelady from 
Wyoming.
    Ms. Hageman. I want to thank you, Mr. Sauer, Ms. Morris, 
and Mr. Kennedy for your courage, for your willingness to be 
the tip of the spear to protect all our First Amendment rights.
    Mr. Sauer, I don't know if you watched the testimony from 
Christopher Wray last week, but he testified and admitted that 
the FBI was continuing to meet regularly with social media 
companies up until the very moment that the injunction was 
issued by the District Court judge.
    What that tells me is, they're not stopping. They're going 
to continue to try to further the censorship industrial complex 
as long as they can and will continue to attempt to violate our 
First Amendment rights. We all must be vigilant.
    Ms. Morris, I want to focus on you today. I don't think 
that we've talked enough about the freedom of the press, but 
it's also included in the First Amendment and is as important 
as any other First Amendment right that we have.
    I want to thank you for your testimony today. We all know 
that the First Amendment is a core, fundamental right. Within 
its protection is the protection of the free press against 
infringement by the government.
    Free press has been an institution in this Nation which 
dates back to even before America existed. Americans have 
always relied on the media to remain informed about the 
workings of their government and events in the world. This is 
why the press is often referred to as the ``Fourth Branch,'' 
using the rights secured by the Constitution as a fourth check 
on the three branches of government.
    Ms. Morris, before a majority Presidential election, you 
were prepared to release a factual report about one of the 
candidates. One would think that the information in your report 
would be of interest to the American people to understand the 
integrity of the candidates who were asking for their support 
and their trust.
    The facts have been laid out by you and this Committee of 
how the FBI worked with social media to alter their perception 
of what your story was and to change their policies to censor 
it.
    Ms. Morris, your story was obviously groundbreaking news. 
As we have learned and uncovered additional information over 
the intervening two years, I can say with confidence that what 
has been going on with the Biden family is an absolutely 
horrific and undermines the very foundation of our country and 
the integrity of the people in the highest, highest elected and 
appointed offices in this country. It's now--we know that you 
were correct in what you were going to be reporting.
    Have there been any estimates, or do you have any general 
idea of how many people were denied access to your story 
because of the government censorship?
    Ms. Morris. So, there are polls about that. The MRC, Media 
Research Center, did a poll about--it said 45 percent of Biden 
voters were not aware of the story.
    I think it also is an impossible question to answer, 
because the thing about the censorship was not only that it was 
deleted or whatever from Twitter but, also, it casted an 
aspersion on the reporting, on me, that was literally made up. 
It was made up.
    There is a subset of this country where, despite The New 
York Times, The Washington Post, like, literally fill-in-the-
blank, like, liberal news legacy outlet that they all trust, 
they'll--like, they just reflectively think, ``Laptop from 
hell--fake. Russia. Whatever.''
    So, the effect of that can't be measured. Because, like, 
these people who are spies, who the country looks at as the 
ultimate authority of truth, came out and said that there was 
something wrong with it. So, you can't measure the impact of 
that.
    Ms. Hageman. So, going back to the legacy media, the 
Oversight Committee had a very explosive hearing yesterday with 
whistleblowers from the IRS. Some of our legacy media outlets 
did not cover the hearing. They did talk about Taco Tuesday, 
and they talked about other things that seem to be of great 
interest to them, but not the fact that we are uncovering an 
enormous amount of corruption at the very highest levels in our 
government.
    While we don't--while you don't know about the F---you 
didn't know about the FBI's efforts at the time, I would assume 
that, between the Twitter files and what we've uncovered in the 
Missouri v. Biden case, you now know the role that the FBI 
played in censoring your work.
    Do you think the FBI tried to ensure that the American 
people didn't hear the story to change the outcome of the 
election in 2020?
    Ms. Morris. I don't know how to answer that question, 
because I'm not in their head. I don't know the reason why. I 
don't have a head count of how many Biden voters work at the 
FBI. I can't assign a motive to them. I can just tell you what 
happened and what we've learned in the two-years since this, 
like, blatant, in-your-face censorship event.
    Ms. Hageman. We do know that the American public were not 
told the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop and Joe Biden's 
involvement with his dealings--foreign dealings.
    Ms. Morris. Well, that's it. That's what pertains to my 
work and my experience.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from--the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady 
from Florida, Ms. Cammack.
    Ms. Cammack. My microphone is broken.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, your microphone is broken? Maybe use--
slide over--
    Ms. Cammack. Yes, let me just slide over here. Sorry. The 
microphone is broken. Wait, that might work. OK. All right. 
Sorry. This microphone is broken.
    I want to thank all our witnesses for being in front of us 
here today. I know that this has not been an easy couple of 
hours, but I appreciate your endurance.
    I'll start with you, Ms. Wiley. Five days ago, Democrat 
Representative Pramila Jayapal stated that she has been, quote, 
``fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist State.''
    Yes or no, do you believe that statement to be antisemitic?
    Ms. Wiley. I believe that there is a distinction between 
any--
    Ms. Cammack. It's just a yes or no.
    Ms. Wiley. --conversation about a government versus a group 
of people.
    Ms. Cammack. So, do you believe that each of my Democratic 
colleagues should publicly denounce her comments--
    Ms. Wiley. Well, I--
    Ms. Cammack. --and not continue to give her a platform to 
make statements like Israel is a racist Nation?
    Because, essentially, that is what is happening here, is it 
is--we are 100 percent trying to censor one gentleman, because 
one side doesn't agree with his comments. So, in a 
Weaponization hearing about censorship, the left is trying to 
censor, which I think is absolutely crazy.
    I have to bring this up, since the door was opened. I'm 
deeply concerned about the fact that there were FEC reports 
brought up. Mr. Kennedy, you acknowledged that you don't know 
where those came from. You said that you have no affiliation 
with those--that PAC, that super-PAC, I believe.
    The Ranking Member said she was deeply concerned about the 
affiliation. We seem to have a guilty-by-association theme 
going on here. So, I just have to State for the record that I, 
myself, am deeply concerned about the affiliation of the 
convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein of which the Ranking 
Member took campaign donation money from.
    So, I think that's the beauty of the First Amendment, is 
that we have a right to say what we want to say, but we also 
have the right to be offended. So, I just wanted to point that 
out--glass houses and all.
    Our Democrat colleague Mr. Lynch opened up the door of what 
does the impact of the continued narrative of ``weaponization'' 
have on the general public? I think that's really important, 
because what we have seen in the last couple of weeks is 
irrefutable evidence of the fact that the FBI has not only been 
systematically working to censor Americans' speech, but they 
have been facilitating it and, in some cases, at the behest of 
foreign governments.
    A Weaponization report proved that there was a direct 
connection between the Ukrainian SBU--in which that 
intelligence service was sending spreadsheets of thousands of 
posts, in some cases posts that were belonging to the United 
States State Department. Because we know that the Ukrainian SBU 
is rife with double agents, the FBI wasn't even vetting the 
posts. They were simply sending them direct to the social media 
companies, saying, ``Please take these down.''
    So, now we have an FBI that is not just saying that they're 
going to fight foreign interference, they're facilitating it, 
at one point even suggesting that they put forward a 24/7 
channel where the FBI takes requests from a foreign government 
and filters it right to the social media companies to have 
those posts taken down.
    It was across the board--anti-Ukraine, pro-Ukraine. That 
right there proves that they weren't vetting the posts. That's 
a problem.
    We've established clearly, with hard evidence, that there 
is, in fact, a weaponization of the Federal Government against 
the American people. Every single day that we do not 
acknowledge it is a bad day in America. The pillars of our 
constitutional republic--not democracy--are being taken down 
bit by bit, because the press is being told they can't ask the 
tough questions.
    Ms. Morris, you have probably received threats. You have 
been censored. You have been silenced.
    Mr. Sauer, you have been before us many times, and you have 
expressed the pushback, the threats that you have received.
    Mr. Kennedy, I can't imagine what you receive on a daily 
basis from both the left and the right.
    So, I'm going to go to our Democratic colleague Mr. Lynch 
and ask the question, what impact does the continued narrative 
of ``weaponization'' have on the general public? I know he 
framed this in a way to make a point that it is somehow 
negative to ask the tough questions, but I'm going to ask our 
three witnesses here: What are the ramifications if we don't 
talk about it, if we don't expose it?
    I only have 25 seconds, so, Mr. Sauer, take it away.
    Mr. Sauer. If Federal censorship is not stood up to 
aggressively, it will expand to every corner of online 
discourse.
    Ms. Cammack. Ms. Morris?
    Ms. Morris. I can't even believe this is a conversation. 
Like, this is not controversial or taboo. We live in the United 
States of America, and you have the right to say whatever you 
want, to print whatever you want, and to read whatever you 
want.
    Ms. Cammack. Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. A government that can censor its critics has 
license for every atrocity. It is the beginning of 
totalitarianism. There's never been a time in history when we 
look back and the guys who were censoring people were the good 
guys.
    All of us grew up reading Arthur Koestler, Robert Heinlein, 
Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell. They were all saying the same 
thing: Once you start censoring, you're on your way to dystopia 
and totalitarianism.
    Ms. Cammack. I know my time has expired, but, Mr. Sauer, 
you said earlier, censorship is about power, censorship is 
about control. The entire progressive, leftist agenda is about 
nothing more than dependency and control. That is why this is 
so important.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, before that, I have a document I'd 
like to enter into record, a The Washington Post article of 
July 23d, which lists the misstatements of facts in the 
preliminary injunction in the Missouri v. Biden case that we've 
been talking about.
    Chair Jordan. From what paper? What publication?
    Ms. Plaskett. I said The Washington Post.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Sauer, welcome back to the Committee. It's great to see 
you again. You're becoming a mainstay on the Committee. I do 
hope that you continue to update us on your case now that it 
has been stayed and will not be implemented as it goes through 
the appeals process.
    I'd like to quickly play a short video, if we could.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Kennedy, I have a simple question for you, 
as an early victim of COVID. I actually got it March 10, 2020. 
My question to you is whether you think I should be worried 
about my genetics as an Ashkenazi Jew because I did contract 
COVID.
    Mr. Kennedy. No, not at all. That statement that you saw 
there is a truncated version of a larger statement--
    Mr. Goldman. No, I understand. You issued a clarification.
    Mr. Kennedy. --where I was describing a study.
    Mr. Goldman. I get it. I understand. Hold on. I asked a 
simple question. You're now going on--
    I'm reclaiming my time, because what I really want to talk 
about here is evidence. Evidence, evidence, evidence.
    Mr. Johnson was so eager to talk about what he called the 
``hard evidence,'' and yet all we heard again was him repeating 
allegations without identifying any evidence. You can repeat 
all these allegations as much as you want, but it doesn't make 
them true.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goldman. You are not witnesses--I don't have enough 
time, unfortunately.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh.
    Mr. Goldman. You are not witnesses to any of this conduct, 
and just because you say it over and over, it doesn't make it 
so.
    If we're talking about censorship here, which I believe is 
presumably the reason why Mr. Kennedy is here, the tweet that 
you've identified was never taken down. Whatever the government 
may have tried to do--and I don't agree that it tried to do 
what you said it did--it wasn't taken down.
    So, how can the government actually censor anyone if there 
is enough freedom within the companies, they're talking to that 
they reject whatever request that the government makes?
    I want to focus now, Ms. Morris, on the laptop. There's 
been a lot of talk about the laptop being real. That is true. 
There was a laptop. It's a computer--keyboard, screen. It is 
real. You never got a laptop before you wrote that story, did 
you?
    Ms. Morris. That's correct.
    Mr. Goldman. You got a hard drive.
    Ms. Morris. Hard drive.
    Mr. Goldman. You received that hard drive from Rudy 
Giuliani, right?
    Ms. Morris. Yep.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Who had been openly associating with an 
agent of Russian intelligence in the months leading up to your 
story. You agree with that, right?
    Ms. Morris. I guess.
    Mr. Goldman. Now, did you do a forensic examination of that 
hard drive before you printed your story?
    Ms. Morris. We had tech people in the Post looking at it, 
yes, yes.
    Mr. Goldman. That's a forensic analysis?
    Ms. Morris. No, not--
    Mr. Goldman. I highly doubt the New York Post has the 
ability to do a forensic analysis of a hard drive.
    Ms. Morris. OK.
    Mr. Goldman. Ms. Morris, were you the primary drafter of 
this article?
    Ms. Morris. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Bruce Golding was not the primary author 
drafter?
    Ms. Morris. No.
    Mr. Goldman. Did he help with the article?
    Ms. Morris. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Then isn't it true that he decided to withdraw 
his name from the byline because of concerns that he had?
    Ms. Morris. I wasn't involved with that.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, isn't it true, whether you were involved 
in it or not?
    Ms. Morris. I don't know the details.
    Mr. Goldman. He did withdraw his name from the byline?
    Ms. Morris. His name was not published.
    Mr. Goldman. Right.
    Well, I'd like to introduce for the record an article in 
The New York Times that says--the first line is: ``The New York 
Post's front-page article about Hunter Biden . . . was written 
mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, 
two Post employees said.''
    Mr. Goldman. Now, I would note, you also said that this 
article was determinative of the election, but there was a 
pause for 24 hours and there was a tremendous controversy. 
There is no doubt that this article received far more attention 
because of the controversy than it would if it had ever been 
published without any controversy.
    It is odd to hear my colleagues and Ms. Morris talk about 
their somehow expert knowledge about whether it affected the 
election, because we're not hearing a lot about Jim Comey, 
although one of my colleagues did say that he interfered in the 
2016 election, and that is correct. He interfered on behalf of 
Donald Trump, against Hillary Clinton, by unnecessarily 
announcing an investigation six days before.
    The majority would like us to believe that there's some 
broad government conspiracy, but, in reality, this government 
is playing by the book. That is why Joe Biden's Justice 
Department has allowed a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney to 
continue his investigation of the President's son, which is in 
direct contrast to what the former President did by weaponizing 
the Justice Department.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes himself.
    Hard evidence? Mr. Johnson said that we're not only 
witnesses to censorship, but we were victims. The Republican 
website on the House Judiciary Committee posted the story, and 
it was limited, where it could go. They exercised censorship of 
the House Judiciary Republican account, for goodness' sake.
    Ms. Wiley, you were a lawyer for the ACLU?
    Ms. Wiley. I was.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Kennedy, I remember when the ACLU 
defended the First--they were the champions of the First 
Amendment. You remember that? You remember that ACLU?
    Mr. Kennedy. I remember when the ACLU represented Nazis, 
who they were appalled by. Their right--
    Chair Jordan. Appalled, disgusted by, and yet they would 
defend the crazy things they said, right? That's how much the 
First Amendment meant to them, right?
    Mr. Kennedy. Exactly.
    Chair Jordan. I want to go back to where Mr. Steube was. I 
want to talk about this hard evidence that Mr. Goldman says 
doesn't exist. I want to read from the facts. This is what the 
White House was saying. I want to go to just three statements.
    One, ``Cannot stress the''--this is statements from our 
White--from the Biden White House to social media.

        Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved 
        immediately. Please remove this account immediately.

Same kind of thing they put on yours, ``Remove ASAP.''
    Here's the better one. Here's the better one. Mr. Flaherty, 
who ran this COVID-19 operation misinformation concept at the 
White House, Mr. Flaherty said this:

        Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is 
        being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach 
        and how quickly?

    We should just translate that. Because this is really 
simple: How much censorship are you doing it--how much 
censorship are you doing, and how quickly are you doing it?
    I think the kicker is what Jen Psaki, the press secretary, 
said back in 2021. Look at this. Now, think about this. The 
press secretary--I mean, we're talking about the White House. 
It's considered the center of freedom on the planet. The press 
secretary, in the press room, says this:

        We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and 
        those engagements typically happen through members of our 
        senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team. We're 
        flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread 
        disinformation

Their definition, of course.

        Psaki also stated one of the White House's ``asks'' of social 
        media companies was to ``create a robust enforcement strategy.

    So, you've got the press secretary in the press room in the 
White House saying, we're going to limit the press. Now, that 
is frightening. That is frightening.
    Ms. Wiley from the ACLU--lawyer with the ACLU, thinks 
that's somehow appropriate. We know it's not.
    Their number-one target, Mr. Kennedy, was you--was you, a 
Democrat. Their primary--I just--I find that--I find that 
amazing.
    I would just like--I would like any thoughts you may have 
on--because here's the scary thing. Dennis and I had this 
conversation a while back. If you don't have a robust First 
Amendment, if you try to restrict what the people say and what 
the press reports, that is a scary place to go. Because if you 
can't have debate and work out our differences, like you said 
in your amazing opening statement--let's work together, let's 
figure this out. If you can't have that robust debate and 
figure things out, the alternative is scary. That's exactly 
where we're headed.
    I would encourage everyone to read Mr. Kennedy's written 
statement. I read it this morning. Amazing. He walks through 
the history here. That is what's at stake.
    That's why what you're doing--whether we agree with what 
you say or not. I disagree with what you said last week, what 
they played. I think a lot of people did. You've clarified it. 
It's about protecting the Constitution and the First Amendment.
    I'll give you the last minute and a half, Mr. Kennedy.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, what I would say is that the Founders of 
our--and the Framers of our Constitution knew that democracy 
was a very inefficient system, and it had all this kind of--it 
built in inefficiencies and difficulties.
    They said they felt that it would give us--the one thing 
that would give us an advantage over totalitarian systems was 
this capacity for the free flow of information and a complete 
lack of control of debate so that ideas that would eventually 
mature into policies would be annealed in a furnace of debate 
and then rise through the marketplace of ideas rather than 
being dictated from above. That's what would give the energy, 
the vibrancy, the vigor to democracy.
    When they invented this democracy, we were the first one in 
the modern era in 1780. By 1865, five other nations had 
imitated us. By today, it's 190 Nations based on our system. We 
are supposed to be the exemplary democracy. The corner 
foundation stone of our system is freedom of speech. All the 
other freedoms depend on it. If we lose that, not only do we 
lose our democracy in this country, but the entire world--
    Chair Jordan. Exactly.
    Mr. Kennedy. --loses us as an example.
    Chair Jordan. Exactly. Exactly. I couldn't have said it 
better.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman State her request?
    Ms. Garcia. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an article by The New York Times on July the 20th, 2023, 
``New York Post Published Hunter Biden Report Amid Newsroom 
Doubts.'' I ask for unanimous consent.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. Some things amaze me.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. This will be our 
last line of questioning.
    Mr. Massie. One of the immutable and undeniable tenets of 
immunology is natural immunity. For two years, it was denied. 
It wasn't even just denied; it was censored.
    Mr. Sauer, I noticed in the court ruling in the case that 
you worked on that they said that--the court said that,

        Facebook reported to the White House that it labeled and 
        demoted posts suggesting natural immunity to a COVID-19 
        infection is superior to vaccine immunity.

Is that true? Was that kind of censorship going on?
    Mr. Sauer. Yes, that kind of censorship was going on, and 
there were direct communications between the platforms and 
Federal officials about natural immunity specifically that I 
think you've correctly quoted.
    Mr. Massie. Thanks to the Twitter files, we found out that 
a former FDA Director, who is on the board of Pfizer, Dr. Scott 
Gottlieb, wrote on August 27, 2021, to Twitter Executive Todd 
O'Boyle--who, by the way, was kind of one of the go-to people 
for the White House also to coordinate with when they wanted 
something suppressed--requested Twitter take action against a 
post about natural immunity.
    What's amazing to me is, Scott Gottlieb, who works for 
Pfizer, who's a former FDA Director, went to Twitter the day I 
got censored on natural immunity--my post, a congressional 
post.
    Now, the other side said, ``Well, your tweet's still up, 
your post is still up. What do you mean you're getting 
censored?'' What they did is, they labeled it, and they denied 
anybody's ability to actually comment on it, and they deboosted 
it.
    So, I simply said, ``natural immunity is better than 
vaccine immunity.'' We had studies showing that. They took it--
they censored it. So, the next day, I tried it again, with a 
reference to Bloom-
berg--hardly a right-wing outlet or conspiracy generator. They 
censored that one as well. This is astounding to me.
    Mr. Kennedy, can you talk about the censorship, the effort 
of the White House and Pharma to suppress the acknowledgement 
of natural immunity, and why they might have been doing that?
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, again, it was an effort to suppress 
information not--in fact, if you read the Twitter files and the 
email correspondence between Facebook and the White House, 
there was an acknowledgement that they were being asked and 
they were complying with censoring information that everybody 
knew to be true or highly likely to be true.
    The purpose--and, in fact, the term ``misinformation'' did 
not denote falsehood or veracity. Rather, it was a euphemism--
    Mr. Massie. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Kennedy. --for any information that departed from 
government orthodoxies. It is very dangerous.
    A Congressman a minute ago said a million people have died 
because of misinformation about vaccines in this country. In 
fact, our country had the worst--had one of the highest 
vaccination rates in the world and the worst health outcomes. 
We have 4.2 percent of the global population; we had 16 percent 
of COVID deaths.
    Blacks in Haiti, with a one-percent vaccination rate, were 
dying at a rate of 15 per million population. The same in 
Nigeria. Had a 1.3 vaccination rate. They were dying at 1 in 14 
per million population--14 per million population. In our 
country, Blacks were dying at 3,000 per million population--200 
times the death rates in other countries. This holds throughout 
the world.
    We needed information. We should've all been sharing 
information openly and talking to the 15 million doctors 
through the internet who were treating patients on the front 
line all over the world and channeling the best therapies, the 
most successful treatments, so that we could all figure it out.
    This is not a time, in a pandemic, to--I'll just say this 
one thing. Trust in the experts is not a function of science. 
It's not a function of democracy. It's a function of religion 
and totalitarianism. It does not make for a healthier 
population.
    Mr. Massie. Hmm.
    Let me ask you this. You referenced your father and your 
uncle and the party that they were in. What has happened to 
your party with respect to the First Amendment? Would they 
recognize the position now?
    Mr. Kennedy. Listen, I'm a Democrat and I believe in all 
the--if you went through a checklist of all the things that my 
father believed in, that he fought for, that my uncle believed 
in and fought for, I would check every box. I feel my party is 
departing--has departed from some of those core values. One of 
the reasons that I want to run for President is to reclaim my 
party for those.
    It's got--listen, this is not a partisan issue, the First 
Amendment. It just seems crazy to me that anybody thinks that 
it's OK to censor.
    There's a lot of information that I don't like. There's 
hateful information. As the Chair was saying, in 1977 the ACLU 
went out and supported Nazis who were walking through a Jewish 
neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. They said, that's important. 
We hate what they're saying. We're repulsed by it. We cannot 
survive as a democracy if we are not ready to die for the right 
for even people who are appalling to speak. The democracy won't 
work. Unfortunately, there's--
    Chair Jordan. Time.
    Mr. Kennedy. --no other way to control it but through the 
First Amendment and free speech.
    Mr. Massie. Amen. Thank you for those comments.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ranking Member, I have one other question I could ask, but 
I would first give you a chance to ask a question if you had 
it. I just have one quick question for Mr. Kennedy, but I want 
to be fair. If you've got an extra question you want to ask Ms. 
Wiley or any of the witnesses, I'll turn to you first.
    Ms. Plaskett. I wasn't prepared for that, so if you could--
    Chair Jordan. Well, I'm sorry. I just have--
    Ms. Plaskett. --give me a second.
    Chair Jordan. I thought I was going to get 15 seconds from 
Mr. Massie, but we were unable to do that.
    Ms. Plaskett. Sure. Thank you, sir.
    I did want to ask Ms. Wiley regarding--we had a 
discussion--and it was brought up by one of the witnesses--
related to the website Gab.
    If you could tell us--it seems to me that, while Mr. 
Kennedy is here, he claims to have been censored, but, in 
reality, his group, Children's Health Defense, has been allowed 
to say whatever they want on Gab.
    Can you share what Gab is?
    Ms. Wiley. Gab is an online community that explicitly 
states that it wants to create a Christian political economy. 
It is a space where researchers have identified a massive 
influx of extremist and also explicitly antisemitic engagement 
and behavior.
    I'm not saying that's about everyone who participates, but 
that has been documented. As I stated earlier, the murderer, 
convicted murderer, in the Tree of Life massacre actually spent 
a lot of time on that.
    It was deplatformed because it was not--was not--adhering 
to some of the social media policies about identifying that 
kind of speech.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Actually, I'm going to let Mr. Johnson of Louisiana have 
our one minute here, but I think he wants to wait for Mr. 
Kennedy to--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, I can ask it of Mr. Sauer.
    Chairman Jordan. OK.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm sorry that Mr. Goldman left, 
because we talked a lot about evidence.
    Isn't it true, in your litigation, Missouri v. Biden, that 
Elvis Chan, who was one of the FBI agents in charge of the FBI 
online censorship program, testified under oath in the 
litigation, and the court noted it in the opinion, that he had 
a 50-percent success rate? In other words, when the FBI brought 
to the social media platforms content or posts that they said 
was disfavored speech for whatever reason, 50 percent of it was 
taken down. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Sauer. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is there any other glaring piece 
of evidence that Mr. Goldman might have missed in his review of 
that outcome? We've got a second or two here.
    Mr. Sauer. There is so much evidence, I couldn't possibly 
summarize it all. Eighty-two pages of factual findings, tens of 
thousands of pages of emails and other documents, six full-
length depositions.
    I'd just quote what the U.S. Department of Justice attorney 
said in oral argument in front of Judge Doty on May 26th. He 
said, ``How can I be sure that this won't happen again?'' she 
answered, ``It's not the government's position that this will 
never happen again.''
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To be fair, I'm out of time. I 
yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We 
appreciate the work you're doing to defend the First Amendment. 
Thank you for just very compelling answers and compelling 
testimony and the work you've done and how important this is 
for the country. I mean, if we don't have a First Amendment, 
it's just--I'm frightened by where we go.
    Mr. Kennedy. May I, Mr. Chair?
    Ms. Plaskett. No, you may not. You may not.
    Mr. Chair--
    Mr. Kennedy. I just want to respond.
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair--
    Chair Jordan. I don't think--
    Ms. Plaskett. The time is out. We're done.
    Chair Jordan. I haven't adjourned the hearing, and I don't 
think you're the Chair.
    Mr. Kennedy?
    Mr. Kennedy. I want to--
    Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair--Mr. Chair, I--this--
    Chair Jordan. Chair's discretion. I'm going to let Mr. 
Kennedy--
    Ms. Plaskett. I know it's your discretion, but--
    Chair Jordan. We're going to let Mr. Kennedy--
    Ms. Plaskett. --he has had so much additional time.
    Chair Jordan. Well, I think everyone's had additional time. 
I mean, why--
    Ms. Plaskett. Why I mean, why? Why are you doing that 
specifically for him--
    Chair Jordan. Because we don't want--
    Mr. Kennedy. I just want to explain the super-PAC--
    Ms. Plaskett. --as opposed to other people?
    Chair Jordan. I'm sure the witness--
    Ms. Plaskett. He may explain in other places.
    Chair Jordan. I'm sure the Democratic witness will be as 
short as he possibly can.
    Ms. Plaskett. No. No.
    Chair Jordan. I'll let you respond.
    Ms. Plaskett. No. Are you going to allow our witness to 
just give another piece of--
    Mr. Kennedy. I want acknowledge--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No. Let him address the 
defamatory comment that was made about him that's untrue.
    Ms. Plaskett. It was not defamatory. That is a legal 
definition that was not met.
    Mr. Kennedy. I want to acknowledge information about the 
super-PAC that you mentioned.
    Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Kennedy. I've just been told that the super-PAC is 
connected to somebody that we have a connection to. It's not a 
super-PAC that I've endorsed, and it's not one, as I said, that 
I've ever heard of.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for that statement, and 
I thank you for your testimony.
    The Committee is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116258.

                                 [a]l]