Transcripts For CSPAN3 Sen. 20240705 : vimarsana.com

Jeff landry, testified before a house judiciary subcommittee. Subcommittee will come to order, without objection declare recess at anytime. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on the weaponization of the federal government and we particularly want to welcome back our friend and colleague, mr. Steube from the great state of florida. Good to see him healthy and strong, back working with us. Weve asked if he would lead us in a pledge of allegiance. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america. For which it stands one nation under bruce richardson. Justice and justice for all. Thank you, mr. Do be. Chairman recognizes himself an opening statement. 22 days ago, republicans on this committee released a report showing the federal trade commission sent 12 letters to twitter in a three month time span. Happened to be the three months time that mr. Musk had purchased the company. In the first letter, after the first twitter files, the first question was, who are the journalists you were talking to . Actually named for journalists personally. Two of those four journalist testified the very next day, three weeks ago today. They testified that day in front of this committee. Michael shellenberger and matt tyab right here in this room. And in that hearing, democrats asked them to reveal their sources. Theres another thing that happened during that hearing. While mr. Was testifying, the Internal Revenue service paid a visit to his home. Left a note on his door saying, we will be back in touch with you next week. That all happened. That all happened. And then we learn at the same time, excuse me, certainly appears that, we still do not have the answers from the irs about that unlikely coincidence. Certainly appears to be just the latest example of the weaponization of the federal government against the American People and it shows the need for this subcommittee and its work to proceed, no matter how robust the opposition. Todays hearing is so important, it builds on our prior work related to government induced censorship. Its interesting. In the first hearing, we had mr. Turley, by the way, not a republican. Mr. Turley, who talked about censorship by surrogate. In our hearing three weeks ago, we had to journalists, again, not republicans, talk about the censorship, Industrial Complex, and today, senator schmidt and three read through the written testimony last night. They talk about the vast censorship enterprise. And the key word in all three is the word censorship. Because thats exactly what is going on. Todays hearing provides an opportunity to bring to light evidence from within the federal government and federal agencies that have driven much of this censorship. This evidence comes from the litigation efforts of missouri and louisiana, against the federal government, the States Lawyers in those cases are here to testify before us today. Within days of taking office, the Biden White House was already pressuring big tech to suppress free speech. The censors goal is simple. Limit what americans can see, limit what americans can say, which is the direct assault on the right to free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The sensors that bullied big tech with threats to get them to do their governments bidding and big tech is all too often agreed to collude with the government and facilitate the censorship agenda. In this country, the government does not get to pick what viewpoints are right, what issues we discuss, or what we believe. But that is exactly what the white house and the agencies as the cdc and the fbi have done. Their censorship has extended to speech on critically important topics, like how best to respond to covid19, and even to elections, themselves. That kind of speech is at the heart of a free country and our republic. The amount of content censored has been staggering. One nonprofit that is part of the censorship Industrial Complex has boasted that 35 of the pages it flagged for social Media Companies were either labeled, removed, or soft blocked. But perhaps even worse is the scope of the censorship. The government no longer pretends that censorship is limited foreign disinformation, or even domestic misinformation. Instead, censorship extends to the socalled malinformation. In other words, true information that is supposedly misleading and conflicts with the censors preferred narrative. That is the most dangerous, frankly, the most frightening thing of all. Censorship is not about truth. It is about power. The evidence from this litigation shows the need for the subcommittees work investigating the entirety of the censorship Industrial Complex. The federal government is at fault, but its also should be able to weapon non government actors. It should not be able to weaponize non government actors to work on his behalf, to advance censorship. This subcommittee must investigate the extent of what has happened here and we must protect the American People from it happening again. Already this subcommittee has requested related documents from the president s agencies, big tech companies, and their intermediaries that make up this complex, this vast censorship enterprise. This important work must continue so that the American People learn what their government has done to them, so that this congress can take action to ensure that it doesnt happen again. Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, miss plaskett, for her opening statement. Thank you, mister chairman, and good morning to everyone. On monday, multiple people, including three children, lost their lives to violence, gun violence in nashville, tennessee. This week, federal grand jury and a judge, a federal judge, has had to force Trump Officials to testify concerning their possible involvement and what they knew regarding the violence or and death, and insurrection attempt on our capital from january 6th, 2021. The debt ceiling is looming over the American Economy and Speaker Mccarthy and the republican conference are holding the debt hostage right now. And we are holding a hearing on what missouri versus biden, and some alleged deep state effort to censor conservative online. That allegation is nonsense. As we discussed extensively in the hearings, as the chairman has said before, social Media Companies deep pocket, private companies, social Media Companies actually amplify conservative voices. They do less to censor those voices. And everyone here should be alarmed when that amplification pushes out false and dangerous narratives. False narratives, such as january 6th, being a deep state effort. False narratives such as covid vaccines, they somehow do harm. False narratives suggesting that President Trump won the election. In fact, that is the real reason we are here. Republicans know that these are false narratives and they know that the americans know the truth. So, they are grasping for a way to spin the truth, how do you do that . You tell an on truth, eli. Misinformation over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, and eventually, people believe it. Some people right here in this audience believe it. Mister chairman, thank you for calling this hearing because i am actually eager to speak to the witnesses that we have here. Mr. Seligman, you are renowned lawyer, legal scholar, an expert on election law and disinformation. Im eager to hear from you on exactly how disinformation harms our democracy. And part of the reason im interested in that is because of the other witnesses that are here. Senator eric schmitt, you are a u. S. Senator. You signed a statement defending trumps indefensible campaign to stop social media from Fact Checking Election Fraud falsehoods when trump complained about censorship. Served as the vice chairman of the Republican Attorney Generals Association while its fundraising arm made robocalls, urging a march on the capitol the day before the deadly january 6th insurrection. You also, sir, signed a brief in support of a texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate electoral votes in the hopes of reversing the results of president ial elections. I dont even have the time to go into some of the things that you did while you were attorney general. Theories that you have, with regard to the great replacement theory and other things of that nature. Mr. Sawyer, you, as well, now serve as missouris Deputy Attorney general for special litigation. You have sought to silence people with disabilities from participating in legal cases about covid19 mask mandates. You have opposed lgbtq rights on numerous occasions. As early as 2000, or recently as 2015, you opposed samesex marriages and a brief in 2021, opposing the president s executive order, redefining sexual discrimination. And mr. Attorney general, mr. Landry, congratulations on your bid for governor of louisiana. You refused to join 50 other attorney generals in condemning the insurrection of january 6th, and in your own separate letter, tried to equate that insurrection, that one violent day, with the black lives matter protests of 2020. 7750 demonstrations took place over a summer. Only 93 of those were peaceful. One day, january 6th. Yes, yes, yes, 93 were peaceful. One day on january six was devastating to our democracy. You have also denied climate change. So, i would like to speak to these individuals who are here, but maybe for a different reason. We are here to talk about the weaponization of the federal government, when the greatest weaponize or has been donald trump. Yesterday, the New York Times, i know its not everyone in his favorite paper, but i would like to submit this. I have a motion to submit this into the record . Without objection. Thank you. The article was on march 29th, 2023, and it says, trump says the Justice System has been weaponized. He would know. Yes, he would. And why would he know . In that article, it lists instances of his attempts to weaponize the federal government when he was president. In the words of his own people, quote, he was always telling me what we need to use, that we need to use the fbi and the irs to go after people. It was constant and obsessive, and it just what hes claiming is being done to him now, said john f. Kelly, mr. Trumps white house chief of staff. Quote, i would tell him why it was wrong and while i was there, i did everything i could to steer him away from it. And tell him why it was a bad idea, mr. Kelly said. I thought we were successful. We would often ask a lot of people to do a lot of things that he did not want to do himself in the hopes that someone would do it and he would claim he did nothing wrong. That is the twice impeached former president , donald trumps, chief of staff speaking. So, do not tell me he didnt weaponize the government. I dont think were going to be investigating that, however. And mister chairman, i know that you and my republican colleagues leave believe that mr. Trump is still the leader of the Republican Party and, on fortunately, you are following his example and attempting to weaponize congress. Last weekend, President Trump posted the message that is on the screen right now. Thank you. What kind of person can charge another person, in this case, a former president of the United States who got more voteshan any sitting president in history and a leading candidate, by far, for the Republican Party nomination with crime . When it is known by all that no crime has been committed and also known that e tential death and destruction in such a false charge can be catastrophic for our country . Why and who would do such a thing . Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the usa. Exclamation point. He threatened death and destruction if an independent, state level, duly elected prosecutor took action against him. Now, mr. Chairman was asked about this post previously and his response was that he needed his glasses to read it. I hope that he and all of my colleagues can see it now, up there on the screen. Mister chairman, you and other members of this body have sent multiple letters in your capacity as chairmans to seek to interfere in this investigation of the president by a duly elected state representative in demanding the District Attorney bragg appear for a transcribed interview in a matter that is under criminal investigation. That is not appropriate, that is not what this congress is supposed to be about. That is an abuse of the power of this body, of this committee, and that is the weaponization of congress, plain and simple. The real question before us today is, why are the chairman, others, where Congressional Republicans doing the president s dirty work . That is what we should be investigating. Not chasing politically motivated theories that have already been shown to be baseless. I yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Without objection, all of their opening scenes will be included in the record. We will now introduce todays witnesses. We first have the honorable eric schmidt. Senator schmidt represents a great state of missouri in the United States senate. Before his election to the senate in 2022, senator schmidt served as the military Missouri Attorney general and the treasurer of that state. The honorable jeff landry, former colleague of ours, jeff landry serves as the attorney general of louisiana post. Hes held since 2016. Prior to serving as the attorney general he represented louisianas third Congressional District here in the United States house of representatives. Mr. John sour is a special assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of justice. He previously served as Deputy Attorney general from the special litigation with the Missouri Attorney Generals Office and solicitor general of missouri. Judge Michael Luttig and justice antonin scalia, and then matthew c look mans nonresident fellow at the constitutional Stanford Law School. His research focuses on election law, constitutional law, and reports contracts and private lot theory. He clerked for doug judge douglas ginsburg. Welcome our witnesses today, and thank them for appearing. We will begin swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand . Do you swear with testament youre about to give is true and correct to the best of her knowledge . Information and belief, so help you jesus . Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety, accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. We will give you a few mid attorney general landry has in the courtesy or has been the custom of this committee. We will start with senator schmidt. You know how that works here with the lights, senator. You go up, like i said, we will give you a little extra time there. We appreciate your service to our country and your state, appreciate you being here today and you are now recognized, senator schmidt. Thank you. Chairman jordan, Ranking Member plaskett and members of the select subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, to discuss this important issue. The First Amendment is the beating heart of our constitution. The First Amendment is integral to maintaining our republican form of government in the belief that we are a country of free people, not oppressive government. The Biden Administration has led the largest speech censorship operation in recent american history. Since taking office, President Biden and his team have labored to suppress viewpoints with which they disagree and in doing so, they have infringed upon the individual freedoms of millions of americans. No matter what your political affiliation is, government censorship should concern everyone. The Biden Administration has coerced, cajoled, and colluded with social Media Companies to censor disfavored speech. The biden team has publicly threatened social Media Companies from removing Legal Protections with removing Legal Protections, blamed social Media Companies for societal problems, accuse social Media Companies of killing people, and the social Media Companies, some of the Biggest Companies in the history of the world, willingly took part in this orwellian, vast censorship enterprise. On multiple occasions, President Biden and his team have threatened to punish social Media Companies that did not sufficiently censor bidens political opposition, by revoking section 230. Biden suggested facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg, should be subject to civil liability and potential criminal prosecution for not censoring political speech. President biden also repeatedly accuse social Media Companies of, quote, killing people by not censoring enough disfavored speech. The Biden Administration has threatened to attack social Media Companies, so that those social Media Companies would censor speech that Biden Administration dislikes. Until the missouri versus biden lawsuit, and later, the twitter files, Biden Administrations efforts to pressure and collude with social Media Companies was behind the scenes. Through meetings and emails and was unknown. On behalf of missouri and louisiana, i was proud to join with general landry to sue the Biden Administration for violating the First Amendment through this vast censorship enterprise. This lawsuit alleges the Biden Administration, including President Biden himself, and members of his team, pressured and colluded with social media giants to censor free speech in the name of combatting socalled disinformation and misinformation. Which led the suppression and censorship of truthful information on a scale never seen before. The lawsuit provides an example after example of truthful information that was censored by social Media Companies that were admitted at a later date to be truthful or credible, including the hunter biden laptop story, the covid19 lab leak story, theory, and the efficacy of masks. Discovery obtained by missouri and louisiana demonstrated the Biden Administrations coordination with social Media Companies and collusion with nonprofits to censor speech was far more pervasive and destructive than ever known. Documents multiple white house officials from the former press secretary to the digital director relentlessly pressuring social Media Companies to remove specific posts or accounts, or expand censorship practices. The white house wanted post censored from fox news host, tucker carlson, even though facebook found that the content did not violate its policies. The white house also asked for unfavorable news to be put, quote, in context with specific talking points along with amplification of Biden Administration messaging and faqs. Missouri and louisiana also deposed doctor Anthony Fauci. This deposition showed that when dr. Fauci spoke, big tech censored. For example, doctor fauci was aware early in the pandemic that his agency had funded dangerous gain of function research on the coronavirus at the wuhan lab, Wuhan Institute of virology. But he sought to discredit and suppress the theory that covid19 leaked from a lab to deflect blame and avoid potential responsibility for the pandemic. In his deposition, dr. Fauci claimed 174 times that he could not recall, including about critical details related to gain of function research and other issues associated with the Lab Leak Theory and the governments response to the pandemic. Because of dr. Faucis influence, social media platforms censored the Lab Leak Theory and other covid19 viewpoints that dr. Fauci and his cabal of experts disfavored. Missouri and louisiana also deposed the fbi agent about the hunter biden laptop story. This deposition, and relevant documents, revealed that the fbi deliberately planted false information about hack and leak operations in advance of the hunter biden laptop story coming out, in order to deceive social media platforms into censoring the hunter biden laptop story. The fbi also flagged social media accounts for censorship on a monthly basis and have an estimated 50 success rate in getting reported disinformation removed or censored. The missouri versus biden lawsuit also obtained documents revealing that multiple federal agencies have pressured and colluded with big tech, or social Media Companies, to flag and censor large number of accounts and posts, especially related to Public Health and elections. The federal government has even created Public Private partnerships, to expand its censorship reach. Without the missouri versus biden lawsuit and subsequent disclosures in the twitter files, americans would have never known about the Biden Administrations coordination, collusion, and coercion to censor speech. President biden and his Administration May lust for its own ministry of truth, but i, along with millions of americans, will never stop fighting for the god given right to speak your mind. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, americans have been trying to protect the First Amendment of our constitution for more than 230 years, for good reason. And time such as these, we cannot allow the Biden Administration to infringe upon the freedoms that we cherish and have been purchased by the sacrifice of millions of americans. Freedom of speech is vital to our country and our people. In many ways, its our pressure release valve. You must stop the biden directed free speech, so that america can remain the freest country in the world. Thank you, senator, appreciate that. Mr. Attorney general. You organized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman jordan and the distinguished members of the subs committee. Mister chairman, i would ask if i could correct the record quickly. It failed to recognize that i submitted a letter on my own condemning all violence, all Political Violence and urged my colleagues to do the same. I would or mind everyone that violence throughout the past year that inflicted a lot of damage on other federal buildings as well thats not a correction. The gentlelady is out of order. Thats not a correction. I set he refused to its hunter recognize the attorney general from louisiana, mr. Landry, you can proceed. Thank you, mister chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to join Congress Today along with my former colleague and now u. S. Senator schmidt from missouri and mr. Sawyer to discuss the findings of our federal governments censorship case, louisiana missouri versus biden. Since i was sworn in as attorney general and 2016, i have been ringing alarm bells about big tech. In fact, in 2018, i let a bipartisan discussion of attorney generals about the dangers that i saw regarding big tech. It was a bipartisan, multi state coalition. Back then, the big story was the election of President Trump. Some were quick to blame social media platforms, especially facebook, for enabling fake news to spread. Then, social media was actively used to tip the scales and President Bidens favor in 2020, censoring real news such as the hunter biden laptop story, among others. Despite all of this, federal agencies have been allowed to cool up these private companies and use social media platforms to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of americans. Lets look at the covid 19 pandemic. During that time, facebook had close to three billion users world wide, with roughly 124 million in the u. S. Alone. In 2021, 66 of u. S. Adults used facebook while 23 used instagram. Over 500 million tweets were posted daily during the pandemic, of more than 340 million users on twitter. On youtube, roughly 500 hours of video content were uploaded every minute, with more than four billion hours of videos viewed each month. More than 72 of u. S. Adults used the platform. Why is this important . Because our lawsuit has uncovered a censorship enterprise that spans numerous government institutions in all major social media platforms. And that censorship enterprise has been widely successful in achieving its goals. White house director of digital strategy, robert flowery, was impressed when youtube reported their success in reducing watch time of borderline content by 70 . This is what we found in our case. The fbi claims a success rate of 50 of getting platforms to censor content flag as misinformation. The Election Integrity partnership now known as the morality project brag that four major platforms they worked with all had high Response Rates and that 35 of you are else shared with facebook, instagram, twitter, tiktok and youtube were either labeled, removed or soft blocked. As a result of this collusion between social Media Companies and the cdc, and h, and i h i. D. , american citizens scientists and journalists were shadow band, censored, silenced and deplatformed for their valid concerns about lockdowns, mass covid vaccines and more. Robert kennedy junior, the nephew of a president , the sun at the former assistant general at the country, the nephew of a distinguished u. S. Senator, who by the way, was a democrat, was censored. Tucker carlson, who hosted the top rated Primetime Television news was also censored, as so were millions of americans. While the seat and manipulative voices like doctor Anthony Fauci elevated. This censorship enterprise knows no bounds, and its not limited in scope to covid 19 or elections, yet many at the Committee Members will consider the day and say, what can we do . I say, bring the federal government to heal. No one in this chamber. No one in this chamber from either aisle should be opposed to that, and i applaud this bodys efforts and the chairman for passing the protection speech and government interference act, however, i would offer that it just does not go far enough, and i would ask those on the left to join in making it tougher. The time has come when we must hold federal employees and federal actors accountable, by terminating both their jobs and their retirement for violating the First Amendment of american citizens. If they participate in violating american citizens First Amendment rights, and that is what a court funds, then those are the penalties that should be imposed. This chamber should also draft legislation that will open a pathway for legal liability for such conduct, so that american citizens have a right of action against their own government in protecting their, and i repeat, their First Amendment rights. There must be a penalty for this problem will never be solved. If you would like to understand exactly how bad this problem has become, i invite you to read a satirical pan but, the censorship enterprise, the future is now. Which is basically the federal governments guide to limiting disfavored speech. If you are not disturbed by that document, youre either complicit or contributing to the problem. But know that the state of louisiana and missouri are fighting back against this fast government censorship in our federal courts today. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, attorney general andrew. We appreciate you coming here and testifying. Mr. Schmidt, well let you volunteer at the responsibilities, and well get to the next witnesses. Thank you both for your leadership. Point of order, mister chairman. That is recognized. Mister chairman, these witnesses are being dismissed without the body to cross examine their statements. Theyve made outlandish accusations here, consistent with the work at this committee, especially this select committee, and congressional hearings in general, we should have the ability to question their statements. Its a longstanding practice of the committee to have our colleagues either side of the aisle and other officials to let them know, no, no, these witnesses, mister chairman, these witnesses were direct witnesses as to the cases they brought. When we bring in our colleagues from the senate and other colleagues from the house, we extend them a courtesy, many times, we do not even swear them. We do not require them to take and on. We allow the testimony in a ceremonial or non substantive way, but these two witnesses have just presented evidence that i think in part is false, and i would like the opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. Those witnesses are not here point of order i will recognize at the the point of order is not even true in recent days. I have not recognized, sir. I was recognized. He did recognize me. Point of order, at now recognize mr. Johnson because you are not stating your point of order. You wanted to make a speech. My point of order, mister chairman, is to recall that in recent days, even colleagues like jamie raskin presented testimony that was pretty salacious and was allowed to leave the room, and we are not allowed to cross examine. Salacious has to do with sexual contact, and i dont think our colleague mr. Raskin presented salacious comment. I would ask that characterization that word be taken down because it is false and inflammatory. The gentleman from louisiana said it was not salacious, it was outrageous. Mister chairman, a debate on the point of order, please. The gentlelady from florida is recognized. The attorney general mr. Landry is not a member of congress, is not extended and entitled to an extension of courtesy that we get to some of our colleagues or former colleagues. He is the attorney general of a state we just said to the gentlelady apartment, we extended the same courtesy of the attorney general landry that we extended to a former member of the United States congress. That was a member panel on the point of order, at least, at least, if we will not have the ability to cross examine, i would move to strike the testimony provided by senator schmidt and attorney general landry. You mean you want to censor it . I want to strike it. I want to strike it. If we are not able to deploy the veracity of their statements, the truthfulness of their statements. Well give you the five minutes theyre not here. I understand that. They scurried away with your complicity. In a country after 100 Million People, you couldnt find two people to defend their statements. Thats pretty disgraceful. If allowing them to leave is not weaponization, i dont know what is, mister chairman. Thank you, all, for illustrating our point. The gentleman may proceed. Mister chairman, Ranking Member mr. Chairman, i move to adjourn. This is a bakery and a disgrace, and a shameful. The gentleman has not been recognized. Mr. Sours is recognized for five minutes a testimony. Theres a motion on the floor to adjourn, and its not debatable. If you dont know the rules of committee, then talk to your parliamentarian. You are recognized for your motion you cant speak at of order. What are you doing . Youre out of order. Mr. Sauer, you can proceed. Mister chairman, Ranking Member plaskett, members of the subcommittee, imagine a world where white house officials email the New York Times Editorial Board when the paper runs a story criticizing the president. They abuse the paper in Profane Language and demand that it mediately pulled the defending story from its website, while the white house publicly turns a devastating legal consequences if the paper does not comply, and it does. And imagine a world where the fbi every month since all the major booksellers of the United States and cryptic list of the books that the fbi wants them pulled from the shelves that month and wants them to burn. And they booksellers comply burning at least half of those books. Imagine a world where a federal National Security agency comes up with a Major Research university to establish a Mass Surveillance Program of ordinary americans political thoughts and opinions, that you swarms of analysts and Cutting Edge Technology to monitor hundreds of millions of political communication in realtime and covertly censored millions of them. These three scenarios did not come from a hypothetical dystopian future. The first two are very similar to what federal officials are doing with social media platforms now, and the third scenario is not hypothetical at all. The mass surveillance and mass censorship program started operating in 2020. Last july, the plaintiffs in louisiana and missouri against biden received limited discovery of communication about censorship between federal officials and social media platforms. What we obtained was astonishing, staggering and horrifying. A veritable army of federal officials, pressures, there ends, courses, clues with, demands and deceive social media platforms to censor online speech. Our evidence shows of officials badgering social media platforms in private to censor speech that contradicts the white houses preferred narratives, while the president publicly accused them of, quote, killing people, but not censoring enough ordinary american speech, and the president spokespeople raised a specter crippling legal consequences, if they dont comply. One major platform response to what estimates by ensuring that we hear your call to do more and scrambles to carry out, quote, with the white house expects from us on misinformation going forward. Our evidence shows federal officials retain the social media post by ordinary americans percent to ship. Issuers federal officials orchestrating elaborate plots to duke platforms in censoring disfavored speech. It shows federal officials engaging and seemingly endless meetings with the content moderation officers of major platforms to discuss disinformation and censorship. It shows federal officials serving as privileged back checkers, with the ability to dictate what americans can and cannot say on social media. And it shows federal officials relentlessly pressuring social media platforms by threatening with ruinous legal consequence, if they do not cave to the federal commands for censorship. Truth is not the goal of this federal censorship enterprise. The center has been proven wrong, again and again, excluding on politically seismic issues, but each time the sensor was proven wrong, the censorship as it continued unabated, and expands, and that is because now, as every other time in human history, the goal of censorship is not to promote truth, its to obtain, preserve and expand political power. Censorship is not necessary to protect americans lives, security or democracy. Systematically violating the basic simple right of millions of americans does not make american safer or healthier. Federal censorship is not democratic. It stifles the voices of ordinary americans and places the channels of public debate under the command and control of the elites. Censorship inflicts lasting harm on americans by impeding the pursuit of truth in a free marketplace of ideas. The Supreme Court describes social media as the modern public square. Four years, federal officials have been perpetrating a hostile takeover of that modern square, and this hostile takeover as largely succeeded. Congress should take swift action to banish the federal censors and restore the freedom of speech to social media. I welcome the subcommittees questions. Thank you, mr. Sauer. I recognize you for five minutes. Mister chairman, Ranking Member plaskett and members of the subcommittee. Focuses todays hearing are allegations of censorship by social media platforms, pointed at the direction of the federal government. The First Amendment applies to governmental restrictions of speech, not private content. The planet of missouri louisiana instead argued that the federal government coerced those platforms to censor federal speech to the actions of the platforms own content moderation policies. For reasons i detail in my written testimony, that lacks reasonable basis in law and fact. In short, government officials offered their suggestions to platforms about misinformation and no threat of adverse reaction ever attached to whether those platforms took those suggestions or not. Social media platform content moderation decisions have always rested and remain with the platforms themselves. But attacking those platforms attempts to combat misinformation, the plentiful like in the case of missouri louisiana v. Biden, claim to support, and they invite grave consequences of misinformation that they seek to spread themselves unchecked. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the proponents of measures that handicap social media efforts to combat misinformation are often prolific purveyors of misinformation themselves. Senator schmidt and attorney general landry seeking to block the counting of electoral votes from four states that President Biden won. Over 100 members of congress, including members of this committee today also filed briefs supporting that suit. Texass complaint included a fantastical claim that the statistical likelihood that President Biden fairly won the 2020 election was less than one in kwajalein. That is false, members of this committee have claimed that dominion Voting Machines fraudulently flipped votes from trump to biden, that is false. Members of the committee have claimed that thousands about requests on behalf of the dead and unqualified voters. That is false. Members of this committee have claimed that counted fake or fraudulent votes, that is false. And on october 19th, 2020, chairman jordan tweeted that democrats are trying to steal the election after the election. That is false. Lies like these americans faith in the integrity of these elections and our democracy. Those elections are without question fundamentally sound. These falsehoods support the foundation of an unprecedented effort to reverse the results of a president ial election, and they are just a drop in the bucket, a drop in the ocean of the flood of lies that flooded social media in the weeks and months after the 2020 president ial election. This is not vital political theater. Across the country, election workers have been targeted by extremists with threats of horrific violence as retaliation for their alleged complicity in stone election. Just over two years ago, a violent mob stormed the Capitol Building and attempted to disrupt the congresss count of electoral votes. Some of that mob erected gallows on the steps of the capitals not far from where we sit today. After the Vice President honorably confirmed that he would abide by his constitutional duty, some in that mob chanted, hang mike pence. They did so because someone told them the lie that the election was stolen, and they did so because someone told them the lie that Vice President pence had the power to reverse the results. Whether or not our constitution and our fidelity to the principles of the First Amendment permits us to punish or prosecute those who told those lies, surely, we can recognize the damage done, and surely, we can recognize that the social media platforms which now serve as the main channels of misinformation need all the help that they can get in combatting. It is both constitutional and continent with the principle of the First Amendment for Government Experts to help social media experts to identify the misinformation and encouraging members to stop spreading it and amplifying it. I welcome the committees questions. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. We now recognize the gentlelady from new york, mr. Phonic. Mr. C min, isnt it true that democrats protested george w. Bushs victory of the election in 2004. I hope my remaining time to the irony is so thick in the room tonight, that you can cut it with a knife. First of all, this gentleman comes from the Stanford Law School, were less than two weeks ago, the dean had to order mandatory training in the First Amendment to the faculty and students after her apology for the debacle of them shouting at a fifth Circuit Appellate Court judge. Were you present for that event . No, i was not. You just told us that basically, the Media Networks censor view points that they disagree with. The other irony is that our louisiana general attorney landry just put on a brilliant presentation with all the evidence that there is literally a censorship enterprise now in the Biden Administration, and not five minutes later, our colleagues wanted to strike his testimony as being too objectional. Were illustrating the point right here, as all of you talk. Many actors and the Biden Administration, many of them have and continued to harass and pressure social Media Companies to censor covid19 content. That is one of the sub categories here. That does not align with their chosen narrative because when people talk about the origins or effectiveness of lockdowns or mask mandates, et cetera, faith wanted to censor and silence that, and they did. Do the great work, mr. Sauer, of you and many others in the states of louisiana and missouri, we now know that there is a coordinated campaign, both public and private pressure against the social media platform, and who did it come from . As he pointed out, President Biden himself, senior white house staff, Surgeon General murphy, dr. Anthony fauci, the cdc. They targeted opposing covid viewpoints. They targeted the viewpoints, folks. If youre watching at home, they volume censored you, turned it down and kicked off the platform. They said it was against the administrative narrative. One biden labeled as misinformation was that the virus originated from a lab in china. We do not know that is not just a theory, its likely true. Doctor fauci himself was contradicting the Lab Leak Discourse from the beginning of the pandemic. Listen, Everyone Needs to Pay Attention to this. He commissioned a Research Paper that discredited that theory. Can you please share with us what his interest was in covering up the map theory, mr. Sauer . What do you think about that . Thank, you congressman. In our case, going back to 2011, doctor fauci had been a public advocate in favor of function research that started in 2014. And there is direction, had publicly funded research on bad coronaviruses in the Wuhan Institute of virology, and that in early 2020, when the virus was new, he became aware from briefings of his staff and emails from chairman fara of the Welcome Institute at the united kingdom, that there was a great risk that the virus had in fact leaked from that institution, where funded research on viruses had been conducted. You see an elaborate, deceptive plot to try to discredit that theory at that time. And that was his agency. When asked at a as briefing about the report that he commissioned, he claimed that he wasnt familiar with the authors of the study, even though he was instrumental in every step of its creation. I have a video, if we can play that quickly. Look in his own words, go ahead. Theyre trying to fix that. With doctor fauci said in his own words is that he has no idea about the authors of the study, even though he orchestrated the whole thing. When asked and a deposition about his role in suppressing the Lab Leak Origin theory, among many things, he said, 300 something times that he does not recall or remember. He is not the only bad actor. Mr. Sauer, can you elaborate on the Ripple Effect of President Biden publicly sign that social Media Companies are killing people by failing to remove covid information that his party disagreed with. This indicates that that was a critical watershed and the Biden Administration Pressure Campaign to attack facebook, in particular, but also social media platforms in 2021. What you see is these amazing emails right after that july 16th 2021 comment from President Biden that theyre killing people from senior facebook executives, desperately scrambling to get back in the white houses good graces and ensuring them that we would do what you want. We will carry out, quote, what the white house expects of us on misinformation going forward. It has an incredible effect, chilling gentlemans time has expired. Chairman iron mr. Lynch. Correct the statement my colleague made that the objections were to the substance or content of the two witnesses that are now departed. My objection, as i stated before, was that if we are not going to observe the right to cross examine witnesses that are providing substantive testimony before this committee, then we should strike that. And that is the practice in federal courts when much is at stake. And it is a device that ensures that when people take a stand and offer evidence, that we can test the veracity of their statements. That is not the case in this hearing. The chair and the majority have chosen to allow witnesses to offer substantive testimony here and then have allow them to scurry away and not face crossexamination on the testing of the statements they have made. You know, its ironic that we began this hearing with a pledge of allegiance. We all stood, put our hands on our hearts, look at the flag. Then we turned around and we iterated the very process here that would protect rights, protect the integrity of this hearing to illicit the truth and to test the statements and testimony that are brought before us. This is such a departure. This is such a departure from a regular order and the usual process of congressional hearings. That im compelled, im compelled to ask to strike that testimony. Because its not worth anything if we cannot be tested. Congress, the American People should not be able to rely on that information, if it is not tested. Not truthful. And so, mister chairman, i resume my motion to adjourn. And i ask for recruited vote. Gentlemen move to adjourn, the committee will suspend while we prepared to have the clerk call the roll. Mister chair, may the time be suspended, please . It is suspended. Still not going down. We will hold the time for mr. Thank you. You get the clerk out here and we will call, have the vote. Mr. Jordan, point of inquiry. Gentleman from california is recognized. Mister chairman, you know, ive testified before committee, even during the two years i was out of congress. And you and i have been here for more than a decade together. Have we ever crossexamined a current u. S. Senator who testified before any committee that you and i were on . No, we have not. Mister chairman, this is abating the point of order. Its a point of inquiry. I just asked a question to the chairman. Color all of a gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Jordan . No. Mr. Issa, . Mister vice of both. Now mr. Massie . No. Mr. Stewart . Masks to find a . No. Mystified votes no. Mr. Gates . No. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana both. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steube . No. Mr. Sauvignon. Mr. Bishop . Mr. Bishop votes no. Its chemical . Ms. Cammack votes. Miss hageman . Meghan votes no. Its pulaski . Mr. Lynch . Yes. Mr. Lynch votes yes. Miss sanchez . Miss sanchez both i. Miss Wasserman Schultz . Miss Wasserman Schultz both i. Mr. Connally . Mr. Connally votes i. Mr. Garamendi . Mr. Already . Miss garcia . I. Miss garcia votes i . Mr. Goldman both i. Mister chair, how am i recorded . Miss plaskett, you are not recorded. I vote. I miss plaskett votes i. Mrs. Stewart, you are not reported. No. Mr. Stewart votes no. All members voted . Clerk will report. Mister chair, there are seven eyes and 12 knows. Motion fails. The gentleman is recognized for the remainder of his five minutes. Point of inquiry. Mister chairman, point of inquiry. The gentlelady is recognize from texas. Mister chairman, i think we need to on confuse the record. I mean, sometimes i hear you talk about mr. Landry as appearing as a former member of congress, sometimes i hear you saying hes losing an attorney general. So those are both true statements. Those are two statements, but what capacity was he testifying today . Thats fine former member or elected state official . As a witness in front of the subcommittee on the weaponization of government. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for his two minutes and 17 seconds remaining is five minutes of questioning. What capacity, sir . Gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mister chairman, i should get an answer. What capacity he was here . He was in the capacity of a witness in front of our committee, that was his capacity. Attorney general. Gentleman from massachusetts is now recognized. President is set that the gentleman from the remainder of his five minutes of questioning. Regular order mr. Seligman . In the missouri versus biden complaint, todays witnesses who are now departed claimed that the february 2022 department of Homeland Security threat book bulletin somehow harmed them by warning that online disinformation could lead to real physical threats. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this february 7th 2022 National Terrorism advisory system bulletin. Without objection. Mr. Seligman this warning was obviously not farfetched. As evidenced by the events of january 6th, members of the extremist groups like proud boys, the oath keepers, and three percenters, did not hesitate in calling for perpetrating violence on the basis of false or misleading Election Fraud narratives and we need only to remember the chants of hang mike pence outside this u. S. Capital, i would also underscore that more than 60 lawsuits brought by President Trump and his supporters, especially truly giuliani, following the 2020 president ial election failed, because they lacked evidence to support them. Professor seligman do you agree that false or misleading narratives about the substance of Election Fraud could lead to calls for violence around elections . I do. Professor seligman the witness that we are sitting next to you seem to think that it is censorship for dhs to warn that online disinformation could lead to election violence. Could you walk us through how disinformation can lead to that election violence . Yes, mr. Lynch. So, if 100 Million People see a false claim about voter fraud or election interference on a social media website, some number of those hundred Million People may become outraged to a degree that they are willing to commit acts of violence. Thats exactly what we saw in the aftermath of the 2020 election. That these false narratives, these false statements of fact about the integrity of the election in 2020 were propagated. Millions, hundreds of millions of people, saw them hand some small number of those people took matters into their own hands and committed acts of violence that the members of this committee have seen. Mister chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I would point out that last congress, the democrats ran a committee that congress for a year and a half which gave no ability to the republicans to cross examine one single witness. So, we do believe the ability to cross examine is important. We also believe in following the constitution. Thats false. False. Mr. Sauer you are not allowed to question witnesses at a hearing, is that what you are saying . Mr. Sauer, you deposed doctor fauci. Point of order. Mister chairman, could you clarify that statement . Because i find it incredibly hard to believe. Point of order, thats not a point of order. What basis in fact you have . Gentlelady cannot say the point of order. That assertion. The chair now recognizes wild allegations and have no factual mr. Sauer . To pick it up . The gentlewoman has not been recognized. Mr. Sauer, you deposed doctor fauci last fall. In that deposition, you ask him the question you said, is it important for people to have access to both sides of the debate . So, they can access what is good information and was Bad Information. Remember that question, yes or, to dr. Fauci . Here was his response. He said, dr. Fauci said, well, you know, it depends. If information is clearly inadequate and statistically not sound, there can be a danger in people who dont have the ability or the experience to understand. Mr. Sauer, do you forfeit your First Amendment rights if you cant all get information from Bad Information . Thats not how our First Amendment works, is it . Turn on your mic if you can, mr. Sauer. Is the First Amendment only for those people who have the ability or experience to understand . No, its for all americans. All americans, all 330 million, is that right . Correct. Not just for the special people, not just for the supersmart people, like dr. Fauci, who work 40 years in our government, highest paid guy. Not just for them, for all of us, right . Absolutely right. Even if maybe you dont know the difference between whats good or Bad Information, you still have your First Amendment liberties under our constitution . Both to hear and to speak, absolutely. Exactly. By the way, when you deposed doctor fauci, how many times that he happened to say he didnt know or couldnt remember . He said i do not recall or variations thereof 174 times and adding in variations of i do not remember at least 212 times. Wow. Smartest man on the planet could not remember 212 times. He couldnt remember things including things that he had told the national media, quote, i remember it very well. And he would say 16 times, i dont recall details of that meeting. Now, you were the top of your class at harvard road law school, wrote scholars, right . Ive submitted a biographical statement. Ive looked at your biography, thats pretty impressive. Is that pretty high . Youve been a lot of depositions, a lot of legal work, the puzzle lot of people. 212 times pretty high . Ive taken dozens of depositions, ive never seen anything like it, including in this case or other federal government witnesses frequently profess inability to recall. So, the guy who told us all these things whose, you know, the smartest man on the planet, he said a record, highest weve ever seen, couldnt recall, didnt remember. Ive never seen anything like it. Okay, page four of the testimony. You talk about the censorship enterprise. You have a bunch of facts and numbers here. You said, twitter disclose that 84 government officials communicated with them, or as mr. Seligman said, give them suggestions. 84 federal officials gave twitter suggestions on tweets and things to take down. 45 officials in the federal government told that same thing to facebook, is that right . They discussed disinformation and censorship with those officials. A handful of federal agencies handed over 20,000 pages of documents in the communications they have had with these big tech companies. Again, just suggestions, according to mr. Seligman. 20 white house officials were involved in the suggestions to the social media platforms. Thats conservative, its probably higher. Yeah, fbi agent, all this the fbi loan sense encrypted list to social media accounts, sometimes containing hundreds of accounts and urls in each list to platforms for censorship. 1 to 5 times per month. 500 times, 500 event . Email addresses or websites . Everything else theyre sending to the social media platforms, the fbi, and mr. Seligman says, dont worry, thats not a problem with the First Amendment, thats the suggestion. Yes, over the course of years, that has been occurring. Election integrity partnership, since federal State Government officials social media platforms boasted it surveilled 859 million tweets, 21,897,364 tweets on tickets as misinformation, is that right . Correct. You learn this in your discovery in your lawsuit so far . Correct, your honor. And the veracity project, mastery listen censorship operation connected by the fbi is done over 206. 7 million engagements on social media, 200 million, let me ask you this. For most of those targeted toward conservatives . Virtually everything weve seen in evidence so far, or at least the vast majority of what weve seen and so far is conservative, right leaning speech. But you would be just as outraged. I read your testimony, youd be just as outraged if it were the other way around, right . Absolutely because same here, same here. Because the First Amendment, again, is not just for some people, not just for one political persuasion, not just for the socalled smart people like dr. Fauci. Its for 330 some million americans. Thats how our constitution works, is that right, mr. Sauer . Every single american. I thank the gentleman for his answers. Mister chairman, you know, i have a consent requests. Gentlemen middle from seek anonymous consent to enter into the record letter j january 12th, 2021, by Louisiana Attorney general, jeff landry, where he decries all Political Violence and calls for and that. Asks for respect for all political viewpoints. Without objection. Another thing we can examine, because hes not here. You can examine, it is a document. No, examine him for what he wrote and the intent behind what he said. I would just point out that thats unanimous consent so far for documents and we got the documents right here. He handed it to you. Mister chairman, i would ask unanimous consent chairman i have a unanimous consent request, mister chairman. I have a unanimous gentlelady is recognized for unanimous consent. I have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record the miriam websters definition of salacious, which says, arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination, lecherous or lustful, so that my colleague from louisiana will not misuse that when describing the testimony of our colleagues here in congress. As senator schmidt said earlier, i will ask that be entered into the record. I would ask that it be entered into the record, mister chairman. It is a document. I said outrageous, but i withdraw. I dont think the gentleman has objected, so its entered into the record. Gentlelady from florida, miss Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mister chairman. This is our third hearing and unlike the previous two, i find it ironic that the republican majority brought us a witness who actually weaponized the government himself. Mr. Sauer, some record pressure that you worked with a Republican Attorney Generals Association and its dark money political arm, the rule of Law Defense Fund. They also indicate that you took part in these groups, quote unquote, wargames, on how to respond if trump lost the 2020 election. Very quickly with a yes or no answer, please, mr. Sauer, is that correct . Yes or no . The answer is yes . [inaudible] yes or no . You worked with the Republican Attorney Generals Association and its dark money political arm, the rule of Law Defense Fund, sunshine record requests show that you did. To confirm that, i have an official state email that points to your involvement in these political efforts, and i ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record. Without objection. Mr. Sauer, make sure your microphone is turned on. So the answer to that question is yes, mr. Sauer . That is not what i said. I say that youve significantly mischaracterized those. A reminder that you are under oath and behind me, and i just entered into the record, i have a copy, of an official state email where you responded to a message on these wargames. Very specifically, okay, mr. Sauer, the rule of Law Defense Fund put out a robocall recruiting people to march on the capitol on january 6th to quote, unquote, stop the steal. Can you play that please . [inaudible] okay, [inaudible] okay, you can see that recorded message behind me. I must say, mr. Sauer, when you plan, okay. Lets move on past the audio. When you planned with these groups, what you plan with these groups was certainly no game, but it definitely resembles the war. You can see the pictures, this is an excerpt of the audio call. Now, the same dark money groups held at least 30 meetings for state attorney general senior staffers, including you, during the 2020 president ial campaign. Even though im sure you know that missouri law parts state employees from using state resources for political activity. Missouri lawmakers or wise enough to make it illegal to weaponize State Government facilities for political purposes, or, in this case, to subvert americas democracy. Approximately how many of these political meetings to do what hand while in her office and using state recent resources . Before answering, let me remind you, your former protections against self incrimination do apply here, if you need to use them. None of the meetings i attended were political. I attended one meeting by zoom that discussed legal issues only. So, everything youve said and characterized, if i may, everything you said about that im claiming my time. Attorney general Staff Members also attended one of these wargames meetings on january 5th, 2021, on the very eve of the insurrection. Mr. Sauer, did you attend or participate in this meeting on january 5th, 2021, and can you share with us what were game strategies you discussed . I did not attend in that meeting. I was unaware of it. Im not actually sure of the meeting you are referring to. Okay, more bluntly, mr. Sauer, did you violate mystery statute section 36 point 157 by using state resources unofficial time to collude with political groups to prevent americas peaceful transfer of power . Absolutely not. Mister chairman, thank you for finally bringing a witness before us that has personally weaponize the government. Mr. Sauer did participate in war game meetings with the dark money group, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, given what we know and just heard, clearly, by republican colleagues would support further investigation into this matter. We have the evidence. This is a state email suffix. It was during the time of they during the work hours. So, i move that the chair issues subpoenas to mr. Sauer, to request any and all correspondence related to their political involvement in the january six insurrection in front while using state resources. That is my motion, mister chairman. We need to hold the time, please. Hold the time for a second. We have the role the time back by about six or seven seconds. Okay, the gentlelady has moved issue a subpoena. We will have a roll call vote on that and gentlelady will suspend while we get the clerk prepared for that vote. I make a motion to table. Gentleman has made a motion to table to issue a subpoena. As the clerks are getting ready, let us sort this out. Just want to point out that this tabling the motion so that we cannot get more information that shows that mr. Sauer weaponize government, and violated Missouri State law hold on. We have a motion. By colluding with the political the gentlelady will suspend. To overturn a president ial election. The motion to table is not debatable. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Issa . Mr. Issa votes. Mr. Massie . Mr. Massie votes yet. Mr. Stewart . Mr. Stewart votes yes. Miss stefanik . Mr. Gates . Mr. Gates votes yes. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes yes. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stevie . Mr. Steube votes yes. Mr. Bishop . Mr. Bishop votes yes. Miss kay mac . Miss came at both. Miss hageman . Miss hageman votes yes. Miss plaskett . Miss plaskett votes no. Mr. Lynch . Miss sanchez . Miss sanchez votes no. Miss Wasserman Schultz . Miss Wasserman Schultz votes no. Mr. Connolly . Mr. Connally votes no. Mr. Garamendi . Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Allred . Miss garcia . Miss garcia bony. Mr. Goldman . Mr. Goldman votes no. The clerk will report. Mister chair, there are ten eyes and seventh knows. The motion carries and it is stable. Reclaiming my time, mister chairman. I think weve made it very clear that the republican majority has no interest in investigating true violations of the weaponization of government. They just tabled a motion to get more information to demonstrate that. And i would ask with the remainder of my time, that the committee is ready, so that we can play it. Thank you. Mister chairman . Can we play the video, please . Is that video ready . Okay, i guess it is still not working. It would be nice if we could get the audio visuals working here in the committee. This hearing is fixated on a red herring. Studies show conservative voices are more prevalent on social media. We need to make sure that we are getting to the bottom of the weaponization of the federal government. But this committee is only interested in selectively doing that, as evidenced by the fact that the republican majority on this committee squash getting us more evidence than what i have behind me, that ive entered into the record, to prove that proves that this witness, mr. Sauer, weaponized government and participated violating Missouri State law. Gentleladys time is expired. And politicizing and trying to overturn an election. Gentleman from california is recognized. Thank you, mister chairman. Ive been trying to return to the subject, as much as i can, of this hearing. Are you familiar with the case in california disputing the governors order for universal ballots . No, congressman. Okay well oddly enough, i was the plaintive. And oddly enough, the governor then went to legislature and got the authority to have universal ballots and then the case was dismissed. Its been part of free speech or the First Amendment the right to redress . Thats correct, to petition the government, exactly. Petitioning the government has been widely considered, including to make cases before the federal court, where you believe that the constitution is being violated or your free speech is being violated, or due process is being violated. Those are all consistent with what we would broadly say is the First Amendment. Correct. And for the record, the First Amendment, incredibly short, and if we read it and its purest sense, you would say that Congress Shall make no laws respect. And because it only says congress, it doesnt apply to anyone else. Have our courts, including our Supreme Court, under 200 plus years, have they ever considered it that narrow . No, congressman. So, isnt ita federal, state, or local government authority, isnt that right . Yes, intimidation and retaliation, among many other things. S viewed as intimidation consistent with just relatively short statement about our right of free speech. That is exactly right. Theres overwhelming evidence in our case that contradicts the notion that these were mere suggestions from federal officials. Its completely factually baseless, to state that. So, you earlier testified that the vast majority of this was onesided and came from government officials who wanted to take down things which disagreed with the government in place at that time, which happened to be the government of joe biden, correct . Correct. S something historically similar to nixon v. Irs, if you remember that era, and thats not the actual case name. What you have is the power of the executive branch being used to reduce the opposition or the redress, or the free speech, or the communication, of people who might disagree with what was being put out by the executive branch, which happened to be a democrat president. Thats exactly right. We see judge not just interference with free speech, but interference with the attempts to organize for political advocacy. Now, is this an opinion or are these indisputable facts, based on the literally millions of events . The evidence is overwhelming and weve submitted extensive evidence opinion were freely allowed to occur without intervention by the federal government and candidly, agents on behalf of them, including private entities that were paid to be part of this program . That is correct and you do see a concerted effort to change the subject. So, i would like to use the remainder of my time to give you an opportunity to speak to some of the personal attacks that were just made on you, if i could. Very briefly, i would note that all the questions that came from the other side there were misleading in a way they were characterized, they mislead my involvement. There is no suggestion that anything i did was before the 2020 election was inappropriate or involved misuse of state resources. I categorically deny that. It is false. That is misinformation. However, i recognize the members right to say misinformation, because, you know what . Thats protected by the First Amendment. Contrary to what mr. Seligman is suggesting in his testimony. I very much appreciate it and hopefully we will return to the debate that allows both sides to speak without having personal attacks on their character. I yield back. The gentlemans times expired. The gentleman from virginia truth hurts, truth hurts. The gentleman from virginia, mr. Connolly, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. You know, ive been through a lot of hearings in a lot of member of panels. I must say, i find it disconcerting that we are not able to ask questions of two of our witnesses. If they are here to simply, you know, present their thoughts and their idol opinions, so be it. But if they are presenting themselves as quasiexperts on censorship, i think we have a right to question them. But even if senator schmidt and attorney general landry are here, i think its important to note that every single witness of the majority will took part in the effort to overturn the 2020 election. We and all three of them have interconnecting relationships, very convenient for a panel. We turn our attention to the screen, please. The email. Sent to state attorney general. Suspend the clock for me while we get that going. I think the chair. I dont think that is it. Its the email from mr. Sauer. Mister chairman, i dont understand our technical problems. But mr. Sauer sent out an email to states attorney general start the clock again for me if you will testify. Okay, gentlemen, continue. Okay. And asked for responses by 12 09, 1 00. Mr. Seligman, this email signed by john sour, is that the gentlemen to your left . I believe so. When donald trump lost the 2020 election, mr. Sauer was working for then Missouri Attorney general schmidt. Who testified here this morning. They worked together to find 16 other republican state attorneys general, including attorney general landry, who is running for governor. To join them in an amicus, in support of a lawsuit to overcome the election. Now, his team filed this case in december 8th. The Supreme Court rejected it three days later. Why did the Supreme Court rejected . The Supreme Court rejected, so, it didnt issue an opinion explaining why it rejected that. So, i cannot speculate about what was going through the minds of the justices. But i can tell you about the legal flies in the complaint. Please. That rendered that decision correct. So, the state of texas sued other states, including pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, and arizona, for allegations that they there were flaws in the election in those states. And the state of texas claim that it was injured as a state, because the alleged maladministration of the election in other states, somehow undermined its own sovereign rights in the electoral college. And that is a radical and unprecedented claim that no court has ever accepted. Including the Supreme Court. Including the Supreme Court. One must say, they kind of dismissed it with dispatch. That is correct. Three days later. It was three or four days later. Now, the Supreme Court dismissed it unanimously. A point of clarification about that, there was a concurrence in the dismissal by justice thomas, and i believe, justice alito, explaining that they would accept the bill of complaint because they think its a matter of Supreme Court procedure. Supreme court cannot just refuse jurisdiction, but then they went out of their way to say, they would grant no other relief. Which is to say they would reject the claim on the merits. So, the allegations in the lawsuit range from claims of illegal voting to accusations about dominion Voting Machines, now the subject of a civil Defamation Case with fox news. Even fox News Reporters called the claims contained in the lawsuit dangerously insane. Why might fox News Reporters call this kind of lawsuit dangerously insane . Well, the factual allegations that i believe they were referring to are demonstrably incorrect and have no basis in reality whatsoever. So, its a parent at the time as well. This is something that just became apparent in the months and years after those allegations. Came to light. Well, its certainly comforting to know that we have a panel that includes three people who are involved in lawsuits that have been declared dangerously insane by other none other than fox News Reporters. That is a comfort. I thank you, mr. Seligman, for your testimony and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from utah, mr. Stewart, is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Seligman, im curious just as a sidebar. Were you embarrassed by what happened at Stanford Law School a few weeks ago . So, i would like to clarify that i am in regards to the suppression of his free speech of the District Court judge. So, i would like to clarify that im here on my own behalf and not behalf of stanford. I understand that. Im just curious. I imagine you would be embarrassed by that. Are you familiar with g d. R. E. , German Police . Can you speak up . Are you the east german start cc police . Generally, yes. Generally . We know they use techniques and threats of intimidation, censorship in order to maintain control and assure continuation one of the most impressive and powerful forces weve seen in our modern world. Now, i would like to quote some of their objectives and some of your tactics that they would use. Wants to switch off a group or private citizens by hindering any positive media or public exposure to their thoughts, policy positions, including pressuring news speakers and other media. Would you be comfortable with the government using that lowest kind of tactics on order to suppress thoughts, views, and policies . If your question is whether im comfortable with the American Government using the tactics of the east german stacey, the answer is no. Thank you. Mr. Sauer, you see any difference between the secret Police Tactics and government suppression of individual expression on social media . Make sure your microphone is on. Theres a very strong analogy to be drawn there and its based on overwhelming evidence. Well, i see no difference at all. Its a close, very close comparison. I think its an incredibly close comparison. I would reemphasize, including pressuring social or pressuring news speakers and other media. In order to hinder any positive media or public exposure to their thoughts, views, or policy positions. There is no difference at all. Thats correct. Let me give you another example. We are talking about the east german start c and the tactics they used. Another one, conspicuous visits to homes or places so that citizens would be aware of and intimidated by their presence and power. We had a journalist here who was not a conservative journalist, by the way. He was here for a matter of a few hours talking about the weaponization of the federal government and during that time, the irs showed up at his house, something that the secretary treasury admitted only happens so far as she knows with someone thats under investigation for fraud, and they need a personal interview. Thats the only time she knew appearing at someones house. That happened while he was here testifying for our committee. Mr. Saar as that appear as an unlikely coincidence to you . Im not familiar with the factual. As ive described it, does it seem unlikely to you . Im not familiar with this, so i cannot comment. Well, i will explain the incident to you. He was testifying before congress and the irs went to his home. I have no idea whether its a coincidence or not. Mr. Sauer, how does it appear to you . The timing is incredibly suspicious. Its incredibly suspicious. And i will quote again, from secret Police Tactics, conspicuous visits to homes and workplaces, so the citizens would be aware and intimidated by their presence and power. I think its by description is sufficient you could make a judgment of that. Again, we are not familiar with the details of all right, so im surprised that you want to condemn that. Im surprised you wouldnt want to say, you know what . As youve described it to me, that makes me uncomfortable. That the irs would show up at someones home while theyre testifying before congress. As a matter of principle, government retaliation for the exercise of free speech is problematic, it is wrong. I have no idea whether that as taken place in this case. Conceding that you dont know if thats happened, you would be uncomfortable if that were the case. I am uncomfortable with violations of the First Amendment, yes. Thats what we are talking about here. And i know youve seen on display the emotion of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Im shocked that they dont want to condemn it. Im stunned they wont ask you the same questions that we ask. How in the world could anyone sit and listen to this, you know . Thats okay to me. Use a government as contractors to suppress free speech. They dont do it themselves. They instead pressure and intimidate and threaten individuals and organizations to do it for them. There is no difference between that and what the secret police did. No difference at all. And if someone wants to stand and defend that, i will yield the last seven seconds of my time to you. Chairman, i yield back. The gentlemans times expired. Votes have been called. The committee will stand in recess until the conclusion of this nine volt series