here or anywhere, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with events, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find a scheduling information c-span's network. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded today. c-span, your front row seat washington anytime anywhere. ♪

the subcommittee will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on the weaponization of

the federal government. we, particularly, want to welcome back our friend and colleague, mr. steube from the great state of florida. great to see him healthy and strong and working with us. we would ask mr. steube to lead us in the plentifully gents. >> 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. >> thank you mister steube. the chair 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. and happened to be the three month time that mr. musk had purchased the company. in the first letter after the first twitter files the first question was who are the journalist you are talking to?

actually naming for journalists personally. two of those four journalist testified the very next day, three weeks ago today, they testified in front of that committee. -- in that room, democrats asked them to reveal their sources. there was another thing that happened during that hearing. while mr. thai e b was testifying, the internal revenue service paid a visit to his home. next to know on his door saying we will be back in touch with you next week. that all happen. that all happened we learned at the same time that it certainly appears that we do not have the answers from the irs about that unlikely coincidence. it certainly appears to be just the latest example of the weaponization of the federal government against the american people. it shows the need for the subcommittee and its work to

proceed, no matter how robust the opposition. today's hearing is so important, it builds on our prior work related to government induced censorship. it's interesting, the first hearing we had mr. turley. by the way, not a republican. a censorship by surrogate in our meeting a few weeks ago to journalists, again, not republicans talking about the censorship industrial complex. today senator schmidt, i read to the written testimony last night. they talk about the vast censorship enterprise. the key word in all three is censorship. that is exactly what is going on. today's hearing provides an opportunity to bring to light evidence from within the government which has driven much of the censorship this evidence comes from the litigation evidence of louisiana and -- against the federal government. the state 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 sensors goal is simple, limit what americans can see, limit what americans can say, which is a direct assault on the right to free speech that is protected by the first amendment. centers have bullied big tech with threats to get them to do government bidding. big tech has all too often agreed to collude with the government and facilitate the censorship agenda. in this country the government does not get the pick what viewpoints are right, what issues we discuss, or what we believe. that is exactly what the white house and the agencies as varied as the cdc and fbi have done. they are censorship as extended to speech uncritically important topics like how best to respond to covid-19, and even to the elections themselves. that kind of speeches 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 of both that 75% of the flagged pages were either labeled, removed, or soft blocked. perhaps even worse is the scope of the censorship. the government no longer pretends it simple censorship is limited phone disinformation or even domestic misinformation. instead, set the trip extends to the, so-called, now information. in other words true information that is supposedly misleading and conflicts with the sensors 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 it should also be able to

weaponize -- it should not be able to weaponize non government actors to work on its behalf to advance censorship. this subcommittee must investigate the extent of what has happened here. we must protect the american people from it happening again. already this subcommittee has requested related documents from related agencies, big tech agencies, and the intermediaries that make up this complex. this vast censorship complex. this important work must continue so the american people learn what their government has done to them so that this congress can take action to ensure that it doesn't happen again. the chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, miss plaskett, for her opening statement. thank you mister chairman good morning to everyone. on monday multiple people, including three children, lost their lives to violence gun violence in nashville tennessee.

this week, a federal grand jury and a judge, a federal judge, have had to force trump officials to testify concerning their possible involvement and what they knew regarding the violence and death in the insurrection attempt on our capital from january 6th 2021. the debt ceiling is looming over the american economy, speaker mccarthy in the republican conference are holding the debt hostage right now. we are holding a hearing on what? missouri versus biden. some alleged deep state effort to censor conservatives 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. everyone here should be alarmed when that amplification pushes out false and dangerous narratives. false narrative such as january six being a deep state effort. false narrative such as covid vaccines, somehow, do harm. false narrative suggesting that president trump won the election. in fact, that is the real reason we are here. republicans know that these are false narratives. they know that the americans know the truth. they are grasping for a way to spin the truth. how do you do that? you tell an untruth, ally. misinformation. over and over and over and over and over again.

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. -- an expert on election law and disinformation. i'm eager to hear from you on exactly how disinformation harms our democracy. part of the reason i'm interested in that is because of the other witnesses that are here senator eric schmitt, a u.s. senator. you've signed a statement defending trump's indefensible campaign to stop social media from fact checking election fraud falsehoods. when trump complained about censorship. serving as a vice chairman of the attorney -- while it's fundraising arm made

robocalls urging marches on the capitol the day before the deadly january 6th insurrection. you also signed a brief in response to the texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate electoral votes in the hopes of reversing the results of the presidential election. i don't 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. sauer, you as well now serve as the missouri's deputy attorney general for special litigation. you have sought to silence people with disabilities to participate in legal cases with covid-19 mask mandates. you have oppose lgbtq rights on numerous occasions. as early -- as recently as 2015 you opposed same-sex marriages. in a brief in 2021 opposing the

president's executive order redefining sexual discrimination. mr. attorney general, mr. landry. congratulations on your bid for governor of louisiana. you refused to join 50 other attorney generals in condemning the insurrection of january 6th. 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 the summer. 93% of those were peaceful. one day, january 6th, yes, yes, yes. 93% were peaceful. one day, on january 6th, was

devastating to our democracy. you have also denied climate change. 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 there has been donald trump. yesterday, the new york times -- i know it's not everyone in here's favorite paper but i would like to submit -- i have a motion to submit this into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. the article march 29th, 2023. it says, trump says the justice system has been weaponized. he would know. yes, he would. why would he know? in that article it lists instances of his attempts to weaponize the federal government when he was president. in the words of his own people, quote, he was always telling me what -- we need to use the fbi and irs

to go after people. it was constant and obsessive. it is just what he's claiming is being done to him now, said john f. kelly, mr. trump's white house chief of staff. quote, i would tell him why it was wrong. while i was there i did everything a could to steer him away from it. telling him why i was a bad idea, mr. kelly said. he 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 can claim he did nothing wrong. that is the twice impeached former president donald trump chief of staff speaking. don't tell me that he didn't weaponize the government. i don't think we are going to be investigating that however. mister chairman i know that you and my republican polly believe that mr. trump is still the leader of the republican party. unfortunately you are following

his example and attempting to weaponize congress. last weekend president trump posted the message is on the screen now. thank you. what kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the united any sitting president ines than by far from the republicandat party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all of that no crime has been commi and also known that the potential death and destruction that such a false charge could be catastrophic to our country. why? 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. his response was 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 chairman's to seek to interfere in the investigation of the president by a duly elected state representative. demanding the district attorney brag up here for a transcribed interview in a manner 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 is,

why aren't the chairman, others, why are congressional republicans doing the presidents 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. >> the gentlelady yields back. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. we will now introduce today's witnesses. we first have the honorable eric schmitt. representing the state of new jersey in the united states senate. before the election he served as missouri attorney general and the treasure that. state the honorable jeff landry, former colleague of war. jeff landry served as the attorney general louisiana. posey is out some 2016. prior to serving the attorney general he represented louisiana's or congressional district here in the united states house of representatives. mr. john sauer and in 2010 are for louisiana department of justice. he previously served as deputy attorney general for special

litigation with the missouri attorney generals office. solicitor general of missouri. he clerk for judge michael luttig and antonin scalia. matthew seligman, matthew seligman and nonresident fellow at the constitutional law fellow at stanford law school. focusing on election law, constitutional law, a federal court contracts and private law theory. he clerked for judge douglas ginsburg. we welcome our witnesses today. we thank them for appearing. we will begin with wearing you win. would you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct your best knowledge, belief, so help you god? will the record show the east of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. please know that your worker testimony will be entered into the record in your entirety. we will ask you to summarize your testimony to five minutes. we will give a few more minutes to schmidt and lynn, the custom of this committee. we will start with senator

schmitt. you know how it works with the lights, senator. like we said we will give you a little extra time there. we appreciate your service to our country and your state. we appreciate you being here today. you are now recognized, senator schmitt. >> 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 report -- the republican former government and the belief that we are country of a free people not an oppressive government. the biden administration has led the largest speech censorship operation in recent american history. since taking office president biden's team have labored to suppress viewpoints with which they disagree. in doing so they have infringed upon the individual freedoms of millions of americans. no matter what your political affiliation is, government censorship should concern

everyone. the biden administration has coerced, cajoled, included with social media companies to censor disfavored speech. the biden team has publicly censored teams from removing -- with removing legal protection, blames social media problems for societal problems. blamed social media companies for killing people. some of the biggest companies in the history of the world willingly took part in this orwellian vast censorship enterprise. on multiple occasions, president biden and his team have threatened to punish social media companies that did not sufficiently censor biden's political opposition by revoking section 2:30. biden suggested facebook ceo mark zuckerberg should be subject to criminal liability and potential criminal liability for not censoring political speech. president biden also repeatedly accused social media companies by quote, killing people, but not censoring enough disfavored

speech. the biden administration has threatened and attacked social media companies so that those social media companies would censor speech that the biden administration disliked. until the missouri versus biden lawsuit, and later the twitter files, the biden administration's efforts to pressure include with social media companies behind the scenes. meetings, emails, it was unknown -- on behalf of missouri and louisiana, i was proud to join with general landry to see the bottom integration for a lighter reading the first amendment through this vast censorship enterprise. this lawsuit alleges, the biden administration including president biden himself a member than a team pressures and colluded with social media giants to censor free speech in the name of combatting, so-called, disinformation and misinformation, which led to the suppression and censorship of truth to information on a scale never seen before.

the lawsuit provides example after example of truthful information that was sincere by social media companies that were admitted at a later date to be truthful or credible, including the hunter biden laptop story, the lab leak story -- theory. and the efficacy of masks. discovery obtained by missouri in louisiana demonstrated the biden administration's coordination with social media companies in collusion with nonprofits to censor speech was far more pervasive and destructive than ever known. documents reveal multiple white house officials from the former press secretary to the digital delight are relentlessly pressuring social media companies to remove specific posts, or accounts, or expand censorship practices. the white house wanted post centers from fox news host tucker carlson, even though facebook from the content did not violated policies.

the white house also favorable news to be put, quote, in context with specific talking points along with amplification of biden administration messaging and faq's. 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 game function research on the coronavirus at that wuhan lab -- the han institute of virology. he sought to discredit and suppress the theory that covid-19 leaked from a lab to deflect blame and avoid potential responsibility for the pandemic. in his deposition, dr. fauci claimed 174 times that he couldn't recall -- including about critical details including gain function

research another important issue associate with the lab leak theory in the government response of the pandemic. because of dr. fauci's influence social media platform stencilled the lab leak theory and other covid-19 viewpoints that dr. fauci and his cabal of experts disfavored. missouri in the region and also to pose the fai agent about the punter -- a laptop theory. this deposition in relevant found 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 flag social media accounts for censorship on a monthly basis and a have and an estimated 50% success rate in getting reported disinformation removed or sensors. that missouri versus biden

lawsuit also obtain documents revealing that multiple federal agencies have pressured and colluded with social media companies to flag instance are large numbers of accounts and post, especially related to public health and elections. the federal government has even created private public partnerships to expand its censorship reach. without the misery versus biden lawsuit and the subsequent disclosures in the twitter files, americans would have never known about the biden administration's coordination, collusion, and coercion to censor speech. president biden and his administration may last for its own ministry of truth. 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 enshrined the first amendment in our constitution more than

230 years ago, for good reason. four times such as these. we cannot allow the biden's ministration to infringe upon them freedoms that we cherish and a have been purchased by the sacrifice of millions of americans. freedom of speech is vital to our country and our people. in many ways it is our pressure release valve. we must stop the biden ministration's threat to free speech so america can remain the freest country in the history of the world. thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you, senator. i appreciate that. mr. attorney general, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. thank you, chairman dorman. ranking member plaskett, and distinguished members of the select subcommittee. mister chairman, i would ask if i could correct the record, quickly, miss plaskett 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 remind everyone that violence throughout this past year had inflicted a lot of damage on other federal buildings, as well. i would like to submit that letter for the record. >> the gentlelady is out of order. >> that's not a correction. i said you refused to join the other -- >> lady has not been recognized. this time belongs to the attorney general from the state of louisiana. mr. landry, you can proceed. >> thank you mister chairman. i'm grateful for the opportunity to join congress today, along with my former colleague and now u.s. senator, schmidt, from missouri. and mr. sauer to find the federal government censorship case, louisiana and missouri versus biden. since i was sworn in as attorney general in 2016, i have been ringing alarm bells

about big tech. in fact, in 2018 i led a bipartisan discussion of attorney generals about the dangers that i saw regarding big tech. it was a bipartisan, multi state, coalition. back then the big story was the election of president trump. some were quick to blame social media platforms, especially facebook, for enabling fake news to spread. social media was actively used to tip the scales and president biden's favor in 2020 by censoring real news, such as the hunter biden laptop story, among others. despite all of this, federal agencies have been allowed to co-opt these private companies and use social media platforms

to infringe upon the first amendment rights of americans. let's look at the covid-19 pandemic. during that time, facebook close to three billion users worldwide, 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. while more than 340 million users on twitter -- on youtube, roughly 500 hours of video content or uploaded every minute with more than four billion hours of video 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. all major social media platforms. that censorship enterprise has been widely successful in achieving its goals. white have director of digital strategy, robber flattery, was impressed when youtube reported its success of watching time a borderline content by 70%. this is what we found in our case. the fbi claims a success rate of 50% in getting platforms to censor content flagged as misinformation.

the election integrity partnership, now known as the virology project, bragged that for major platforms that they worked with all had high response rates. 35% of url shared with facebook, instagram, twitter, and youtube were either labeled, removed, or soft blocked. as a result of this collusion between social media companies, the cdc, nih, and ideally, american citizens, scientists, journalists were shadow beard, then sued, silenced, and de-platform for their valid concerns about lockdowns, masks, covid vaccines, and more. robert kennedy junior, the

nephew of a president, the son of the former u.s. attorney general of this country. the nephew of a distinguish senator, who by the way was a democrat, was centered. tucker carlson, who hosted the top rated primetime television news was also censored. as so we're millions of americans while deceitful and manipulative of voices, like doctor anthony fauci, were elevated. this censorship enterprise knows no bounds. it is not limited in scope to covid-19 or elections. many of the committee members will sit here today and say, what can we do? i say bring the federal government to heal. no one in this chamber, no one in this chamber on both sides

of the aisle should be opposed to that. i applaud this bodies efforts in the chairman for passing the protected speech and government interference act. however, i would offer that it just does not go far enough. i would ask those on the left in joining to make it tougher. the time has come when we must hold federal employees, contractors, and federal actors accountable by terminating both their jobs and their retirement for violating the first amendment of american citizens. if they participate in violating american citizens first amendment rights, and that is when a court finds, than those other penalties that should be posed. this chamber should also draft legislation that will open a

pathway for legalized billet-y for such conduct so that american citizens have a right of action against their own government in protecting their i will repeat their first amendment rights. there must be a penalty or this problem will never be solved. if you would like to understand exactly how bad this problem has become i invite you to read a satirical pamphlet, 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 you are either complicit or contributing to the problem. know that the states of louisiana and missouri are fighting back against this vast government censorship in our federal courts today. thank you, mister chairman.

>> thank you attorney general landry. we appreciate you coming here to testify today. as well as mr. schmitt. we will allow you to get your responsibilities and -- >> point of order, mister. chairman >> here gentleman is running for point of order. >> mister chairman, these witnesses are being dismissed without the ability to cross examine their statements. they have made some outlandish allegations here. consistent with the work of this committee, especially this select committee -- and congressional hearings in general, we should have the ability to question their statements. >> it is a long-standing practice of the committee when we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle and other officials -- to less than testifying. >> no, no, mister chairman, these witnesses were direct witnesses as to the cases that they brought. when we bring in our colleagues from the senate and other colleagues from the house, we extend them a courtesy, many

times we do not even swear them -- we do not require them to take an oath. we allow their testimony in a ceremonial or non substantive way. these two witnesses have just presented evidence that, i think, in part, is false. i would like the opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. >> those witnesses aren't here. >> mister chairman, point of order. you will have a chance to -- >> i recognize that. >> isn't it true that even in recent days -- >> reclaiming my time. >> you are not recognized, sir. >> yes i am. i was recognized. he did recognize me. >> point of order, i am now recognizing mr. johnson because you are not sitting in point order any longer. your making speech. >> my point of order, mister chairman, it's a recall that isn't a true in recent days even colleagues like congressman jamie raskin which presented commentary which was pretty salacious and was

allowed to leave the room. we were not allowed cross examine him. >> mister chairman, point of order -- >> salaciousness has to do with sexual content. i do not think our colleague, mr. raskin, presented salacious comments. i would ask that that be -- >> let's call it outrageous then. and >> i protested that were be taken down. it is false, and inflammatory. >> the gentleman from louisiana -- the gentleman from louisiana said it was not salacious it was outrageous. >> mister chairman. debate on the point of order, please, that was just raised. >> the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> thank you very much. the attorney general, mr. landry, is not a member of congress. he is not entitled to an extension of courtesy that we give to some of our colleagues, or even former colleagues. he is the attorney general -- >> i will add ask to the gentlelady of florida we extended the same courtesy to attorney general landry, former

member of the united states congress, that we extended to tulsi gabbard, former member of the united states congress. >> that was a member chairman -- mister chairman. this is not a member panel. >> we now recognize mr. sauer for his five minutes of testimony. >> on the point of order, at least, if we are not gonna have the ability to cross-examine our move that we move to strike the testimony provided by senator schmitt, and attorney general landry. >> you want to censor it? you want to censor their testimony? >> i want to strike it, i want to strike it. if we are not able to probe the veracity of their statements, the truthfulness of their statements -- you will be given near five minutes here. >> they are not here -- they are absent. >> i understand that. >> you scurried them away. they refused -- >> they were not scare it away. >> in a country of 330 million people, you couldn't find two

people to defend their testament -- that is produced graceful. >> allowing them to leave is not weaponization the non know what is, mister chair. >> oh yeah right. mr. sauer, you are recognized. >> the gentleman may proceed. >> mister chairman, ranking member plaskett -- >> mister chairman, i move to adjourn. i move to adjourn. this is a mockery. this is a mockery and a disgrace. it is shameful. >> the gentleman has not been recognized. the gentleman, mr. sauer, is recognized for five minutes of testimony. >> there is a motion on the floor to adjourn. it is not debatable. if you do not know the rules of the committee, talk to your parliamentarian. >> you are recognized for your motion, no army following the rules of the committee. you cannot speak out of order. >> what are you doing? what are you doing? you are out of order. >> mr. sauer, you can proceed. >> mister chairman, ranking member plaskett, members of the

subcommittee, imagine a world where white house officials emailed the new york times editorial board when the paper runs a story criticizing the president. they abused the paper in profane language and demand that it immediately pulls the offending story from its website while the white house publicly threatens devastating legal consequences if the paper doesn't comply and it does. imagine a world where the fbi, every month, sends all the major booksellers in the united states and encrypted list of the books that the fbi wants them to pull from themselves that month and burn. the booksellers can fly by burning at least half of those books. imagine a world where a federal national security agency teams up with a major research university to establish a mass surveillance program of ordinary american political

thoughts and opinions. they use swarms of analysts and cutting edge technology to monitor hundreds of millions of domestic political communication in realtime and covertly sensor millions of them. these three scenarios did not come from a hypothetical dystopian future. the first to a very similar to a federal officials are doing with social media platforms now. the third scenario is not hypothetical at all. that massive violence and mass censorship program started operating in 2020. last july, the plaintiffs in the louisiana and missouri against biden presented-limited discovery of communication about censorship between federal officials and social media platforms. what we obtained astonishing, staggering, and horrifying. a veritable army of federal officials, pressures, threatens, courses, collude with, demands, and deceive social media platform to censor online

speech. our evidence shows white house officials badgering white house officials to censor speech that contradicts the white houses -- while the white house accuses him of killing people by not centering enough of ordinary american speech. the president spokespeople raise the specter of crippling legal consequences if they do not comply. one major platform responds to white house demands by assuring them, we hear your call to do more. it scrambles to carry out more, quote, what the white house expects from us on more misinformation going forward. our evidence shows federal officials routinely flagging social media post by ordinary americans for censorship. it shows federal officials orchestrating elaborate plots of deception to do platforms into centering disfavored speech. it shows federal officials engaging in seemingly endless meetings in content operation officers of major platforms to discuss, disinformation and

censorship. it shows federal officials serving privilege fact-checked airs with affective authority to dictate what americans can and cannot say on matters of immense public importance on social media. it shows federal officials relentlessly pressuring social media platforms by threatening them with ruinous legal consequences if they do not cave to the federal demands of censorship truth is not the goal of this federal censorship enterprise. the centers have been proven wrong again and again including on politically seismic issues. each time the sensors are proven wrong, the censorship has continued unabated. it expands, that is because now, as in every other time in human history, but goal of censorship is not to promote truth, it is to obtain, preserve, and expand political power. censorship is not necessary to

protect americans line, security, or democracy. systematically violating the most basic civil rights 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 elites. censorship inflicts lasting harm on americans by impeding the pursuit of truth in a free marketplace of ideas. the supreme court described social media as the modern public square. for years, federal officials have been perpetrating a hostile takeover of that modern public square. this hostile takeover has largely succeeded. congress should take swift action to banish the federal centers and restore our freedom of speech to social media. i welcome the subcommittees questions. >> thank you mr. sauer, mr.

seligman, you are recognized for five minutes. >> mister chairman, ranking member plaskett, members of the committee. the focus of today's hearing is an allegation of censorship by social media platforms, purportedly at the direction of the federal government. once again it bears repeating, the first amendment applies to governmental restrictions a speech, not private conduct. the plaintiffs in missouri v. biden instead argue that the federal government courses platforms into censoring disfavored speech by the allocation of the platform's own content policies. by reasons i detail my written testimony, that contention lacks a regional basis in law in fact. in short, governmental officials offered their suggestions to platforms about disinformation, no threat of adverse governmental education is ever attached to whether the platforms took those suggestions or not. social media platform content moderation decisions have always rested, and remain, with the platforms and sell.

by attacking those platforms, and attempts to combat misinformation, the plaintiffs in cases like missouri cb biden do miss service to the principles of free speech they claim to support. they invite the grave consequences of misinformation that they seek to spread themselves, unchecked. it is perhaps not a coincidence that the proponents of measures that would handicap social media platforms efforts to combat misinformation or often prolific purveyors of misinformation themselves. senator schmidt and attorney general landry, who just testify, and before the supreme court supporting issued by the state of texas 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 city. texas's complaint included the fantastical claim that the statistical likelihood that president biden barely won the 2020 election was less than one in a quadrillion.

that is false. members of this committee have claimed that dominion voting machines fraudulently flipped votes from trump to biden. that is false. members of this committee and claim that thousands of ballots were cast on dead and on qualified voters. that is false. members of this committee have claimed that election workers around the country counted fake or fraudulent votes. that is false. on october 19th, 2020, chairman jordan tweeted that democrats are trying to steal the election after the election. that is false. lines like these corrode americans faith in the integrity of elections and democracy. but those elections are, without question, fundamentally sound. these falsehoods form the foundation of an unprecedented effort to reverse the efforts of a presidential election. they are just a drop in the bucket, a drop in the ocean, on the flood of lines that flooded

social media in the weeks and months out of the 2020 presidential election. this is not idle political theory. across the country, election workers have been targeted by extremist with threats of horrific violence as retaliation for their alleged complicity in the stolen election. just over two years ago, a violent mob stormed the capitol building in an attempt to described congress account of electoral votes some in that mob erected a gallows on the steps of the capital not far from where we said today. after the vice president honorably confirmed he would abide by his constitutional duty, summoned the mob chanted, hang mike pence. they did so because someone told them the line that the election was stolen. they did so because someone told them the lie that vice president pence had the power to reverse the results. whether or not our constitution and our fidelity to the principles of the first amendment permits us to punish

our prosecutors who told those lies, surely we can recognize the damage done. surely we can recognize that the social media platforms that now service the main channels have been misinformation need all the help they can get in combatting them. it is both constitutional and in concert with the principles of the first amendment for government experts to help social media experts and identifying misinformation and to encourage those networks to stop spreading it and amplify. i welcome the committee's questions. >> i thank the gentleman for his testimony. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, miss stefanik. >> mr. seligman, isn't it true that democrats objected to president george w. bush's victory in 2000 on the house floor. >> yes it is isn't it true that democrats objected to president george w. bush's victory in 2004. >> i yield the remainder of my time. >> i think the lady. the irony is so thick in the room today that you can cut it with a nice. the democrats all witnesses

this democrat from the constitutional law center at stanford law school where, less than two weeks ago, the dean had ordered mandatory training in the first amendment to faculty in students after her apology for the debacle of them shouting down 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 needed centerview point to disagree with it's unbelievable the other irony is our louisiana turning general jeff landry just explain to us in detail putting on a recent detail pointing out that there is literally a censorship enterprise now in the banister nation and not five minutes later our colleague over here wanted to be objective signed his testimony for being two gentlemen but we are illustrating the point right here is all of you talk many actors in the vitamin striations, many of them, have continued to harass and pressure social media companies to pressure social media content. that is one of the -- that's not align with their chosen aired it because when people talk about the origin or

effectiveness of lockdowns in the mask mandate, center. the benefits of natural immunity. they wanted to censor in silence that and they did. through the great work, mr. sauer of you and many others in the state of louisiana and missouri we now know that there is a corner campaign about public and private pressure against the social media platforms. who did it come from? as you pointed out, president biden. senior white house staff. surgeon general vivek murphy. doctor anthony fauci. the cdc. they targeted opposing covid viewpoints. they targeted the viewpoints, folks. if you are watching at home. they volume censored you. they turn you down in that case people off the platform because they said things that one of the administrations narrative. one piece of information that president biden label that misinformation is the belief that the virus originated in the lab in china. we now know that that is no longer a theory, it is likely true that some of the agency of the government had to admit now.

doctor fauci was contradicting the lab leak discourse from the very beginning the pandemic. listen, everyone needs to pay attention to this. he commissioned a research paper to discredit the theory. can you please share with us what his interest wasn't covering up the lab leak theory, mr. sauer. ? >> thank you congressman. the evidence in our case indicates that going back to 2011 dr. fauci have been a public advocate in favor of gain function research. starting at least in 2014, 98 under his direction had publicly funded gain function research on coronaviruses in the wuhan institute of virology. early 2020 when the virus was new, he became aware from briefings from his staff and emails from jeremy far of the welcome institute in the united kingdom that there was a grave risk that the virus had, in fact, leaked -- from that institution where 98 funded research on gain of function of viruses have been

conducted. you see an elaborate plot, a deceptive plot, to try to discredit that theory. >> 98 was that -- when he was asked at a white house briefing about this report that he commissioned. he claimed he was unfamiliar with the authors of the study even though he was instrumental in everything you'll step of his creations. i have a video. we can play that real quickly. we can see in his own words. -- all right, well, they are trying to fix that. what doctor fauci says they're in his own words as he has no idea anything about the authors of the study even though he is the one that orchestrated the whole thing. when he was asked in the deposition about his role in suppressing the lab leak origin

theory he said, i have another video that won't work, i'm sure. he said 300 times he doesn't recall, he doesn't remember. he is not the only bad actor. mr. sauer, please elaborate on the ripple effect that social biden said social media companies are killing people by failing to remove covid information -- >> our evidence indicates that that was a critical watershed in the biden's administration pressure campaign to attack facebook, in particular, but also social media campaigns in 2021. what you see is these amazing emails right after that july 16th 2021 comment from president biden that they're killing people from very senior facebook executives. desperately scrambling to get back in the white house's good graces and assuring them that we will do what you want. we will carry out, quote, what's white house expects of us on misinformation going forward. >> it has a incredible effective chilling speech in american. are you back. >> the dawn of time expired. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> thank you mister chairman. first of, all i want to correct the statement my colleague made. my objection 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. that is the practice in federal courts when much is at stake. it is a device that ensures that when people take a stand and offer evidence, that we can test the veracity of their statements. that is not the case in this hearing. the chair and the majority have

chosen to allow witnesses to offer substantive testimony here. they have allowed them to scurry away, not face cross-examination or the testing of the statements they have made. it is ironic that we begin this hearing with a pledge of allegiance. we all stood and put our hands on our hearts and looked at the flag. then turned around and we eviscerated the very process here that would protect rights, protect the integrity of this hearing to elicit the truth. to test the statements and testimony that are brought before us. this is such a departure, such a departure from regular order and the usual process of congressional hearings. i am compelled i'm compelled to

the strike to ask to strike that testimony. it is not worth anything if it cannot be tested. the american people should not be able to rely on the information if it is not tested, not truthful. mister chairman, i resume my motion to adjourn. iraq for a recorded vote. >> the gentlemen moves to adjourn. the committee will suspend lionel we prepared to have the clerk all the royal. >> mister chair, may the time be suspended, please? >> it is suspended. >> the clock is going down. >> now, we will have the time for mr. lynch. >> thank you. >> we will get the clerk out here and we will call the vote.

>> mr. jordan, point of inquiry. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mister chairman, i have testified before committee, even during the two years i was out of congress. you and i have been here for more than a decade together. have we ever cross-examined a current u.s. senator who testified before any committee that you and i were on? >> no, we have not. >> this is debating the point of order. >> this is the point of inquiry. >> we will call the roll on the gentleman from massachusetts -- >> mr. jordan? >> mr. jordan when snow. mr. issa. mr. ax about snow. mr. massie? mr. massie with no. mrs. stewart? miss stephan? eric missed a final vote snow. mr. gates? mr. gates votes no.

mr. johnson louisiana. mr. johnson of louisiana votes now. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong for snow. mr. steube. mr. steube votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes now. miss came? eric missed came up with snow? miss hageman? miss hageman votes no. miss palace get, mr. lynch? yes. >> mr. vintage votes yet. >> miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes i. and miss wasserman schultz? miss wasserman schultz to its eye. >> mr. connally? its economy both high. mr. garamendi? mr. allred? miss garcia? miss garcia votes i. mr. goldman? mr. goldman votes i? mister chair, how my recorded? >> miss plaskett, you are not reported. >> miss plaskett both i.

>> mr. stewart, you are not recorded? mr. stewart votes no. >> all members voting? >> kirk roll report. >> mister chair, there are seven eyes and 12 knows. >> the motion fails. the gentleman is recognized for the remainder of his five minutes. >> point of inquiry -- the gentlelady is recognize -- >> mister chairman, i think we need to and confuse the record. sometimes i hear you talk about mr. landry appearing as a former member of congress. sometimes and he saying he is the louisiana turning general. >> those are both true statements. >> but in what capacity was he testifying today? >> a former member or an elected state official? >> he was testifying as a

witness in front of the subcommittee of the weaponization of government. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for the two minutes and 17 seconds of his testimony. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> mister chairman, i should get a chairman of what capacity he was clear? >> the capacity as a witness in front of our committee. that was his capacity! >> attorney general -- >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> any state official -- >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for the remainder of his five minutes of questioning. >> mister chairman -- >> regular order. mr. seligman, in missouri versus biden campaign the witnesses today who have now departed claimed that a february in 2023 department of homeland security threat bulletin somehow harm to 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 bolton -- >> without objection. >> mr. seligman, this warning obviously was not far fetched as evidence by the events of january 6th. members of extremist groups like proud boys, both keepers, and three percenters did not hesitate for calling for perpetrating violence on the purpose of false and misleading election fraud narratives. we need only remember the chants of hang mike pence outside of this u.s. capital. i would also underscore that more than 60 lawsuits brought by president trump and his supporters, especially rudy giuliani, following the president potential election failed by because they lacked evidence to support them. professor seligman, do you agree that false or misleading narratives about the substantive election fraud would lead to cause of violence around elections? >> yes, i do. >> professor seligman, would you -- the witnesses that were sitting

next to you seem to think that it is censorship to warn that online disinformation could lead to election violence. could you walk us through how disinformation could lead to the election violence? >> yes, mr. lynch. if 100 million people see a false claim about voter fraud, election interference, on the social media website some number of those 100 million people may become outrage to a degree that they are willing to commit acts of violence. that is exactly what we saw in the aftermath of the 2020 election. these false narratives, false statements of fact about the integrity of the election in 2020 were propagated. millions, hundreds of millions of people saw them. some saw them and took matters into their own hands and committed acts of violence at the members of this committee have seen. >> mister chairman, my time is expired. you. back >> the gentleman yields back.

i point out that last congress a democrat committee that congress for a year and a half again nobility the republicans to cross examine one single witness. we do believe the ability to cross-examine is important. we also believe in following the custom -- >> that is false. >> you couldn't question witnesses at a hearing? >> you are not allowed to question witnesses at a hearing? is that what you are saying? >> mr. sauer, you deposed dr. fauci. >> point of order, mister chairman could you clarify that statement? i have found incredibly hard to believe. >> point of order, that is not a point of order. >> what basis of fact -- of saying that assertion? are we just here to allege wild allegations that have no factual -- >> mr. sauer -- the gentlewoman has not been recognized. mr. sauer, you deposed doctor fauci last fall? in that deposition, you asked him the question, is it important for people to have access to both sides of the

debate so they can assess what is good information and what is bad information? do you remember that question you asked a doctor fauci? here was his response. 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 did not have the ability or the experience to understand. mr. sauer do you forfeit your first amendment rights if you cannot to get information from bannon formation? >> no. >> that is not how the first amendment works is it. can you turn your mic on if you can, mister sauer. the first amendment only for those people who have the ability or experience to understand? >> no it is for all americans. all 330 million of us, is that right? >> that is correct. >> not just for the special people. not just for the supersmart people like dr. fauci who worked 40 years in our government. not just for them, it is for all of us, right? >> absolutely right. >> maybe you don't know the

difference, sometimes, between but it's good information you still have your first amendment liberty under our constitution. >> both to hear into speak, exactly right. >> when you depose dr. fauci, how many times did he happen to say he didn't know i didn't remember? >> i do not recall or variations there of 174 times. adding in variations of i don't remember at least 212 times. >> wow. smartest guy on the planet couldn't remember 212 times. >> he couldn't remember things, including things that he told the national media, quote, i remember very well. he would say 16 times i do not recall details of that meeting. you were at the top of your class at harvard rally school. rogue scholar is that right, mr. sauer? >> i submitted a biographical statement. >> i look at your biography, that's pretty impressive. that high? you did a lot of depositions, he depose a lot of people, is 212 times pretty high? >> i have taken dozens of depositions, i've never seen anything like.

including in this case for other federal government weaknesses frequently profess an inability to recall. >> a guy who told us all of these things, you know, the smartest man on the record, he has set a record. the highest you ever saw in couldn't recall, don't remember. >> i have never seen anything like it. >> page four of your testimony you talk about the censorship enterprise. you give a bunch of facts and numbers here. he said that twitter disclosure 84 government officials communicated with them -- or as mr. seligman said, gave them suggestions. 84 federal officials gave twitter suggestions on tweets and things to take down. 45 officials in the federal government told the same thing to facebook. is that right? >> they discussed disinformation in censorship with those officials. >> a handful of federal agencies handed over 20,000 pages of documents and the communications they would have with these big tech companies. again, just suggestions, according to mr. seligman. white house officials were involved in the suggestions to the social media platforms. >> that is conservative, it is

probably higher. >> fbi agent elvis chan testified the fbi sent encrypted list to social media accounts sometimes containing hundreds of accounts in your elves in each list to platforms for censorship. 1 to 5 times per month. 500 times -- 500 different email -- or websites and everything else that they are sending to their social media platforms. the fbi. mr. seligman says, that is not a problem with the first amendment. that is the suggestion. >> over the course of years that have been occurring. >> the censorship consortium thinks the government officials, social media platforms boasted -- 859 million tweets. 21,897,364 tweets on tickets as misinformation. that right? >> that is correct. >> you learn this in your discovery in your lawford, so. for >> the massive violence and censorship observation has done

6.7 million engagements on social media. now, let me just ask you this, where most of those targets towards conservatives? >> virtually everything we have seen in evidence, so far, or at least the vast majority we have seen so far is conservative, right leaning, speech. >> you'd be just that rage. i read your testimony. if you would be just as outraged if it was the other way around, right? >> same here. same here. the first amendment, again, is not just for some people. not just for one political persuasion. not just for the, so-called, smart people like dr. fauci. it is for 330 million americans. that is how our constitution works. is that right, mr. sour? >> every single american. >> i thank the gentleman for his answers. >> mister chairman, i have a unanimous consent requests. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> seek unanimous consent for a letter dated 2021 by louisiana attorney general jeff landry where he described all political violence in calls for

an end to that. i asked respect for all political viewpoints. >> another thing we cannot examine because he is not here. >> you can examine it. it's a document. >> examine him for what he wrote in the intent behind what he said. >> i would just point out that that is unanimous consent for documents. we have the document right >> here mister chairman i would ask unanimous consent -- >> mister chairman mister chairman i have a unanimous consent request. i have a unanimous consent request. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for unanimous consent request. i have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record the miriam records 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 would ask that it be entered into the record, mister chairman. it is the document. >> i said outrages, i will withdraw. >> i don't think the gentleman's objecting. the gentlewoman from florida, miss wasserman schulz. it is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. this is our third hearing. unlike the previous two i found it ironic that the -- mr. sauer, record request shows that you worked with the dark money political arm, the rule of law defense fund. they also indicate that you took part in this part, quote unquote, wargames on how to respond if trump lost the 2020 election. very quickly with a yes or no election is that correct? -- >> yes or no? >> the answer is yes? >> no? yes or no? you worked with the republican attorneys general also changed and it dark money political arm

defense funds, record requests show that you did. to confirm that i have an official state email that points your involvement in these political efforts. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. >> without objection. >> mr. sauer, please make sure your microphone is turned. on >> the answer to that question is yes, mr. zeller? >> that is not what i said. i said that you significantly miss characteristics. >> mr. cao remind you you are under oath i have just entered into the record, i have a copy of an official statement where he responded to a message on these board games. very specifically. okay, mr. sour, the rule of law about recruiting people to march in the cap on january 6th. to quote unquote, stop the steal. could you play that for us place? >> [inaudible] okay.

okay. it's also, you can see that recorded message by me. i must say, mr. sour, when you planned -- okay. let's move on past the audio. when you planned with these groups, it was certainly no game. but it definitely resembled the pictures. this is an excerpt of the audio call. the same dark money groups held at least 30 meetings for senior staffers, including you during the trump 2020 presidential campaign. even though i'm sure you know that missouri law bar state employees from using state resources for political activity. missouri lawmakers were wise enough to make it illegal to weaponize state government facilities for political purposes. or in this case, to subvert america's democracy. approximately how many of these political meetings did you attend while in your office and using state resources? before answering a little reminder that your fifth amendment protection against self incrimination do apply here if you need to use that. >> none of the meetings i attended were political.

i attended one meeting by zoom that discussed legal issues only. so everything you said about the character -- if i may. >> i am reclaiming my time. attorney general staff members also attended one of these wargames meetings on january 5th, 2021, on the very easily insurrection. mr. sour, did you attend or participate in this meeting on january 6th, 2021, and can you share with us what wargames you discussed? >> i was unaware of that meeting. i actually am not sure of the many referring to. >> more bluntly, mister sauer, did you violate statue 36 point 157 by using state resources unofficial time to collude with multiple groups to prevent americas peaceful transfer of power? >> absolutely not. >> thank you for finally bring it wouldn't be for us that has personally weaponize the government. mr. sauer, did participate in war game meetings with the dark money group, the republican attorneys generals organization. given what we know and just heard, clearly my republican

colleagues would support further investigation into this matter. we have evidence. this is a state email suffix. it was during the time of day during the work hours. so i move that the chair issues and subpoenas to mr. sauer, requesting any and all correspondence relating to their political involvement in the january 6th insurrection in dark money groups, while using state funded resources. that's my motion, mister chair. and we need to hold the time, please. >> yeah, all the time, just a second. you have to roll the time back by about six or seven seconds. >> okay. the gentlelady has moved issue a subpoena. we will have a roll call a vote on that, and the gentlelady will suspend while we get the clerk prepared for that vote.

>> i make a motion to table. >> the gentleman has made a motion to table. the motion to issue a subpoena. as the clerks are getting ready, let us sort this out. >> that's fine. >> i just want to point out there tabling the motion so that we can't get more information that shows that mr. sour weaponized the government and violated state law. >> we have a motion. >> by colluding with a motion. to overturn a presidential election. >> the motion to table is not debatable. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. jordan, mr. issa, mr.

massie, mr. massie bushes. mr. stewart. mr. stewart votes yes. mr. fanatic? mr. gates? mr. gates votes yes. mr. dawson of louisiana? mr. johnson louisiana votes yes. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong was yes. mr. steube votes yes. mr. bishop? mr. bishop both yes. miss candidate? miss hageman? miss hageman votes yes. miss muscat? >> no. >> this mosque about snow. mr. lynch? miss sanchez? >> no. >> miss wasserman schultz votes no. mr. connolly? >> nay. >> mr. connally for today. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. allred? miss garcia? >> name. >> miss garcia vote nay. >> mr. goldman? >> no. >> mr. goldman votes no.

>> the clerk will report. >> mister chair, there are ten eyes and seven nose. >> the motion carries into this table. >> reclaiming my time, mister chairman. >> the gentleman's reclaiming her time. >> i think we made it clear that the republican majority has no interest in investigating violations of regard for meant. they just tabled a motion inflation demonstrate that. i would ask with rain my time, i think he was ready so that we can play. thank you. mister chairman? can we play the video please? >> is that video ready? >> okay. i guess it's still not working. it would be nice if we 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 squashed getting us more evidence. and what i have behind me, i've entered into the record to prove that this witness, mr., sour weaponized good the government and participated in violating missouri state law. >> the time is expired. >> in politicizing a trying to overturn an election. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman. i'm going to try to return to the subject as much as i can, of this hearing. are you familiar with the case in california, disputing the governor's order for universal ballots?

>> no, congressman. >> okay. well it, oddly enough, i was the plaintiff. so oddly enough, the governor then went to legislature and got the authority to have universal ballots and the case was dismissed. isn't part of free speech, our first amendment, the right to redress? >> that is correct. to petition the government, exactly. >> and petitioning the government has been widely considered to be, including to make cases before the federal court. when you believe that the constitution is being violated, or your free speech is being violated. or due process is being violated. those are all consistent with what we would broadly say is the first amendment. >> correct. >> and for the record, the first amendment was incredibly short. and if you read it in its

purest since, you would say that congress shall make no laws respectively. and because it only says congress, that it doesn't appoint anyone else. has our courts, including our supreme court, under 200 plus years, have they ever considered it that narrow? >> no, congressman. >> so isn't it true that they basically consider censorship of free speech very broadly to include intimidation by federal, state, or local government authorities. and that right? >> yes. intimidation and retaliation, among many other things. >> so it was earlier called a suggestion by the federal government, the vast power of the federal government which could evening to the irs in this case. that kind of suggestion has historically been viewed as intimidation, consistent with this relatively short statement about the right of free speech. >> that's exactly right. there is overwhelming evidence

in our case it contradicts the notion that these were mere suggestions from federal officials. it's completely factually baseless to state that. >> so you earlier testified that the vast majority of this was one-sided, and came from government officials who wanted to take down things which disagreed with the government in the place at that time. which happen to be the government of joe biden, correct? >> who worked. >> so what we really have here is something similar to historically the irs, if you remember that era. that's not the actual case name. but 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. >> that's exactly right.

we see not just interference with free speech, but interference with the attempts to organize for political advocacy. >> now, is this an opinion? where are these indisputable facts based on literally minions of events? >> the evidence is overwhelming. and we have submitted and extensive evidence to the subcommittee. >> so what we are dealing with here is tangible evidence that the other side of the aisle seems to want to talk around about the changing of what would have been public opinion if public opinion were freely allowed to occur without intervention by the federal government and candidly, agents on behalf of them, including private entities that were paid to be part of this program. >> that's 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 the way they were characterized. they mislead my involvement. there is no suggestion anything i did was before the 2020 election was inappropriate or involved in misuse of state resources. i categorically deny that, that is false. it is misinformation. however, i recognize the numbers right to say misinformation, because you know what? that is protected by the first amendment. contrary to what mr. seligmann is suggesting. >> 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. and i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia? >> the truth hurts. the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. you know, i've been through a lot of hearings in a lot of panels. and i must say. i find it disconcerting that we

are not able to ask questions of two of our witnesses. if they are here to simply prove and present their thoughts, and their idol opinions, so be it. but if they are presenting themselves as quasi-experts on censorship, i think we have a right to question them. but even if senator -- if they aren't here. i think it's important to know that every single witness of the majority took part in the effort to overturn the 2020 election. and all three of them have interconnecting relationships. very conveniently. the email sent to state attorney generals. >> just in the clock forming while we get that going.

>> i think the chair. >> i don't think that's it. it's email from mr. sauer. mister chairman, i don't understand our technical problems, but mr. sauer sent out an email to states attorney general. >> start the clock again, if you could. okay. gentlemen, continue. >> okay. and he asked for responses by 12 nine and 1:00. mr. seligmann, this email was signed by john sauer. isn't that the gentleman to your left? >> i believe so.

>> when donald trump lost a 2020 election, mr. sour was working for then missouri attorney general smith, who testified here this morning. and they work together to find 16 of the republican state attorneys general, including attorney general landry. who is running for governor. to join them in a micah to overturn the election. now, his team followed this case december 8th. and the supreme court rejected it three days later. why did the supreme court rejected it? >> the supreme court rejected it it, didn't issue an opinion explaining why it rejected that. so i can't speculate about what was going through the minds of the justices. but i can tell you about the legal flaws and the complaint, that rendered that decision correct. so the state of texas sued other states, including the pennsylvania, michigan,

wisconsin, and arizona, for allegations that there were flaws in the election in those states. and the state of texas claimed that it was injured as a state. because the alleged -- somehow undermined its own sovereign rights to the electoral college. and that is a radical and unprecedented claim that no court has ever accepted. >> including supreme court. >> including the supreme court. >> they kind of dismiss it with dispatch. three days later. >> yes. it was three or four days later. they dismissed it unanimously. a point of clarification about that, there was a concurrency in the dismissal by justice thomas, and i believe justice lead oh. explaining they would accept the bill of complained because they think, as a matter of supreme court procedure, the supreme court can't just refuse

jurisdiction. and they went out of their way to say they would reject the claim on the parents. >> the allegations on the lawsuit ranged from claims of illegal voting to accusations about dominion voting machines, now the subject of a civil defamation case with fox news. it is called claims in the lawsuit, dangerously insane. why might fox news call this kind of lawsuit dangerously insane? >> the factual allegations that they were referring to are demonstrably incorrect. and have no basis on reality, whatsoever. it was apparent at the time, as well. this was not something that just became apparent in months and years after those allegations came to light. >> well, it's certainly comforting to know that we have a panel that includes three

people who are involved in a lawsuit that has been declared dangerously insane by none other than fox news reporters. that is a comfort. i thank you, mr. seligmann, for your testimony. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah, we recognize -- >> i am curious, just as a sidebar, were you embarrassed by what happened at stanford law school a few weeks ago? >> sir, i'd like to clarify that i am -- >> in regards to the suppression of free speech. >> so i'd like to clarify that i am here on my own behalf not on behalf of stanford. >> i understand that. i'm just curious. i would imagine he would be embarrassed by that. are you embarrassed that you are here with the -- are you familiar with gdr, these german stops a secret police. >> generally, yes. we know they used censorship in order to maintain and control

power. they are one of the most impressive and powerful forces we've seen in our modern world. i would like to quote some of their objectives, and some of their tactics that they would use. the aim of the stopped saying it was to switch off the group or private citizens by hindering positive media, including pressuring newspapers and other media. would you be comfortable with the government easing those kinds of tactics and orders to suppress thoughts, views, and policies? >> if your question is whether i am comfortable with the american government using the tactics of the east german saucy, the answer is no. >> thank you. mr. sour, do you see any difference fancy replaced tactics and government suppression of the individual expression on social media? >> make sure your microphone is on. sorry. >> there is a very strong analogy to be drawn there and

it's based on overwhelming evidence. >> i see no difference at all. >> it's a very close comparison. >> i think it's an incredibly close fear comparison. i would reemphasize, including pressuring newspapers and other media. in order to hinder any public exposure to their thoughts, views, or policy positions. there's no difference at all. >> that's correct. >> let me give you another example. we are talking about the east german stop sea in the tactics they used. another one, conspicuous visits to homes workplaces to citizens would be aware of and intimidated by their presence and power. we had a journalist here, who was not a conservative journalist. 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 she knows, when someone is under investigation for fraud. and they needed a personal interview, that's the only time the issue they knew if someone visiting somebody's house. that happened while he was here testifying for our community. mr. seligmann, does that appear as an unlikely coincidence to you? >> i am not familiar with that. >> as i described it, does it seem unlikely to you? >> i am not familiar with this incident, so i can't comment. >> i've explained the incident to you. he was testifying before congress, and the irs went to his home. >> i have no idea whether it's a coincidence. >> mr. sauer, how does it appear to you? >> the timing is incredibly suspicious. >> it's incredibly suspicious. and i will quote again, from stopped st. secret police tactics, conspicuous visits to homes and workplaces so that citizens would be aware and intimidated by the presence of

power. i think my description to you is sufficient. you can make a judgment of that. >> again, i'm not familiar with the details. >> all right. i am surprised you wouldn't want to condemn that. i'm surprised you wouldn't want to say, you know what? as you've described to me, that makes me uncomfortable. that the irs would show up at someone's home while they are testifying before congress. >> as a matter of principle, government retaliation for the exercise of free speech is problematic, it's wrong. i have no idea whether that is the case. >> conceding that you don't know if that's what's happened, he would be unconfirmed that were the case. >> i am uncomfortable with violations the first amendment, yes. >> that is what we are talking about here. and i know you've seen on display, the emotion of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i am shocked that they don't want to condemn it. i am stunned that they don't ask the same questions we ask. how could they ask, you know

what, that's okay with. me the federal government is being used as contractors to go suppress free speech. they don't do it themselves, they instead pressure and intimidate and threaten individuals. there is no difference between that and with the stocks a secret police did. no difference at all. and if someone wants to stand and defend that, i will yield last seven sections of night time do you. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. votes have been called, the committee will stand in recess until a conclusion of this nine votes series.