JUST IN: Matt Gaetz Questions Witness On Who In Biden White House Led Social Media Censorship Effort

At today's House Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questioned D. John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General at the Louisiana Department of Justice, about Biden Administration attempts to curb speech on social media.

WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS ARE SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET EARTH. OFTENTIMES, THEY GET THE DISPOSITIVE OPINION ON APPOINTMENTS TO DIFFERENT POSITIONS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY INFLUENCE STATEMENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY. THEY INITIATED REGULATORY REFORM. THEY OFTEN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT VOICE ON WHICH ASSIMILATION THAT IS CONSIDERED AN APPROVED. MR. SOUR, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW MANY OF THESE INTENSELY POWERFUL PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS EFFORT TO -- EVEN INVESTIGATING REGARDING THE DESIRE TO SHAPE DISCUSSIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

WAS THERE A RINGLEADER OF THIS GROUP? SOMEONE WHO HAD PERVASIVE AND REPEATED EFFORTS TO TRY TO COERCE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO SHAPE THE TRUTH ACCORDING TO THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE?

HE IS THE I BELIEVE THE DIGITAL COORDINATOR FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. HIS LEVEL IS DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

WE'VE SEEN MANY PAGES OF EMAILS BETWEEN MR. FLAHERTY AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. WE RELENTLESSLY BADGERS THEM TO INCREASE THE CENSORSHIP OF ORDINARY AMERICANS. FREE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA. AND HE GETS RESULTS. YOU SEE THE PLATFORMS AGREEING TO CENSOR THINGS THAT ARE TRUTHFUL. THAT DO NOT VIOLATE THEIR POLICIES AT THE BEHEST OF THE PRESSURE OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

ONE GREAT EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE TUCKER CARLSON A VIDEO THAT WAS GOING BY A ROLE IN APRIL OF 2021. WHERE MR. FLAHERTY AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE EMAILING FACEBOOK PRIVATELY DEMANDING THAT IT BE CENSORED. FACEBOOK RESPONDED THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR POLICIES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FACT-CHECKED BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DEEP USING IT IN LIMITING ITS DISTRIBUTION ARE PLATFORMS. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED ANYTHING FALLS IN IT. EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT -- THEY HAD A POSITIVE DETERMINATION THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THEIR POLICIES.

DID YOU ASSESS THAT FACEBOOK TOOK THAT ACTION AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE BADGERING COMING FROM MR. FLAHERTY AND THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE?

THAT IS A COMPELLING INFERENCE FROM THE EMAIL TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH WE OBTAINED AND DISCOVERED.

DID MR. FLAHERTY EVER REQUEST ANY REPORTS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ON SPECIFIC CENSORSHIP ISSUES?

VERY FREQUENTLY. HE WAS DEMANDING THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN. HIS STUDY DRUMBEAT WAS WHEN HE CALLED BORDERLINE CONTENT. THAT THE EMAIL TRAFFIC MAKES CLEAR BORDERLINE IS WHAT THEY CALL IT OFTEN TRUE CONTENT. THINGS LIKE PERSONAL ANECDOTES. OPPOSITION TO VACCINATION EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF POLITICAL OPPOSITION. THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED TO TARGET. HE WAS CERTAINLY ASKING FOR REPORTS BACK. THEY WERE SENDING IN BY WEEKLY CROWD REPORTS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY DO THAT THROUGH THE CLOSER DISCOVERY PERIOD. LAST AUGUST IN 2022. THERE WAS -- OVERWHELMING EFFORT TO GET THEM TO CHECK THEIR HOMEWORK IF YOU WILL. TO GET THEM TO REPORT BACK. ON HOW MUCH CENSORSHIP ARE YOU DOING IT IS GONNA MEET OUR STANDARDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE?

AN OVERWHELMING EFFORT. BADGERING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. DEMANDING REPORTS FROM THOSE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES DIRECTLY TO SOMEONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AS MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE REMIND US, NOT ALL SPEECHES PROTECTED. SOME OF SPEECH IS ILLEGAL. DID YOU SEE MR. FLAHERTY CONSTRAIN HIS CONCERN TO A LAWFUL SPEECH OR DID YOU OFTEN SEE THIS BADGERING AND THIS DEMAND FOR REPORTS FROM ENTIRELY LAWFUL SPEECH?

VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING I CAN RECALL HERE WAS LAWFUL FOR SOME PROTECTED SPEECH THOSE BEING TARGETED.

WE HEARD FROM THE WITNESS THAT THE DEMOCRATS BROUGHT TODAY. THAT THESE WERE BUT SUGGESTIONS. THAT OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. WHAT WOULD BE A RESPONSE TO THAT TESTIMONY?

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MID-SUGGESTIONS IS CONTRADICTED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. CALLING FLAHERTY FOR EXAMPLE MR. PLAYER DISCRIMINATION SUGGESTIONS IS AKIN TO THINK THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT OR THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE.

OF COURSE, IF SOMEONE SURE THOSE VIEWPOINTS, THAT WOULD BE LAWFUL SPEECH, WOULDN'T IT?

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. IN FACT, WHAT HAPPENED WAS YOU HAD A DAY -- SUPPRESSION OF MANY VIEWS. INCLUDING TRUTHFUL VIEWS, POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AT THE BEHEST OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND OTHER FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

I WOULD SUGGEST, MISTER CHAIRMAN, WHEN YOU HAVE THESE INTENSELY POWERFUL PEOPLE WITH THE ABILITY TO CONTROL SO MANY THINGS EVEN A SUGGESTION IS COERCIVE AND PROBLEMATIC AND WHERE THE THE COMMITTEE'S REVIEW. I YIELD BACK.

This took about 30 seconds to make it more readable. Suggestion: Notepad ++ editor (it is free and it is powerful)

At today’s house weaponization of the federal government committee hearing, rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questioned D. John Sauer, special assistant attorney general at the louisiana department of justice, about Biden administration attempts to curb speech on social media.

White house staffers are some of the most powerful people on the planet earth. Oftentimes, they get the dispositive opinion on appointments to different positions with the federal government. They influence statements of administrative policy. They initiated regulatory reform. They often have a significant voice on which assimilation that is considered an approved. Mr. Sour, I want to understand how many of these intensely powerful people who work in the Biden white house were involved in this effort to — even investigating regarding the desire to shape discussions on social media.

At least 20 and very likely more.

Was there a ringleader of this group? Someone who had pervasive and repeated efforts to try to coerce social media companies to shape the truth according to the biden white house?

Deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty and also Andy Slavitt.

Who is Ron Flaherty?

He is the I believe the digital coordinator for the white house. His level is deputy assistant to the president.

What behaviors of Mr. Flaherty did you observe that you found troubling.

We’ve seen many pages of emails between mr. Flaherty and social media platforms. We relentlessly badgers them to increase the censorship of ordinary Americans. Free speech on social media. And he gets results. You see the platforms agreeing to censor things that are truthful. That do not violate their policies at the behest of the pressure of the white house.

Can you give an example of that?

One great example of this is the Tucker carlson a video that was going by a role in april of 2021. Where Mr. Flaherty and other white house officials were emailing Facebook privately demanding that it be censored. Facebook responded this does not violate our policies. It has not been fact-checked but nevertheless, we are substantially deep using it in limiting its distribution are platforms. Even though we haven’t identified anything falls in it. Even though it does not — they had a positive determination that it does not violate their policies.

Did you assess that Facebook took that action as a direct consequence of the badgering coming from Mr. Flaherty and the Biden white house?

That is a compelling inference from the email traffic back and forth we obtained and discovered.

Did Mr. Flaherty ever request any reports from social media companies on specific censorship issues?

Very frequently. He was demanding that again and again. His study drumbeat was when he called borderline content. That the email traffic makes clear borderline is what they call it often true content. Things like personal anecdotes. Opposition to vaccination expressed in terms of political opposition. Things of that nature. That is what he wanted to target. He was certainly asking for reports back. They were sending in by weekly crowd reports to the white house. They do that through the closer discovery period. Last august in 2022. There was — overwhelming effort to get them to check their homework if you will. To get them to report back. On how much censorship are you doing it is gonna meet our standards of the white house?

An overwhelming effort. Badgering social media companies. Demanding reports from those social media companies directly to someone in the white house. As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remind us, not all speeches protected. Some of speech is illegal. Did you see Mr. Flaherty constrain his concern to a lawful speech or did you often see this badgering and this demand for reports from entirely lawful speech?

Virtually — I camera single instance of them going after unlawful speech.

Almost all of it was after lawful speech?

Virtually everything I can recall here was lawful for some protected speech those being targeted.

We heard from the witness that the democrats brought today. That these were but suggestions. That of course the government should be able to make suggestions to social media companies. What would be a response to that testimony?

Characterization of the mid-suggestions is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Calling flaherty for example mr. Player discrimination suggestions is akin to think that the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese.

Of course, if someone sure those viewpoints, that would be lawful speech, wouldn’t it?

You’d be allowed to say that on social media and based on —

Not of mr. Flaherty were in charge.

That is the difference. In fact, what happened was you had a day — suppression of many views. Including truthful views, political organization at the behest of white house officials and other federal officials.

I would suggest, mister chairman, when you have these intensely powerful people with the ability to control so many things even a suggestion is coercive and problematic and where the the committee’s review. I yield back.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.