‘Twitter Files’ journalists testify on the Hill over weaponization of government

The weaponization of government is a topic that has been brought back into focus on Capitol Hill. Since taking up the issue in February, Big Tech has been in the crosshairs.

The House Judiciary Committee questioned four witnesses in this latest round, regarding the “Twitter Files” that were released a year ago.

Lawmakers are looking to layout the federal government’s reported involvement in suppressing speech on social media.

Witnesses included journalists Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, Canadian journalist Rupa Subramanya, and former Homeland Security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, Olivia Troye.

Republicans stuck to their theme that the federal government was “weaponized” to stop the spread of information, critical of the government, on social media. Meanwhile, Democrats defended social media platforms’ right to remove posts that violate community guidelines.

During opening statements, Republican chairman Jim Jordan accused the Biden administration of pressuring Twitter executives to suppress COVID-related content, days after Biden’s inauguration.

“But never forget, in the third day of the Biden administration, I think it was within 36 hours into it, Andy Slavitt sends an email from the White House to Twitter saying, ‘Take down this tweet ASAP,’” Jordan said. “And of course, the irony of the tweet was about, the tweet was from this administration’s Democrat primary opponent, Robert F. Kennedy Junior. And there was nothing in the tweet that was false.”

Taibbi and Shellenberger shared similar sentiment, expressing that every American should be concerned with government suppression of speech online.

“This is not a partisan issue,” Shellenberger said. “That we should all, at the test of your commitment to free speech, is that you would like to see the speech that you really despise be protected and that you would defend it.”

“Also, there’s a less obvious, but more important reason that people across the spectrum should care about this issue,” Taibbi said. “The former director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, once explained to a group of students why he didn’t support hate speech codes on campuses. The problem, he said, wasn’t the speech. The problem was quote, ‘Who gets to decide what’s hateful? Who gets to decide what’s banned?’ because quote, ‘Most of the time it ain’t you.’”

Republicans focused on reports that the Biden campaign, FBI, and eventually, The White House, colluded with social media executives to flag and remove content detrimental to President Biden – including the story from the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., asked Shellenberger to further delve into the topic of the revolving door between the FBI and Twitter, along with third-party government proxy groups.

Shellenberger revealed several high-ranking officials with the FBI eventually left and took jobs at Twitter.

“Oh yeah, the Aspen Institute. This was the weirdest thing,” Shellenberger said. “We discovered that the Aspen Institute had created a workshop, that it was attended by basically all the major media, as well as all the major social media platforms to basically ‘pre-bunk’ in advance the Hunter Biden laptop. Even though it had not been, there was no evidence that it had existed outside of the fact the FBI knew they had it because they got it in December 2019. So, to have the Aspen Institute. To persuade people not to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story in August and September of 2020 was quite chilling and disturbing to see.”

Meanwhile, Democrats kept former President Donald Trump the focus of their questioning.

“This hearing suits political purposes,” said Stacey Plaskett, a ranking member on the committee. “Republicans are holding the same hearing all over again for one simple reason: they want to distract from the actual threat of the weaponization of government on the American people that is Donald Trump.”

Democrats’ questions were mostly directed at Republican witness Olivia Troye, who worked inside Trump’s White House. She has since spoken about her beliefs that Trump would be “dangerous” if elected to another term in office.

“In your testimony, you cited violent language, increasingly incendiary language being evoked by President Trump about his so-called ‘enemies,’” Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., asked Troye. “One of the words he used was ‘vermin.’ what does that echo in your mind? Anyone else come to mind historically who referred to enemies of the state as ‘vermin’?”

“Yes, deplorable Hitler,” Troye responded.

At times in the hearing, there were sparks, like when an exchange over Hunter Biden’s laptop between Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman and Shellenberger got heated.

Goldman: “You’ve talked about the Hunter Biden laptop and how the FBI knew it existed. You are aware, of course that ‘the laptop’ so to speak, was, published in the New York Post, was actually a hard drive that the New York Post admitted here was not authenticated as real. It was not the laptop the FBI had. You’re aware of that, right?”

Shellenberger: “It was the same contents.”

Goldman: “How do you know?”

Shellenberger: “Because it’s the same. I mean it’s a snooze because everyone verified it as the same contents.”

Goldman: “You would have to authenticate it to know it’s the same contents.”

Shellenberger: “Are you suggesting the New York Post participated in a conspiracy to construct the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop?”

Goldman: “No sir, the problem is that hard drives can be manipulated by Rudy Giuliani or Russia.”

Shellenberger: “Well, what’s your evidence that happened?”

Goldman: “Well there is actual evidence of it. But the point is, that’s not the same thing.”

Shellenberger: “So, you’re engaged in a conspiracy theory?”

Goldman: “I’m glad you agree with me, Mr. Shellenberger, that transparency is the most important thing. And my last question for you is: Do you think it would be transparent if Hunter Biden came to this Congress and testified in a public hearing and more transparent, than if he testified privately?”

Shellenberger: “I mean literally, I’ve never thought about that. I have no idea. I’ve never thought about that. I mean this is random hour here!”

Goldman: “Is public testimony more transparent than private testimony?”

Shellenberger: “Are you familiar with the First Amendment? It says that ‘Congress shall take no action to abridge freedom of speech’ and that’s what you just described.”

Also during the hearing, witness Supramanya said the Canadian government kicked hundreds of Canadians out of their bank accounts when they protested the government over COVID lockdowns in 2021. Supramanya warned that it can and will happen in the United States.

Chairman Jordan underscored her point, noting an incident regarding the investigation of the Jan. 6 riots.

“In the course of our investigation in this committee, on January 15, 2021, the FBI sent to Bank of America: Tell us all your customers purchases in the Washington, D.C., area for a specific date,” Jordan said. “Customers transacting debit cards, credit cards, Washington, D.C., purchases on specific dates in this town. Anyone!

“Whether you were here for the rally or here for any kind of protest, if you were in just visiting your mom. And any purchase going back six months for any purchase of weapons-related vendor purchases. That is frightening stuff.”

It is still unknown if Congress will take any kind of action to deal with allegations of government weaponization and speech suppression.

Republicans have vowed to continue investigations. Jordan announced the Weaponization Subcommittee has subpoenaed Andrew Slavitt and Robert Flaherty for their alleged role in coercing social media to censor posts.