[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again, i want to thank the witnesses for your indulgence and know it's a long day. we really appreciate it. now we were resumed questioning and chair recognizes mr. garcia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. what you think i would insist that a just want to just are not also by just apologizing to eyewitnesses, particularly mr. roth for just the homophobic rant and comets have recently made from the gentlelady from georgia. that was really shameful and i know that we are here to talk about serious issues that were having conversations about grinder and other issues which is not really what this really is about. so apologize to all of our witnesses. one to note come someone you would call a twitter superuser. you social platforms constantly. i communicate regularly. target when does come find it was happening in our culture and i admire what jack dorsey, heavy winds and christopher stone actually tried to build as a company. i wish i could say the same for the platform is today. i think to me and to many other users we've seen the site currently degraded. we've seen mr. musk more interested in attacking journalists and uplifting conspiracy theories that actually running a company. we could all agree just over all the service has substantially degraded i think is an example is the forced -- that a person to like i think most folks don't as well. i want to know more seriously mr. musk and car t was also done damage damages for trust and safety on the platform. he is guided the trust and safety teams have been described, limited management systems and the human rights to which is as we know has ceased to operate. i do want to take a minute to think mr. roth and particularly ms. navaroli, and your teams. i know you are trying to best. i want to thank all the folks who worked at twitter who believe in its mission commission on usher holds true today completed but it of what i know a lot of folks worked on, so thank you for the work. the stakes are medically of actually uplifted those mistakes and issues existed. i especially want to thank you for your work about the pandemic. the pandemic took over 1 million american lives, 1300 in my own city back home, and your decisions and content moderation actually said countless lives in this country. including the work you did on moderating or if any members even of this great -- banding data who peddle eliza were actively causing death and harm to others. so for that work on content moderation i want to thank you. i want to go back to something mr. rothfus said briefly. you mentioned early in the scaring you thought currently the still systemic election interference and interference happening. how cities do think the current threat from russia and other countries is to current election interference? >> i think we can look to the evidence from the midterms to know that these campaigns are ongoing and they are serious. and it's not just russia, iran and china of the other big players. there's not a playbook for our election interference works. and it's unfortunately all too cheap and all too easy for country to try to carry this out. >> so i think it's pretty clear what we learned today when think we've learn which has a been much by the what is their current election the difference happening today i russia and other actors. that is something that is serious, that's what the focus of the student should actually be about versus all of this kind of nonsense and lies and conspiracy theories that this committee is actually focus on today to a what to take the remaining balance of my time and yield to mr. scott aukus you cortez. >> i think the general from california -- ms. ocasio-cortez. >> i want to follow up on a point the opposition and the otr side of the aisle is making, which is trying to insinuate that there's something scandalous or unusual about federal agency outreach to social media platforms and other organizations such as twitter. the insinuations here is that if the fbi and other agencies reaching out to twitter that their something nefarious about this, that this was some sort of partisan weaponization or attempt to intimidate. but we actually have quite a documented history of representatives on the trump administration failing the progress the government made in working with companies like twitter to counter for influence operations and other areas of concern. in early march 2020 right before the super tuesday primary election several top administration officials including mike pompeo, bill barr, chad wolf and acting director of national intelligence richard grinnell issued a statement praising the government cooperation with the private sector to fend off for interference and said that the relationship was quoted stronger than ever. this was around this whole time, where there's this grievance about this. and listen to it dhs secretary chad wolf had to say just weeks before the 2020 presidential election. we now have direct lines of communication with tech and social media companies and election officials so that both parties can seem to take action against false information putting online. i would argue that this information from the trump administration would say that they would support your decision in suspending temporally suspending this disinformation the scenes be coming out from the "new york post." so with that i use back to the chair. >> gentlelady's time. chair recognizes for five at. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. gadde, charlie craig and dan pontine are concerned, to dispute is that a fair characteristic? yes or no would be fine? >> i believe so but i'm not familiar with them. >> okay. the posters behind the show the site up with is not available to users. is that correct? >> it, this appears to be a view of some of our agents but i do not access to that so i'm not very familiar with that. >> well, ms. gadde, the labels identify status have been assigned to these accounts. is that correct? >> i don't know. >> these are your internal things. you are telling me you don't receive these? you don't know what they mean? >> representative, i did not have access to these tools and so i don't know. they look familiar. >> as an executive you did not have access to inside information at twitter? okay. ms. gadde, there's a few words under the verified and acted. can you read the first labels that are verified an active? on the yellow ones. >> notification spikes search blacklist. >> all right thank you. ms. gadde, mr. budd gino has more than 3.5 million twitter followers. is that correct, would you say? >> on second i don't know the answer to that. >> that is great. let's look at mr. kirks account. come get you to read the yellow labels on his accounts? can you see the. >> was on so i can see them from right here. >> all right. do you know that mr. cook has almost 2 million followers? >> i was not aware that. >> okay. let me ask you what is the search blacklist? >> i do not know specifically what that is, that i could make a guess if that would be helpful. >> why don't you make a guess, please? >> we do, when i was at twitter the was an ability to prevent something from appearing in one of the tabs of search result. >> thank you. what does do not amplify mean? >> to the best of my recollection when i was at twitter it would mean that we would not recommend or amplify that content in the part of twitter were twitter was make a recommendation. >> in 2018 you said twitter does not shadow ban. twitter did have been due to what is called visibility filtering. one twitter employed it as a way for us to suppress what people seek to develop ellsberg you agree with that characterization? >> could you please repeat the question? >> i said twitter, okay, they engage in what is called visibility filtering. one twitter employee described visibility filtering as a way for us to suppress what people see the different levels. do you agree with that characterization? >> i agree that visibility filtering does give an ability to -- >> shadow banning is understood that the practice is limiting the visible of the users post without the knowledge. how is visibility filtering any different? >> representative, i believe there are different definitions of shadow banning. >> but you said that twitter n 2018 does not shadow ban. was that a truthful statement? was at a lie? >> at the time i specifically find shadow banning to mean something different than visibility filtering. he also said twitter does not shadow ban based on ideology. you stand by this? >> while i was at twitter to the best of my knowledge we did not do that. >> mr. roth, agenda 22nd, 2017 you tweeted that the actual nazis living in the white house. do you still stand by that comment? yes or no. >> i regret the line which are used. no, do not. >> earlier you said you regretted tweeting that quote actual nazis are living in a white has been however iran's ayatollahs it anti-semitic tweets one stating quote israel is a malignant cancerous tumor that has to be removed and eradicated a yes or no to twitter have been the ayatollahs or remove this hateful anti-semitic tweet? yes or no. >> to the best of my knowledge twitter did not remove that. >> the answer is no. threat to its clear voices are being sought a social media in the mainstream to appreciate this here. i would also suggest we look at holding what one on directx and oan. i give the rest of my time to speak so the user knows when the account has been suspended or blocked, but they don't know when they have some of these goal terms of renter mr. bongino and mr. kerr, is that right, mr. roth? >> as of the time i worked at twitter yes, that is correct. >> so they to know if they're on the don't search on the search blacklist they don't know if there are but do not apple they don't know that? >> that's correct twitter to not disclose it. >> you did that to these two accounts. did you know mr. roth if that was at the prompting of anyone from the government? >> the time of the gentleman has expired but please answer the question. >> no, sir, not aware of any requests or orders or demands of anything from the government requesting that visibility filtering be applied to those accounts or any others. >> the chair recognizes mr. cross for fiber. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what i mean i've been sitting here for over two hours and it still embracing the point of this hearing. is it to solve the problems of the american people who are struggling with? no. we get it, my republican colleagues wish the hunter by the story would help when the 2020s election and that didn't happen. so they're angry about it and that's the point of this hearing. it was actually the foundation of the chairman schiff opening statement is what he brought up that poll on the 21 election. that's what this is all about. i want to say to my colleagues don't worry there still be platforms you can spread disinformation on, parler, true social that of questionable editorial policies but are not here today. there was no collusion as asa witnesses have said under oath. there was no pressuring from the united states government as we have heard under oath. we are wasting our time here bullying former twitter employees. so that way it's calling, so that when you future when they want this information to be put on the internet, social platforms will be scared to call them out down the road. it's called calling the ref. let's talk about the root of this hearing. my republican colleagues would have folks believe the democrats are preparing for some sort of major culture war and there's a difference between a culture war and out culture naturally changes. culture change. some on this committee are very resistant to culture change. yesterday when a member of immigration negatively to change a culture to black and brown folks coming into our country. the reality is that culture changes that adopts and welcomes more people, it becomes more understanding and it also decides to reassess what's acceptable behavior and rhetoric. it could be different now than it was in say the 1950s. in this supposedly culture war they often conflict the right of free speech with the nonexistent right cannot be criticized or held accountable for what you say on on the internet or even in real life. just because it's legal to say something and the government will not throw you in jail doesn't mean the rest of the world and sometimes even your own family have to associate themselves with you or your comments. mr. roth, you helped set up moderation policy. what type of user tweets are more likely to get limited? didn't have to do with racism, sexism, homophobia vilest was you looking for people supporting president trump in limiting the host? >> our policies were built fundamentally to be neutral point neutral. they were looking to things like universal declaration of human rights with a focus on protecting people safety, people's right to free and fair election, people's rights to free speech. and we built concern with those rights into our poster that makes being a decent human being. gotcha. ms. navaroli, earlier you testified about a 2019 tweet that was about president trump i think it was from ms. teagan. what was the tweet about? >> would you like me to give the direct quote? >> yeah. >> please excuse my language. this is a direct quote but chrissy teigen refer to donald trump as a ass bitch. >> free speech. what happened after ms. teagan posted her tweet? what did the white house new? what did the trump widest you? >> from my understanding the white house reached out to ask that this tweet be removed. it was my team's job. this fell underneath policy for abusive behaviors and we evaluated underneath are insults policy at the time up to three insults were allowed and so it's our job to determine how many insults were included within a free. >> so the trump widest reached out not an agency but the white house reached out and requested that you remove the tweet? >> from my understanding, yes. >> mr. roth jamaican a serious problem with foreign interference in our elections. did you see the mass interference work more in support of right-wing candidates like president trump in 2016 or president biden in 2020? >> thank you for the question. it's an important one at a don't think there is a clear or easy answer to this we so russian operatives playing both sides and often playing them against each other. one of those enraging interactions that my team saw were accounts operated out of the same russian control farm arguing with each other and they were manufacturing drama both undemocratic sides and on the republic speed is still a huge issue. >> absolutely. >> there you have it. there's issues of big tech, their serious issues we need to litigate. hunter biden's laptop is not one of the. like many of my colleagues have said we get to talk about these issues, how january 6th maybe could've been prevented if twitter had taken action due to the hateful speech. and how we have foreign interference in our elections. why are folks on this committee so obsessed with twitter editorial decision on hunter biden's laptop? would they hold the same hearings of ethical decision of fox news and newsmax? free speech is about the government limiting speech around, about the public. ron the sad to see that net. either danger in my district that is revoking the liquor license of try to close because they had a drag show. we have teachers were not able to teach the curriculum they want because they disagree with the ron desantis and his view of the world. that is limiting free speech and i would love to see this committee bring in some of these governors who are abusing their power by governor desantis in my state of florida to limit the free speech of people. ideal expert that shared a recognizes mr. gosar for five answer thank you, mr. chairman for this important hearing. thank you for a witness for appearing as well. i want to be clear. despite claims and witness testimony government cannot deputize the private sector for actions that would be otherwise be restricted by the constitution. in this case the censorship of lawful speech. now i want to direct you to a tweet over my shoulder said by president trump on october 5, 2020, before twitter banned him from the platform. this is after president trump had become infected with covid. it reads -- it says in part don't be afraid of covid. don't let it dominant your life, end of quote. do you see that, mr. roth? >> yes, sir ideal. >> -- i do. >> and i will have you received enough from james baker twitter reproduced behind as well saying quote, what is in this potus tweet a violation of our covid-19 policy, especially the don't be afraid covid statement, it difficult isn't that correct mr. roth. >> yes, i believe that is the email to split. >> mr. baker, was it your interest in covid-19 policy with people should be afraid of covid? >> sir, my recollection -- >> yes or no. >> could you repeat the question, sir. >> was was it your understanding that twitter's covid-19 policy was quote people should be afraid of covid? >> at that point in time i did not fully understand what twitter's covid misinformation policy was and so i was trying to -- >> reclaiming my type or maybe you thought the policy was issued dominant people's lives. is that what you thought. >> i'm sorry. i'm having a hard time hearing to. >> so is it the fact that twitter, don't let it dominant people's lives come is at the problem, the tweet? >> i didn't at that point, did that understand full, is relatively new at twitter and i was trying to understand what the policy was and, therefore, speed is i did would ask you, would you go to medical school? >> i beg your pardon? >> what you go to medical school. >> was i did not go to medical school. >> i liked of a yes or no from each of the witnesses. did you or others to make it with government officials by means of disappearing messaging systems like signal snapchat or wicker? yes or no. >> have every committed with the government official using those? >> yes or no. >> i don't recall. >> ms. gadde. >> not to the best of my recollection. >> mr. roth. >> yes. >> ms. navaroli. >> not to my recollection. >> again did others allow criminal activity or content whose distribution is criminal to proceed on twitter, mr. baker? >> i don't understand the question. >> ms. gadde,. >> can you please repeat the question. >> mr. roth? >> if i understood the question correctly as whether we received a request to a unlawful the answer is no. >> ms. navaroli,. >> not to my knowledge i would like to summit for the record an article by the "new york post" titled quote twitter refused for the child because it didn't violate policies. ms. gadde, who is involved in this determination? >> i'm not familiar with the situation. >> mr. roth, are you familiar? >> no, sir, i'm not. >> i would like a yes or no from each of the witnesses. did you apply labels to use with an administered tool to down rank them, mr. baker? >> i'm sorry i'm having a very hard time hearing your questions. >> ms. gadde. >> i'm having the same problem. could you please repeat the question? >> mr. roth. >> i'm not sure i understood the question. >> well, i'm asking you did anybody use an administrative tool to down rank users. >> yes, sir, that the part of twitter's content moderation capabilities. >> mr. baker? >> i would like on mr. roth. >> ms. gadde pgh yes we are very public about our -- >> today's would not only free speech but even people's good-faith inquiries and research regarding their own health. increasingly mikan searches go to engage in civic discourse. our liberties to be diminished if we do not recognize our speech is increasingly virtual and right now subject to hostility and threat of bands and the platform. the suggestions that all of the removal of quote lawful but often speech quote was done in favor of users is bunk. could provide a a content filr option to allow lawful speech letting users decide what lawful materials they do or don't want to engage with. but you didn't. you centered and manipulate millions of people here do not allow people like this sitting in front of us today to be arbiters of truth. i urge my colleagues to support by section 230 reform stop the censorship act which empowers users with the editorial contract of private businesses. uis have a contract with your customers. allow them to pick. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes -- >> thank you, mr. chairman here and i want to say as a former history teacher i care a lot about the facts and the details, so let's dive in. on december 4th, then ranking member comer appeared on fox news and alleged that what elon musk twitter files showed was quote evidence that the biden campaign colluded with big tech to suppress a a story that wew know is 100% true, unquote. that is simply not true. it is not true based on what we knew then here it is not true based on what we know now. mr. roth, in a declaration to the fec in december 2020 you stayed quote i did not receive any communications from or have had any communications with representatives of biden for president, the democratic national committee, , or any of their agent regarding the "new york post" articles he for twitter implemented enforcement actions on october 14, 2020, unquote. mr. roth, , do you stand by that statement? >> yes, absolutely. >> it's also worth noting that your colleague told the fec the same thing. ms. gadde, did anyone from the biden campaign or the democratic national committee direct twitter to remove or take action against the "new york post" story? >> no. >> mr. baker, same question to you, please. >> not to my knowledge, no. >> the evidence is clear. neither the biden campaign nor the dnc had anything to do with twitter's a decision-making at the near post story. my republican colleagues are using what are otherwise an oculus e-mails to suggest that there were somehow collusion between twitter and the biden campaign. for example,, in one email, and this is the same one mentioned in mr. donalds questioning earlier. when email selectively use by elon musk, went to executive since another a series of hyperlinks. and october 24, 20202020 with the comet quote more to review from the biden team. for the record, this is tweet number eight and a first installment of the so-called twitter files. so ms. gadde, are you familiar with this e-mail? >> no, i'm not. >> okay. so just to be clear this email l has nothing to do with the "new york post" story. it is dated october 24, 2020 after twitter have both made and reversed its decision about the "new york post" story. mr. baker, do i have that right? >> based on a think exhibit he shown earlier that sound correct, yes. >> so ms. gadde, can you clarify for the record if you're able to what's happening here? >> can you please be more specific about -- >> with this e-mail. >> i don't believe i was a recipient of that email or reviewed it during my time at twitter some sort i don't have a millionaire with a. >> that's okay. mr. baker? >> to the best of my understanding these were tweets that the campaign had concerns about. i don't know the details of those, and they were referred to twitter as, well, i'm not sure exactly why. i can't get inside their heads but the referred to twitter and twitter reviewed them and somewhat again going off the exhibit from earlier said they were handled. i don't know what that means engines whether they took any action or did taking action but at least they addressed the matter. >> thank you. appreciate that. from edison ever living we have heard today, it's really not uncommon for outside entities, including as we've heard mr. trump campaign, to request at twitter remove content that violates the companies terms of service. is that correct, ms. gadde? >> very common globally. >> thank you. so to the best of your ability to angie, ms. gadde, were any decision approved or acted upon based on the political party making the request? >> no. our teams were trained to enforce the rules consistend fairly without regard to any sort of political ideology. >> thank you. so i believe that what's happening here is my republican colleagues know that the premise of this whole hearing is misleading. there is no evidence that the biden campaign had anything to do with the hunter biden "new york post" story. and the evidence we do have simply shows that the biden campaign did what the trump campaign and millions of twitter users do routinely, flag content and ask twitter conduct its own review to determine whether it violates twitter's own rules and policies. i yield back. >> lady yields. chair recognizes mr. palmer for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to a june 22 study conducted by princeton university called powered by twitter come the taliban stake over of afghanistan. >> without objection, so ordered. this study covered the timeframe of april to september 2021 which is four to five months between present lines official announcement of america's attentions to withdraw and the chaotic end of the american troop presence in afghanistan. the study found the taliban weaponized twitter and that twitter's moderation policies failed. there were more than 126,000 accounts and the taliban support network and 83% of his taliban associated accounts were created before 2021, well before twitter could claim that these accounts represented by government. these accounts shared graphic images and videos depicting dead and decomposing bodies and rapidly spread disinformation about the facts on the ground in direct violation of twitter's public policies. taliban tweets were shared millions of times in the summer of 2020. the study found three-quarters of taliban content was produced by only 20 accounts, which suggests to me that moderation effort would have been relatively straightforward. by the way, u.s. government classifies the taliban as an insurgent group, in case some of my colleagues don't understand what real insurgencies are. mr. roth, why wasn't twitter more effective at curtailing the clear-cut content violations by taliban twitter account? >> thank you for the question, sir. the time you reference i wasn't responsible for twitter's work on counterterrorism. >> do you have any idea why twitter would allow violations by an insurgent group? and by the way they carried out multiple suicide attacks during the timeframe they were sending out these tweets, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. >> it's my understanding that twitter's policy at the time distinguished between somewhat more violent portion of the taliban and some of the more lyrical portions of it -- >> that stuff is still up on twitter and i just wonder how many content moderators were assigned, if any, to check on these accounts. additionally it appears twitter was profiting from taliban presence on the platform in the lead up to the overthrow of the afghan government. twitter place and some use copies including amazon, dizzy, mcdonald's, and on twitter account of the taliban news organization and the spokespersons and senior leaders. ms. gadde, did twitter make money, place ads on taliban twitter accounts on august 26, 2021? 113 u.s. men and women died in a suicide bombing. >> i have no knowledge of this matter. >> you don't have any knowledge about whether or not these ads were up? >> i do not. >> according to twitter the decision to ban president trump is after a close review of his tweets in the context aroundweal be three minutes again. >> thank you, mr. chairman, let's chair this again. according to twitter, the choice to ban president trump according to to his tweets and context around them is specifically how they're being we'ved on and off twitter. on june 3, 2013, he tweeted israel is a malignant cancerous tumor and needs eradicated. it's possible and it'll happen. this tweet remains on twitter to this day. mr. roth, how do you believe this tweet from the leader of iran calling for eradication from israel was received and interpreted on and-off twitter? >> i couldn't say for sure how that tweet was interpreted. >> you'd have a good idea how many re-tweets and amount of traffic it got? >> only from what i can see in that illustration. >> why does the iranian leader that explicitly pledged to eradicate the jewish state of israel get to remain on twitter? mr. roth? >> like all twitter users, he's subject to the same set of rules and i can't speak for twitter's decision today, i can say that twitter took a number of enforcement actions against the act same way we would against -- >> that's still up. you understand how hardship critical this is -- hypocritical it is; right? you banned a sitting president and a sitting member of congress, marjorie taylor green, and then this man can openly call for the murder of millions of jewish people and he remains on twitter. understand how that looks and how hypocritical that is? i'm asking. mr. baker, mr. roth, ms. navaro, it's amazing and shows the hypocrisy of twitter. there was a very troubling statement made that his vice president joe biden fired the attorney general of ukraine. since he had knowledge to this prior to coming to congress. he should provide to the committee document take about this action and we should know who authorized by president biden to take this action against the ukrainian attorney general. we didn't know, was there an investigation to justify the firing of the ukrainian attorney general and if yes, who conducting it? he needs to provide all details involving this action including vice president biden's threat to withhold $1 billion of u.s. funding if the ag was not fired and who authorized vice president biden to make that threat. i would request the committee look into this and i yield back. >> chair recognizes miss lee for five lins. >> thank you, mr. chairman, this has been an incredible electric hearing. it would be funny if it weren't real life. colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to be victim so very badly but if i understand correctly, public criticism and allegations of anti-conservative bias are actually making twitter and other social media companies less willing to enforce their own policies against political conservatives; correct? >> yes, that was my understanding based on research that was done in twitter. >> meaning the same republican insisting on making themselves a victim is working? >> repeat the question? >> the same republicans, folks on the stand who insist on making themselves victims in the conversation about twitter's censorship and accusations they've made is working because of the conservative bias and the implications of it. >> the allegations of conservative bias. >> in other words, the allegations of conservative bias making it harder for those in twitter, those working there to enforce these policies against those who insight hate speech or make -- >> thank you for repeating that question and asking it. these allegations very much have an impact on the leadership within every social media company as they hope to not receive allegations of being boyed or any way being politically one sided. >> thank you. i'm not the only lawyer in the room and while the constitution does provide us the right to free speech, there are of course limitations as she pointed out, we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. compromising freedom of speech may seem dangerous till we weigh that compromise against the men and women like the massacre in buffalo or other place where@ radicalized extremism is found on social media. it's not about oppression but public safety. it's not october censorship but protecting our democracy from terrorism. could you describe the coded insightment to violence policy they did not enforce. >> yeah, it was incredibly long policy that was created in order to fill the gap that were existing and we already existing policies around violence. the policies around violence were explicit so these were calls that said i'm going to -- i want to, i plan to, i wish to. those sorts of insightments would have come down. thing -- incitements like stand back or stand by and things like i'm locked and loaded for a civil war and dog whistles were not uncovering the poll schism >> thank you. save lives implemented on january 5, 2021 or possible in november of 2020. >> i can't speculate as to what might have happened and i wish we would have accounted. >> thank you miss gadi, the same words were shouted at january 6 insurrection. what is it that elon musk had to remove all guardrails and welcome back donald trump to the platform? >> thank you for the question. i'm actually not really familiar with what the content moderation policies of twitter are today. >> thank you. social media platforms like twitter must own up to its violence and members of the panel and institution. thank you, i yield the balance of my time to miss bracken. >> thank you very much. i want to go back to the whole question of your finding of hundred of thousands of fake accounts set up by vladamir putin and russian internet research agency they called it, which was the prop began propag6 and as opposed to this day. some have been suggesting on the other side of the aisle illegitimate for the fbi or any representative of the federal government presumably even donald trump that did a lot of that to contact private media entities in order to apprise them of anything whether it might be the penetration of organized crime or child pornography or influence and would you give us a sense of how much work is being done and the other national security agencies. synergy home thank you for the question. there was a considerable amount of work to address foreign disinformation at twitter and also at other companies and this work was reliant in part on shared by companies and that work is essential. at twitter we had dozens of people working on those questions and they no longer exist under mr. moss. >> you testified you were working hard to keep foreign troll farms from using twitter and engage in align in foreign interferes and sounds like a robust undertaking from 2016-2020 and had different teams stood up to do this and constant vigilance? >> yes, sir, that was the phrase we used. these types of attempts are evolving and trying to find new ways to penetrate your system and find new ways to engage on it and willing to adapt on a constant basis? >> yes, sir, that's right. >> going to 2020 and earlier you testified you were having regular interactions and national intelligence, homeland security and fbi. primarily to deal with foreign interference? >> primarily but -- >> you said earlier your contact with agent shank was primarily with foreign interference? >> yes, that's right. these were e-mails. were they meetings? >> yes, twitter met quarterly with the fbi foreign interference task course and we had those meetings running for a number of years to share information about foreign entire ferns. >> agencies from homeland security or primarily fbi. >> those quarterly meetings they were i believe exclusively with fbi personnel. >> multiple fbi agents on the payroll. is there ten years experience with fbi doj? >> it was two decades but never was an fbi agent. >> your response to mr. fry earlier and would not categorize the fbi communications as pressure. >> no, i would not. however twitter's director of policy wrote to you that twitter sustain and effort by the intention community to push twitter and should keep a solid front against the efforts and he specifically cited elvis chain an fbi agent in san francisco and august 11, 2020 agent chan sent you three documents in preparation for a meeting and said the documents pertained to apt28 and a hacking with russian intelligence and security clearance for mr. baker and the fbi to share information with twitter employees and on octobed this feel as lot like somewhat of a subtle leak operation. earlier today you testified that you were following national experts on twitter, national security experts on twitter as a reason to take down the new york post story on hunter biden's laptop. >> y i did. >> after 2016, you set up all these teams to deal with russian interference, foreign interference, having regular meetings with the fbi, you have connection withs all of these different government agencies and you didn't reach out to them once? >> that question in reference to the day of the new york post article? >> yes yes. >> that's right. we generally did not reach out to the fbi to consult on content moderation decision and especially when related to domestic activity. not that we wouldn't have like that had information. we would have but i don't believe it would a been appropriate to consult with the fbi. >> in december of 2020, you did a communication that the intelligence community expect add leak and hack operation involving hunter biden. mark subbinger berg confirmed the f -- zuckerberg warned there was language specific enough to fit the hunter laptop biden security story. they've told you in october there's going be a leak potentially involving hunter biden's laptop and legitimately and politically profit sized what happened. you didn't copy any of them? >> no, sir, i did not. >> did they reach out to you? >> on or around the date to the best of my recollection, they did not. >> you did it and personally agreed with it and you then, did you contact them and say, is this what you're talking about? >> if that was directed to me, no, i did not. >> did you talk to anybody from the fbi? >> not to the best of my recollection? >> constant communication and set up for foreign interference and warned you about this specific thing and all the sunday everybody just walks away? this is what you plan for and prepared for and this is the information and told you what was going to happen and you watch -- i'm here with members of congress and you legitimately want the people to believe you cut off contact with the people you were supposed to defend against. i yield back. >> i'm honored to be a new member of congress where our purpose is to listen to the people and represent their voices and lift up our communities. after talking to thousands of people across texas asking them what do you want me to work on for you as a new member of congress? not a single person told me they were concerned about a new york post story on twitter about hunter biden. is that really what we're dedicating in committee's time to and the next two years? our constituents of all political backgrounds are worried they're getting pushed out of their neighborhoods by spiking housing costs and public schools are suffering because we're not supporting our teachers and my state our rural home gameses are closing and we're talking about none of that seems that we're having these hearings so people can beat their chest about hunter bide and do fundraising and get headlines and ironically post those on twitter. if that's what house republicans want to spend their time on, that's their prerogative. but to me it's a damn shame. we're here for a bigger purpose than that. under the leadership of the legendary chairman jack brooks from texas, this committee implemented the great society through the creation of head start and the creation of medicare. they investigated water gate and built the u.s. space program and anything is possible if we come together to work on constituents demand and say to our constituents your voice matters here . we could be ensuring that the historic investments in infrastructure and domestic manufacturing create good union jobs where we need them the most and take on free speech and civil liberties issues at home and across the world and we're focusing today on twitter, the american people deserve better. i yield my time. >> there were -- there was this powerful, massive campaign unleashed by a malign foreign actor interested in underlining a american knock seizure disorders with a specific electoral objective; right? did you find that? would you try to create chaos or put thumb on the scale with the intervention for either hillary clinton or donald trump? >> all right, some people are suggesting that if the u.s. government finds out about a malign foreign influence, disinformation or propaganda campaign in our election at any level, the government shouldn't say anything to the public or news media about it. what do you think about that proposition? >> do you agree with that? >>ives not working at the time but i paid attention to the media. >> were you struck by any resemblances between what happened in brazil and here on january 6? >> yes, it was the same play book played on january 6 in which the ruling party claimed that an election was stolen and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if there was ever a time where the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth, we lost the united states. twitter has become a virtual town square and has the power to transform public opinion like no other medium in public history with at gather rhythms, shape -- algorithms and shaping and molding and to the best of your knowledge, what other colleagues working at twitter presented in 2020. >> i don't know, sir. >> they gave to canned dates in the 2020 election cycle. numbers went up in 99.7% and clearly twitter as a whole had a political body an hype hyperbolic. >> your political opinion spilled over into censorship working at twitter and that's the consequence and you don't want the public to see. namely what we're seeing is the hunter biden laptop story and the laptop story. the immediacy with what is censoring the new york post and hunter biden story and the story was seismic and it was to be suppressed knowing full well it was said. it was truth that was denied and the new york post story. president trump lost key states, georgia, pennsylvania, arizona, it was wisconsin and 400,000 votes. >> going on the new york post about that. >> going to the overseas business dealing and mexican business associates and alaska and photograph and the white house and in october of 2015 hunter arrange add video conference with his dad. and joe bind the vice president and carla slim, the mexican billionaire and unbelievably in 2015 hunter introduced his father then vice president to the execstive of now infamous receiving holding company and makes no sense of the energy sector. joe biden created the fire wall and was exposed because of this story and other information. he lied to the american people and, mr. roth, you held onto investigation the eve of the election and then protect that had lie. men lickly to do those things, men and women, never get to put in such power, divisions of power again and mr. chairman, i'd like to see if -- i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record from ranking member raskin, it's horrifying to see images of border agents whipping immigrants at the border. >> objection. >> so orders. >> thank you. >> >> that's misinformation and twitter leaked it for a full year. >> i yield. mr. baker, in top of page 2 in your written testimony, you said i did not destroy or improperly suppress a document at twitter regarding information important to the public dialogue. the way you word that had sounds like there's -- >> sir, how much extra time do they get during this hearing? >> i'll repeat the question and his time will be expired. >> it's up to the chairman so why don't you let him answer. >> mr. chairman baker, on page 2 of your written testimony, i did not destroy or improperly suppress information important to the public dialogue and the use of term improperly suggests there was some kind of suppression in an improper way. i want to know what that was and is this referring to your work at twitter when the twitter files were first released just a few months ago? >> unfortunately, sir, i think i'm constrained from answering this question anymore fully than in my testimony because of attorney/client privilege. unfortunately i have to leave it at that. not the privilege, not the privilege but the non-disclosure agreement my understanding has been waived but not the privilege. >> time expired. >> i don't have anything in writing to indicate twitter waived jig with respect to that matter. >> chair recognizes mrs. crockett. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad that we have seemingly intercepted that joe biden won the election even though now we're blaming president trump lost on twitter. can we finally let it go? this is why democrats are re-ening that in this hear -- reinforcings in this hearing we should be talking about the threats to democracy and not the older role for the platform to disparage the twice impeached president that lost a fair i election. as a texan that served in the house and fled the state as maga republicans there pushed an agenda as insidious as foreign interference we experienced in the 2016 election, we should be talking about what they don't want to talk about as they continue to cut you off as you try to talk about things such as interfering with our democracy and how there has been inciting of political violence against individuals as well as our democracy as a whole. we are supposed to live in the land of the free and when some people are afraid of losing power, they engage in conspiracy theories and distractions such as the joe bind, a candidate at the time, not government actor at the time, colluded with social media to win. let me say thank you for showing up for this political theater. unfortunately the american people deserve better of it is leader. they deserve a robust conversation around the very real and very present threat to our democracy, the greatest in this world. with that being said, let me be clear, i believe that there has been testimony previously by ms. i hope i'm not killing your name. at some point you stated on january 6 or anything like it, that language, if we would have seen that happen in any other country, with any other leader, twitter would have acted completely differently. .... from another deposition there were actual alarms that would go off if someone would access trumps twitter other than i believe that ceo >> it was my understanding alarms with rain in the house was access outside of a select group of individuals that have access to. >> are you aware of this being on going practice or other individual house ? >> might i ask where is was the only one i did not access to. >> we individual actors running around twitter @alarms every day. >> not to my knowledge, no. >> as the one on january 6 because that the only thing we should be, what i want to is did you see a correlation between a rise in homegrown domestic what's the online as it relates to leading up to january 6? >> i can answer. things we were seeing on twitter really likes you see fan fiction i mentioned earlier in my we saw people wishing that they ruled with her how in the diaries wax is and session. >> you will agree once the process and activated action against our democracy at home by some of the activity going on on twitter. >> yes i believe so. >> just to make sure we can memorize what we are here to talk about , you always agreement me when i say was no physical damage or discussion pictures life as relates to this article you need to know actual harm physical harm is a result of january 6. >> yes, people died on january 6. >> with that i will yield. >>. >> i'm using a second to submit extraordinary article where twitter entire database will class to censor posts on february. so for everybody's reading, the it was biased against conservatives by his rulesand progresses . >> the share recognizes mister crossman. >> just to, when the pledge of allegiance, to the republic for which we stand george management asked about our constitution he said we will give you isyou can see it . this is a story for you on the left here. the christian magazine tweeted about presidents allots that doctor rachel levine assistant secretary of health is transgender will. this was banned from twitter, are you familiar with this story? >> i'm not familiar. >> do you have a reason why it was banned? okay. there are a local talk radio hosts in area, the madison the lucky green day media market widely listened to. they were shadow banned on twitter. there's comments doctor's area that didn't agree with everything that cdc or nih said that were banned on twitter i like using comments because they normally people make a major health decision is to get some of these doctors who were widely held his, probably to open doctors in wisconsin not outside the mainstream thinking outside the mainstream they were taken off your platform. can you comment on why you take something off the platform or like a distinguished doctor would be considered something the public as a whole are their version of events? you're not aware that ever any of these doctors who is outside the mainstream version of what was going on with covid vaccine, don't that there were people who disagree with the nations and off for that? i don't know okay. i'll yield some time to representative jordan. >> miss baker, mister off earlier said he was a waste of time for the fbi recently violated twitters terms of service triggers policy i was curious and elsewhere executives were fbi agents is that the fbi had no interest in the polishing policy. >> sir, again you the same as i did before. i was getting ready hundred and 35. >> mister better although use today you know attorney client privilege to avoid answering this question is on all three clients. asked canadian. >> is into question i asked you to answer some i will answer all in one. the two of you said quote, destroy or improperly suppress any documents or information important to public dialogue. i want to know what you're referring to in your mind properly suppressed and placed his place that the files were being released, once it got there. >> answer, as i think we productivity and have this conversation with twitter as well to try to resolve this issue prior to coming here today i be in writing and my responsibilities my former client with respect to answering questions fall squarely within attorney client privilege so i will be on what is already. >> your position that the three i is overruled as this particular question and answer period will you please answer thequestion ? >> point of it, this went to the january 6 anywhere several witnesses asserted attorney-client privilege including people who weren't covered by it at all. i don't think there's anythingwe can do at this point . >> we will give you one more chance to answer the question if you don't answer it we will have to deal with it after the committee . >> i apologize but i believei have ethical responsibility to my former client and i don't think i can go beyond what i said already . i just said that. mister baker, you did suppressed documents than that in your language were important to the public by law? i'm going to give you an extra minute. >> could you repeat the question? >> so you did suppressed documents at twitter regarding information that was important to the public dialogue. that's a yes, sir number i'm going to answer the question with the following sentence which is right after that all times i strive to help my clients comply with their legal obligations. >> the gentleman time is expired, i recognize mister bowman for six minutes . >> i understand that mister palmer was asking about some of my assertions about the removal of the ukrainian prosecutor general. first to the say vice president biden fired again, it was official european policy to encourage ukraine to fire him and they did but he is right about one. what i say is not evidence. and neither is what any of our republican colleagues say on the other side of the aisle. they may not like what these witnesses say that the testimony of the witnesses is the evidence, not faceless about first-hand knowledge but i urge mister bonner if he wants to understand what happened to read the 300 page report that we published on the first piece of investigation. there's a lot in there about mister show get luckily though he doesn't even need to do that, you can read the new york post story itself because in that story, shook and admitted that he never opened an investigation into boersma. he claims to have had specific plans to do so. for two years, rudy giuliani has been peddling victor shokin's focus story with the russian intelligence. if you're stating that i urge you to look up andre soap who was this sole source of the hard drive to the new york post? rudy giuliani. and for these reasons many journalists were highly skeptical. one reporter at the new york post itself refused to put the name in the story. talk fox news as brett baer said the whole thing is sketchy. and both giuliani and he refused to give the laptop to other journalists. to verify and analyze and in fact giuliani told the new york times that he hoped it would be published before it could be verified. so what is this so-called authentication for this laptop? chairman colbert said it's the computer repair shop owner which happened over about a year before the new york post story. but that is not the same hard drive that rudy giuliani received months later from that repair shop owner and passed along to the new york post after he was in possession of it for several months. now mister baker, based on your understanding of russian malign influence, does russian intelligence have the capacity tomanipulate a hard drive ? so it is possible some of the materials on a hard drive were authentic and some could be altered, manipulated or even added to the hard drive. is that right? >> i believe so yes. >> you have testified today that twitter was keenly aware of the packing efforts by russia in connection with the 2016 election. >> yes sir. >> those efforts i believe you said and correct me if i'm wrong by russian intelligence to interfere in our electoral process continued up and through and including the 20/20 election, am i right ? >> the russian efforts continued through the election and even through the midterms. i couldn't say specifically if it was military intelligence as was the case in 2016 but certainly the russian government was involved. >> let's run down what twitter knew about this hard drive in the story once it was published. first, the sole source of the hard drive was rudy giuliani who had working with russian intelligence agents about 2020. second, russian intelligence interfere in the election and were trying to do it again for numerous journalists including the new york post fox news raised suspicions about the hard drive and refused to allow an independent analysis and verification of it. mister baker, based on your experience in law enforcement did this to get anyone concerned about russian interference serious paths? >> i think as reflected in the public record, at the time i thought there were great concerns on that side of the equation because in part with respect to all the things that had happened between 2016 with respect to that pack and leak there were facts that indicated the computer might have been abandoned and so on which made it a difficult case which is why we're sitting here today talking about it. >> there was a 24 hour delay in continuing to spreadthe publication, and i write ? that is exactly what 51 former intelligence officials, many from republican administrations and the trump administration said in that letter that is being distorted by mister jordan and others in this hearing . i'm going to quote one paragraph. we emphasized we do not know if the emails provided to the new york post by president trumps personal attorney are genuine or not and we do not have evidence of russian involvement . just our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government play a significant role in this case and like special counsel mueller concluded about the trump campaign in 2022, wanted to welcome russian interference. all of you sitting here for correct to the highly concerned about the legitimacy of this. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mister higgins. >> i will be yielding some time to my colleague mister jordan heremomentarily . but for the record mister baker and miss gadde, are you here under the advice of counsel and do you have council president present? >> yes. >> yes i do. >> yes i was subpoenaed. >> i'm glad you have council president. or the submission for the record i like to present the twitter files dated december 8 by the new york post regarding the suppression of conservative commentators. >> without objection, so order. >> thank you. i'd like to submit a record for the timeline of from cited sources outlining strong evidence of the by and family organized criminal action to conservatives indicate prost crossed the threshold of reasonable submission. like this online and timeline in my hand. i'll get to you shortly. bottom line is the fbi had the biden crime family laptop for a year. they knew it was leaking, the biden campaign so the fbi use this relationship with twitter to suppress the evidence being revealed about joe one month before the election. you do a usa's presidential election knowingly and. that is worse because this is the investigation part. we will come to the arrest far. your attorneys are here with that chair to spend five hours with these ladies in general and in depositions yet to come but for now i yield the lines of my time to my colleague mister. >> i appreciate my colleague for you i will respond to our company from new york, was real was the fbi. or maybe they had it for a year, at the anyone knew was real is. as last question began to my colleague from new york, i asked earlier if anyone at the fbi or mister know that mister maher and others that you are in visuals say is a classic your russian this information operation. the fbi the fbi had the actual laptop in their possession. i appreciated in louisiana. i want to come back to something we had to the legal service understands the short of suspending and blocking with the user that does it because it is a way that you did this greene but this do not search list on my some kind of the user to know earlier was there of this disability was hardcoded by their employees into the users? you said you as a for a while and said you will use the term hardcoded but it seems something went on, lowering? >> thank you for the question. where the only princess recorded this letter while applying labels to user so in that sense the application illegal is what you meant by our, as is seldom the case where staff will manually individually and apply those labelsdirectly . >> any government officials, were those labels and that therefore that filtering, and elected officials that where the user wouldknow about it ? >> i don't knows her. i didn't have access to my twitter computer, to any twitter systems to answerthat question . >> in your experience do you know if that happened ? >> it would not surprise me to know disability filtering labels and that the account of elected official. >> labels applied user doesn't. >> so it's not twitter's practice to notify users. >> so you think that elected officials and government officials. >> i couldn't i yield back. >> the chairman recognizes the senator for five minutes. >> it's been a long morning and afternoon and at this point in time there's an adage that says everything that can be said has been said except that not everyone has said it so if you'll indulge me i'd like to reflect on observations having sat here and gone through this and i'm hoping and praying that this is not a problem in search of a solution. we're dedicating an awful amount of time here and i don't want a few things to escape us but i want to first associate myself with the remarks of mister raskin, his opening remarks encapsulated and put in place what many of us on this side of the aisle are feeling and i also want as a point of personal privilege express many of us share the concern of the gentlewoman from carolina who indicated ongoing medical condition. she says she might have to live with the rest of her life. that just got me for a moment and i wanted to make sure that that's on the record. i would disassociate myself with her remarks when she said as the gentlewoman from georgia, god bless elon musk. for me it's god bless my friends, mister must can take care of himself. i would also caution if i might all of us but particularly the gentleman from south carolina who said earlier that there is proof hunter biden committed multiple felonies. the gentleman said that without offering anything for the record and i know we are all covered by congressional immunity in terms of when we're on the floor and in these committees but sometimes we don't want to feed into hot rhetoric. we campaign in that kind of poetry but we are elected to cover and when you do that there's a different sense of responsibility . mister ross, i listened to you and i feel bad that you were attacked and you had to sell your home. you had to move your family and i just want to remind you and remind myself that there are members of this committee who are also always under attack because of their race or because of their surname or because of their political affiliation. that kind of reckless insight and i think is best dealt with when you have content moderation. otherwise we general the rhetoric, the people who can't control themselves often times don't and we see violence. it's whether it's members of congress or persons like yourself in the private sector. you in your testimony stated that on the morning of january 6 you sent lawyers a message warning them that your team was hamstrung by leadership. and two days later when it looked like that might happen again last management whether or not they wanted more blood on their hands. what was their response and what did they do best and mark. >> thank you for that question. on the morning of january 6 i sent a message to twitter's lawyers because i believe twitter was going to be facing liability for what was going to occur that day . i do not remember their exact response but i do remember their response confirming the information had been received . which you repeat the second question you asked? >> i wanted to know what did they do? >> nothing. >> you went on to say in january 2020 after the united states assassinated an iranian general that the president at the time mister trump decided to justify it on twitter and management literally instructed you to make sure that we were not about to start world war iii on that platform, is that correct? and what happened after that? >> it was up to me and my team to create what we called enforcement guidance so a document that explains how we would apply our policy is typically related to content moderation in that instance. i believe the document was related to foreign-policy disclosure. >> my point about content moderation on the front and represents some of the crazy things we see on the back and read mister chairman i have from the anti-defamation league their latest report on murder and extremism in the united states often times fueled by the lack of content moderation and i would ask unanimous consent it be entered into the record and i also have the national threat assessment done by the secret service of our country. this was just released and it talks about how 25 percent of all of these acts are being conducted by people who are not moderated but in fact and up breaking the law and threatening the lives of people and i would ask unanimous consent. >> without objection so ordered. >> the chair recognizes mister sessions. >> i will say it, god bless elon musk because i think it was elon musk that revealed data that uncovered a disturbing ball. let's be clear, we're here today because twitter got caught. not because people want to admit state mistakes got made or perhaps because they got a lot. if not for the twitter files released by mister elon musk, this activity are discussing today would still be going on . it's no secret that the political bias of twitter and their previous leadership bled into politics and merged that with practices of the company and that is a big concern. but a bigger concern is where our government is on a political basis by law enforcement becomes engaged in things that in a time line would show were not truthful. that's the concern. the fact that twitter was working hand in glove with the federal bureau of investigation and intelligence community to suppress free speech and things that were not true is disturbing. that is why we are here today. so mister roth, i would engage you if i could for a minute and i want to complement all four of you. you've been here all day. this is hard to do. you've kept your cool to the best of your ability your expressing honesty. iadmire that . mister roth, can you please tell me about the meetings with the fbi, how many, where did they takeplace , how did they accomplish what they wanted? >> thank you for the question. twitter that with the fbi i would estimate several thousand times over the course of multiple years. these meetings happened in person and in the offices of other technology companies and at times they happened virtually. we issued press releases about these meetings, they were not happening in secret . many think that the public sector or the private sector stroke to hide from anybody but in these meetings , we used it as an opportunity to discuss the shared of foreign line interference and discuss preparation the public and private sector were implementing and use that as an opportunity to make sure thatwe were having open channels of communication about those malign interferences . >> did you at any time believe the bureau but not be honest about the things and information that they shared and passed to you? >> i say i have a personal healthy skepticism about any type of law enforcement but it was never my experience that representatives of the fbi were anything but forthright in this discussion . >> do you believe they in looking back misled you? >> i don't believe so. >> so you believe the things they told you in looking back are truthfuleven today ? >> to the best of my recollection, yes. >> so the chance for fbi numerous times, dozens of times to speak with you, did you put out information on the substance when you said you provided the public with information, did you discuss what those meetings were about? >> i believe the public statements were very fairly high level and stop preparation for upcoming elections in the unitedstates . internal records the online twitter computer access to. >> does that reside to the best of your knowledge currently twitter ? >> yes sir, i returned all twitter property to the company. >> so you believe the bureau met with you and they did not mislead you, that you were as forthright as you could be to the public that you were playing the role that you felt was responsible. is that your testimonytoday ? >> yes sir it is. >> mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and three. yes, i'm sorry. you mister chairman. i'm beginning to, i'm beginning to feel a little bad. i just feel guilty because you guys have come today to try to prove that the biden administration and organization with twitter is imputing free speech and the problem is that donald trump, he is just this thing that hangs around your neck because it every turn he undermines whatever credibility you want to have on this subject. i mean, donald trump in his administration it's been proven reached out to twitter to take down tweets that got under his skin, the top guy donald trump. he got called the b word, as we chatted twitter, and get you guys knowcredibility, you have none . your own guy taking free speech all twitter. you know, i also don't understand this bipolar thing you're doing with jawline. they out joe i'm just boring, he's the everyday. you say on tv now he wants to all the people joe is an international supermastermind along with his son hunter . it's just finance .the family is getting billions of dollars in loans from using their white house relations, and questions? you want to fairly made any money selling during the pan blessed with any questions? i think so those who want to hundred his laptop your leader, you guys are against leaders making things, yours met isaac and i love how you seen this guy? he's like a radioshack dotmatrix guy who copied files of citizens hard drive. text your entire theory is based off of what i want to use his words, this is his own words, your leader, i gave you the information there have been several tests by several individuals to modify and insert the data. i you know there's been multiple attempts over the past year and a half to insert questionable material into the laptop to pass on information or disinformation as coming from the laptop. he continues this is a major concern of mine i thought to nail the integrity of the drive to jeopardize me as will be for nothing. your guy, your leader questioning the integrity of the information you guys are. either way, why is he here? bring him here, is asking the questions and why have we seen up hard drive? you guys are shy you show it to the people? let's talk about twitter.. god bless elon musk. cds? god bless the guy who is allowing nazis and anti- sexism to perpetrate twitter. a 66 percent increase of on twitter since elon musk set it free. mister chairman i read is not fair to say all conservatives are nazis that's prosperous, that's not true but your lord and savior donald trump having tea and dinner with them at mar-a-lago. donald trump is having dinner with him, i do not see mar-a-lago so no, not all publicans are nazis tell you, nazis seemreally comfortable withdonald trump so i have questions about that mister chairman . why is that ? let's talk about kanye west. the chairman of the judiciary praising kanye west, he loves kanye. it took months for that to to come down, how come? these are things i love to know. is it because maybe they're afraid of their voters? there certainly not voting for me. i yield back. >> recognizes mister langford for five minutes. >> twitter files reveal unrestricted power and censorship regularly exercise three witnesses in today. mister roth, miss gadde and ms. baker. in your opening you stated too few people and companies have too much power. but i think your. this is your today too much power they tried to play the role of god and your natural lead people to twitter knowingly suspended the new york post. one of the most reliable conservative voices and in here that honest story when swing back and into the hands of their, former president donald trump. mister roth you were part of the secretive censorship team at twitter, correct? >> sir, i'm not sure what that refers to. >> the twitter files reveal that you rarely adhere to company policy making censorship decisions for one word from the twitter files called your grouping high-speed supreme court of moderation between content rulings on the fly often and it's based on the calls and even google searches in cases even involving the president. he recalled making decisions in thismatter ? >> no i do not. >> can you explain the process for these quick decisions? >> thank you for the question. i think the core of content moderation whether it stops or flows with tools and policies that was the primary responsibility of my time at twitter. one of decision codifies plausible for people in each instance. in the vast majority of cases moderation decisions were made by me or executive or even by a team, they were met by hundreds of content moderators enforcing those rules again and again. the situation in which decisions would be escalated to senior executives were few and far between largely related to the really are great areas. >> mister roth as part of the supreme court of moderation in twitter final call or political censorshipdecisions ? >> no sir i did not. >>final call ? >> there is a team of people, some of whom represented on the panel today who are involved in making these decisions but of portrayal one person held supreme court for these decisions will misrepresent what the process was. >> martin label i it's getting very important to her, what was the threshold for being labeled as a bit . >> is an excellent question for which there is not consistent answer i don't think twitter was particularly well on that definition. >> was the new york post labeled a bit? >> i believe he is verified. verification incurred so that status of being a vip but the definition is squishy. >> is a true but twitter, directed gadde kennedy said in response the story, i'm struggling to understand the policy basis . >> it's my understanding mister kennedy said that. >> was the new york post regarding hunter by his laptop be marked unsafe regardless of category question. >> is true twitter marked links to that story as unsafe a number of our systems resulted in restricting people's ability to treat it. position twitter reverse 24 hours later. >> is clear to few people had too much power, the new york post twitter wassuspended an attempt by democrats and they tend to play god here in the free election three of information in this country . the new york post has been a reliable source for decades including their coverage of the nursing homes in new york during the pandemic now that you have many others are bought there is hope this platform will once again be in place voices can be heard from all points of view know if you agree with it or not that our elections will never again be told by the tech. >> the gentleman yields to mister jordan. >> is wrong in the bayou said i also learning these meetings with governments and the operation was involved. mister chan has testified in his deposition that same case, in my session we never discussed and specifically with twitter up underlying any meetings? >> the gentleman time has expired. >> my recollection is the representative of another tech company may have mentioned it but these meetings were several years ago, i don't call . >> chair is miss stansberry . >> i want to start this afternoon by thanking our panelists who have been sitting here all afternoon and many of the members ofthe public who are with us . i see a lot of typefaces out there and i want to you for spending your day with us but i want to start by asking what are we doing here in this country today? why are we here? why is this committee devoting a daylong hearing to a political conspiracy theory that was planted in the media by rudy giuliani to support donald trump'sreelection campaign ? of all the topics we can be focused on in this committee to support the american people, how people are going to put food on their table, how were going to address the honey and how were going to address key issues, we are devoted an entire day to this conspiracy theory involving twitter. the mission of this committee is to root out waste, fraud and abuse and oversight on behalf of the american people as you need any evidence of waste, fraud and abuse how the use of this committee's precious time and resources to commit to this hearing? you know, i don't even understand why we're here right now but i want to clarify some key facts about what we heard today so i'm going to get into it for just a moment. miss gadde, thank you for being here, mister baker. you stated publicly twitter's handling of this issue was able to say, yes,sir no ? >> i don't think i stated that publicly but that is what the ceo of the company said class at the time only weeks before one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime in 2020, twitter made a decision based on policies put into place to protect the public from political disinformation and from foreign interference, is that correct mister roth ? >> yes. >> in fact the failure of twitter and other social media to monitor political disinformation not only fuels is used in 2018 allowed for election dynamism to run rampant thousand 20 and that is exactly what led to the insurrection on january 6 in the capital. miss navaroli, i want to ask you, thank you for sitting hereall day answering these questions . do you believe that twitter put into place policies that would adequately protect free speech also protect the american people from another violent insurrection the kind of agencies we are seeing run rampant onthe platform ? >> thank you for that question, i cannot speak to our policies because i had worked at twitter sometime my job was to balance free expression cd one of the things i pushed for was to include more analysis of that simple bouncing instead of asking just free expression versus safety is a free expression for whom and cd4 who? who is sadie are we protecting the expense of who safety and which are we allowing to go to the winds so people can speak freely. >> exactly because twitter refused to sanction donald trump's account long before it was then. when i rhetoric and other rhetoric was already being used on the platform in fact since the latest acquisition of twitter by elon musk, the trust and safety council represented here today has been dissolved and the accounts of individuals left inside violence been restored and we are seeing antisocial, dangerous rhetoric, violence been on twitter every single day. election tampering, disinformation, violence, the attack on our capital. mister chairman, that is what we should be pulling oversight hearings on in this committee . i traveled every corner of my district and new mexicans are becoming depending on us to ensure our democracy and ensure we are holding not only those who are committing waste fraud and abuse are self let's not waste precious taxpayers time and dollars holding hearings about four seasons landscaping style conspiracy theories and get to work for the american people. >> with the gentle lady yield to a question. >> mister chairman, i feel that. >> the chair recognizes miss boebert for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. mister matt taibbi said twitter's contact with fbi was pervasive as if it were a subsidiary. i want to better understand why you would suggest that. mister roth, while at twitter how many meetings did you have with fbi? >> i can say for sure. >> more than 10, more than 20 west and mark more than 50? >> that seems a bit high. >> many meetings with the fbi how many fbi agents worked at twitter while you were there ? >> i don't believe anyactive . >> former fbi agents, how they were there? >> i think to. >> we know at least nine because they started a group chat. did the fbi ever ask you to share information without going through proper legal channels. >> 89 i would refuse. >> i see you tonight agent chance access for data. but the fbi would even ask you for the private data american citizens without going through legal channels along. electrolyte you mister roth you are under oath. the fbi asked you to do anything that wasquestionably legal . >> i'm not a lawyer but certainly not to the best of my recollection. >> from the rings, is also possible to tell fbi and where twitter begins, we have mister baker here, or fbi agent there seems to be rolling worth between the fbi and twitter itself. even mister peterson there was no collusion with the federal and twitter mister baker , you you are the collusion between the federal and the fbi. this is such a problem because we're seeing censorship all over. mister roth and miss gadde, this shadow band my account, yes, sir no? >> i did not. >> not to the best of my recollection. >> on march 12, 2021 mister roth, i know you look at it because fascist twitter 1.0 public interest exception policy which means for members of congress to be bad had to go before you mister roth so again, and you shall, yes, sir no? >> not in my election. >> yes you did last night fromplayers that you suppressed my for this to . it's a freaking about being angry that she and ray pretty special but in response, being the sinister overlord that you all are you placed a 90 day filter likely not be found and now we see here twitter staff said that his ability culture unlike anything top searches, and notification for non-dollars and much more. this is considered aggressive visibility filter. you silenced members of congress from communicating with their constituents. you silenced me from communicating with the american people over a joke . who do you think you are? election interference, i would say that was taking place because it you all you were sitting here, underlying laptop story was impressed, as a member of congress was suppressed, a sitting president was banned from twitter. it is saying and wishing you much information interference as you for your day. we about threats to democracy , what about shutting down the duly elected member of congress? this is fundamental to our nation's governance and you all that very foundation. 230 protection, those are for publishers, not for editors and it's clear you are not acting as publisher: you investigators far past time we move to 30 protection from big tech platforms using this protection. and let me just say i'm not angry for myself. i'm not angry because i was just i can reach out to his staff and see what happened and i can sit here today and hold you all in. i am angry for the millions of americans who were silenced because allyour decision , because of your actions, because of your collusion with the federal government can't reach out to elon musk we know where the fbi ends twitter begins but i do want to. >> you have 15 minutes. >> i'm all for firing you for receiving free speech newsletter. >> though lady yield, westport four seconds. i'll allow 24 extra seconds. >> i appreciate your indulgence. tell her i will need it so today's hearing dabbled in at 10 am. for nearly 6 hours we have been going back and forth about this supposed suppression of single news story from a single outlet for a single day. this hearing has been in this link nearly one quarter of the amount of time that twitter users could not share the link. we are spending almost as much time screaming about this as we are, as this was ever a problem.look, criminal activity isalways a concern . but if there is criminal wrongdoing on underlying laptop that is on matter for the fbi and our law-enforcementagencies . today's hearing is merely an exercise in misinformation and disinformation. a free for all healthy. that's what now ceo elon musk said twitter would become if the platform became the place where anyone could say anything with no consequences. it is unbelievable to me that i am quoting elon musk but that is how ridiculous this hearing has become. the oversight committee went twitter or any other social media company for that matter cannot become a free for all healthy where anything goes. with that mister chairman i you back. >> the lady yield back, thank you. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit to documents into the record both from twitter. >> so order. >> the chair recognizes miss williams for five minutes . >> mister roth, mister roth. have you communicated with government officials on a platform called jeera. yes well. real quick answer, we're on the flop. >> not to the best of my recollection. >> if you did communicate with that have access to this platform ? >> that's the nature of my confusion. >> did you ever government officials with regard to taking down social media posts? can you explain why the government would have is in communicating through maga private cloud server with social media companies without oversight to censor american forces. i want to let you know this is a violation of the first amendment and the government is colluding with social media companies to censor americans. i said these graphics record and i'm going to refresh your memory. >> without objection so order . >> this flowchart shows the following companies twitter and organizations communicating their version of misinformation using jira, a private cloud server.i want to to the department of homeland security, cyber security infrastructure security agency covering for an intelligence test force now known as the misinfo mdm, this was used against the people. the election integrity partnership which includes the following. stanford internet observatory, washington center for informed public counsel digital forensic lab potentially according to what we found on the final reports the dnc. the center for internet security cis on nonprofit funded by dhs, the national association of state and national association on state action directors and in this case because there are other social media companies involved, twitter. what do all of these have in common and i'm going to again refresh your memory. they were all communicating proud cloud server known as jira. this screenshot is an example of one of thousands shows on the order that you mister roth exchanging communications on jira private cloud server with fisa and alex donis who is a former security officer at facebook to remove a post. do you now remember communicating on a private cloud server to remove posting ? yes, sir no? >> i would agree with the characterization. >> i don't care if you agree, yes, sir no did youcan indicate when a private entity, a government agency private cloud server ? >> .. joint state actors highly illegal, you're engaged in this action to want you to know julie held accountable. are you still on cybersecurity advisory council? yes or no? >> yes, i am. >> for those who said this was a pointless hearing and i want to let you know we found twitter was mitigating federal government to center americans, i'd like to remind you this was in place before january 6 so to say these mechanisms were in place and make it about janeway six, you were in control of the content and clearly we have proof of that. if you don't think this is important to your constituents and american people that this is a pointless hearing i'd suggest you find other jobs. i yield my time. >> i want to call to the attention of members, we are getting close to witness intimidation and i would ask the chair -- >> i'm sorry i didn't hear what you said. >> i said i would caution all members we are getting close to witness intimidation, right on the verge of it. i would add the chair and ranking member agree how will proceed from now on. it's the threats that were just made. >> thank you and follow-up to that, i'm curious about the committee's role position accusing witnesses of a crime discussing arrest making allusions as threats. the policy around threatening a witness. >> we have the member. >> can we agree threatening a witness comes close to general the quorum? it does the general form of the movie. >> we don't agree there were witness threatening. >> when you discuss potential arrest of witness and looting to the witness or suggestion of witness committing crime without evidence and without documented to the record. >> can you be more specific? >> we talk about arresting a witness or witness of lying without documentation i fear this constitutes threatening a witness and that will broach the will of the quorum of this committee and i like to ask request when his be treated with. >> i remind everyone of the member to form and witness the quorum to treat everyone with respect. you have anything to add? >> i have a separate order, several members to have access information twitter people on our site don't know how and when communicated with twitter or received information relating to witnesses use it just riveted to the committee and events. >> a lot of folks are on the laptop so she. >> i think -- >> and twitter files. >> twenty only indicated information directly. >> you are recognized thank you today. the stage line of questioning in december 2019 we published fbi is hundred biden's laptop from a computer store owner and we've established nearly a year later in october 2020 published by the new york post. within hours twitter and other social media companies began limiting distribution of the hundred biden story. my question is for mr. ralph september 2020 a few weeks before the new york post published the first story on the training you participated in an exercise hosted by the aspen institute with other media outlets, social media companies and national security, correct? >> i did. >> that was hosted specifically by the aspen digital working group, correct? >> i know it was hosted by the aspen institute, he couldn't say who specifically. >> this was before the release of the hundred biden laptop story, correct? >> that is my recollection, yes. >> during that event a scenario discussed was a hypothetical october 2020 release records related 200 biden, correct? >> my recollection, yes. >> did you participate in the design of this hypothetical scenario? >> not to the best of my recollection, no. >> are you telling me you've never had any conversation with anyone regarding content? >> no, i've met on a number of cases but i wouldn't say i was involved in a specific way, no. >> you are telling me i will find no witnesses that would testify they had conversations with you regarding the development of this scenario. >> i generally do not say what other witnesses might or might not say. >> why was hundred biden chosen as the scenario weeks before the october 17 consultation of the first hundred biden board? i don't know. >> but you participated in the conversation? >> i was invited to an event hosted by the institute, yes. >> surely there had to be some level of conversation why hundred biden was the topic of that scenario. >> not that i can specifically recall. >> mr. ralph, representatives from facebook attended, correct? >> to the best of my recollection, yes. >> the fbi had for the biden's laptop the year before it was uncovered by the your posted before aspen institute of an, did members of the u.s. intelligence community participate in the september 2020 hundred biden exercise? >> i don't recall. >> i'd like show you a sworn statement you've previously made. i believe this was the sec. you given sworn declaration stating federal law enforcement agencies medicated that they expected operations by state actors might occur in the. shortly before the 2020 presidential election likely in october. is this your statement? >> yes, it was. >> mr. fox, he said since 2008, cuban meeting with the office of director national intelligence, the department of homeland security the fbi and industry fears regarding election security, correct? >> yes or. >> you were told there would likely be a hack operation occurring, correct? >> i believe the fbi objected likely or expected but certainly discuss that possibility. >> thank you. mr. chair, i. >> you recognize mr. bush for five minutes. >> lewis and i are here today to talk about the old by the power of private companies to operate social media platform's. republicans are holding this hearing because of the ridiculous politically motivated sessions with hunter biden. this is a distraction from their inability to govern and hides shared concerns raised by republicans and democrats alike about fast power, impunity and lack of accountability of social media platform. there are so many examples of these companies responding inadequately or inappropriately in crisis does come to understand his conduct of the norm, social media giants and not an aberration. social media played a key role in fanning the flames of violence january 6 on that attack on u.s. capitol. the impact all over the world, possible, this information about the proposed referendum traveling three times faster on social media platforms and several members of this committee go to twitter and to talk to manny for the action to reduce dissemination, reduce the life and hate. they did nothing. you were at twitter january 6 and asked repeatedly for retrospective meeting to discuss what happened in the lead up to that day. management told you it wasn't a priority. why was it not a priority for twitter to learn lessons from january 6? >> i don't believe you are referring to apologies, i'm just the legal officer, i did not make that statement. >> okay. >> would you mind repeating the question? >> sure. january 6, on january 6 you are at twitter asked repeatedly for retrospective meeting to discuss what happened in the lead up to that day. management told you it wasn't a priority for that company. why was it not a priority for twitter to learn the lessons from january 6? >> i can't speak to leadership motivations or why it would not have been a priority for them. but i can say is individual members repeatedly asked that we do retrospective to understand not just what happened january 6 but leading into january 8 and the suspension of the president. >> what can you say is priority? >> i can't speak to twitter's top priority, i can say my team's responsibility was to bounce free expression and safety and ensure the safety and lack of harm for people on the ground. >> thank you. >> twitter's top priority seems to be to mastermind process. the people on this channel for among top experts moderating at twitter and your concerns were steamrolled by executives pursuing profit. we know this situation must change but i would argue the structure of these preparations and sure this malpractice will continue. social media companies have shown themselves unfit to maintain the digital public square our most universal use is and power. the purpose is not to facilitate healthy fact-based discourse, is to aggressively pursue profit for their billionaire executives and shareholders even when they make a good decision about removing the coast or user, it's only to make profit. this existential problem will not be solved by asking these for-profit corporations to speak around the edges. we need to re- envision what the internet can be. digital platform including social media, are here to stay but we need to make sure they operate for the public good and not private interest. we need to invest in better alternatives to big ten and establish public ownership and control to ensure these platforms serve everyone fairly thank you and i go back. >> esther perry for five minutes. >> naked chairman, thank you, witnesses. it's been a long day. going back to your statement mr. edwards talked about, i want to revisit that a little bit where it was communicated to you at least for your statement by the fbi that there was expected hack or hack in leak operation and they would occur before the election and at the bottom here, in these meetings rumored the hack in leak operation would involve hundred biden. >> subsequent, who told you that? can you tell us where you got that information if you know? >> a possible hack in leak was raised by a number of representatives of the fbi. >> was one of them mr. chance? >> yes. >> are you familiar with the fact that testimony and november of 2022 he said we did not see any similar competing intrusions to what happened in 2016 and you've been talking to intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies for some time and they were referring to the 2016 hack and dump operation, are you familiar he said that? subsequent to saying this? they didn't have evidence? >> i was not aware. >> that's fair. >> did they ever give you any evidence of the hack and dump operation that happened in 2016 and what i think i'm referring to is allegation that the clinton campaign, dnc server was hacked and the information was spread about through wiki leak or other information channels, did they ever give you evidence of that occurrence? >> the information was made public by the intelligent community and the mueller report and senate intelligence. >> you, evidence, did they give you evidence? as far as we know abstract look at the service, to the fbi look at the service from this to your knowledge? >> i think it would be better directed -- >> fair enough but you never saw any evidence? i'm not blaming you, a lot of people want to blame the fbi, i wanted to believe the fbi. did they ever give you evidence to believe that? they are making the case that there is a hack in leak operation coming and it will be about hundred biden right before the election, did they give you evidence? >> come up. >> i didn't figure. set up a channel between twitter and the fbi, who did not from the fbi? >> he was part of the. >> so you set up a war room, as well, right? >> i believe the fbi operated -- >> you participated in that. he did not? did twitter participate? >> i believe twitter may have. >> fair enough. he did the tabletop exercise about hundred biden and leak about hundred biden that would, right before the election essentially ten days in september right before the election and you participated in that, right? i did. >> who facilitated that i know the aspen institute but who facilitated the exercise proper? was anybody from the government agency facilitating any part of the? were they involved in the discussion during the exercise? >> i don't believe so. >> they were just spectators? >> i wasn't aware they were spectators either but i don't recall exactly who was there. >> i know you don't recall who was there, who facilitated it? do you recall? >> facilitated by garrett graff, a member of the aspen institute. >> do you find odd after the fact and i know you've already testified here you don't see that you were misled or potentially duped, it seems highly coincidental, would you agree knowing the fbi had the laptop and set up the war room and channel and told you for your statement that this would happen, you find it highly coincidental that it actually happened and it was hundred biden at all? >> i want to be clear my statement does not suggest the fbi told me it would involve hundred biden, it's a popular reading of declaration but not my intent. i think there is a coincidence there and i can't speak to how that came about. >> one last question, is the cia or other governmental agency or asked twitter to look at something that violated twitter's policy? >> i don't recall specific outreach by the cia -- >> other government agency is what it was called. >> yes, twitter regularly received reports from government requesting review. >> the other government agency, that one. did they request information regarding violation of twitter's policy? >> thank you, i don't recall specific contexts, no. >> chair recognizes -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i sat here listening, glad to be last, i get to listen to all the testimony. it's clear to me there are few things that is the censorship effort of big tech, intelligent community and the media were working to affect the 2020 election. i find it unbelievably ironic and i hope others do see the irony that people who were so concerned and helpless and worried about interference of outside groups in the 2016 election became willing participants to interfere in the following presidential election. these three groups work together hand-in-hand to hide the truth from the american people. the fact that the fbi has a hundred biden laptop in their possession for a year before the election but that didn't stop them from spreading a lie and bogus claim without it being russian interference again and it's clear to me why they reached out to you because they knew you would buy the lie. they knew an organization with 99% donating to democratic candidates would absolutely not look at information, he would take it as the gospel truth so they knew that because it was clear from your tweet before that you have an opinion about the president, republican party and all the get to the october 14, 2020 when the new york post published story everything was already in place so my question is when 51 intelligence officials told you -- us the hundred biden laptop was rushing to his information the democrats and media, president all repeated this lie. now you know what you know years later, you still believe the hundred biden laptop is not real? or do you believe it is? >> i never held that believe. >> do you believe it russian disinformation? >> i didn't then and i don't know. >> i have a question for mr. baker. you started your role as twitter's deputy general counsel 2020, june who hired you for that role? >> who specifically? my boss was sean, the general. >> sean edge and that's who you interviewed with? >> i interviewed with numerous people but he was my boss. >> anyone that comes to mind outside of sean? >> ms. doughty i interviewed with and other people i interviewed with at twitter. >> but ultimately it was sean? >> i'm not sure exactly the frank but sean was my boss. >> when you were fired from twitter in december 2022 after the release of the first, did you destroy any internal munication related to the first batch of the twitter file? >> as i said, i didn't destroy any documents. >> what reason were you fired? >> you would have to ask about that. >> you are not giving information? >> a public a statement in a tweet but i think you have to ask him. >> thank you. is it true twitter white listed accounts for department of defense to spread propaganda to they give you a list of accounts that were fake and asked you to white list the accounts? >> to be clear when i found out about the activity, i was appalled and undid the action and my team exposed activity originating from the department of defense publicly. we shared that with the world and research published. >> was up only in efforts against entities over the any entities against citizens of the united states? >> i think the nature is anybody might have seen it but i understand the activity was predominately focused by the united states. >> thank you and i want to say thank you for this hearing, i would hope we would be asking for documents and communications whether on personal devices or private devices between these individuals and government officials. >> five minutes. >> thank you all for being here, going to make this quick and easy. part of your job at twitter dealt with assessing misinformation, correct? wonderful. how did you determine what disinformation and what misinformation was? what is your criteria? >> twitter established policies covering each area and i'll take them in turn. we used the term -- disinformation but we focused on platform manipulation so behaviors like running an authentic account out of control arm, we'd address is behaviors that they are and look for technical fines of up the putin committee relation and move those accounts. >> it was all technical? >> on that side of things, yes. when it comes to misinformation which brought the is a question of content, twitter what established written policies -- >> which once. >> which policies did twitter maintain? >> the problem with america is we have one set of rules for this and another set of rules for this so we are trying to look at the equal playing field. i am under the assumption when we use this information and use criteria, the criteria is the same for both sides. i'm trying to figure out what is the bacteria you had in place to determine which information was misinformation and did you apply equally, equitably, inclusively to all sides? what is the criteria? >> thank you for the question. we used the three-part test across all misinformation policies. the first is whether it advanced the claim of fact dated definitively. the claim of fact definitively. the second part is whether the claim of fact provably false. not if he, not maybe, not great, definitely provably by multiple sources and finally and this is in. reporter: , we look for evidence the claims of fact could cause arm so tweet meant all three parts of that, a claim of fact, provably false and dangerous, twitter might intervene under its policy. no part of the test viewpoint based. >> in your opinion was that applied to all tweets? >> no. >> thank you. you are merely with reports the biden administration considered establishing disinformation governance board under the department of homeland security. >> i am aware of public reporting. >> that was never established, correct? >> that is my understanding. >> it seems the federal government had far more powerful disinformation board and its relationship with twitter. again, how often were you meeting with people from the federal government while at twitter? weekly, daily, monthly? >> i'd estimate weekly to monthly. >> were you aware mr. baker was also taking these but the federal government as well? >> i was not aware of his calendar, no. >> no idea he was meeting, no meeting? >> we are in the same meetings together but i did not know the ins and outs of what he was doing. >> what did you understand role to be at twitter besides offering general legal advice? >> he supervised primary legal team that advised trust and safety. he was the supervisor of the attorney to advise my team. >> how about her role in twitter besides general advice? >> for the final i believe year end a half was my direct supervisor. >> what was her role? just supervise you to make sure you followed those claims? >> she supervised what my objectives were and she made sure if there was conflict in the workplace she guided me on how to address that. she did the job of a manager. >> okay. >> and she oversaw you and the trust to make sure your claims of provable and she oversaw that? >> yes, oversaw twitter's policies and enforcement. >> she states her expertise is in media, technology, law and policy. how often a week did you meet to discuss these areas while at twitter? >> we did not. >> okay, thank you very much. >> chair recognizes -- >> based on everything i've seen regarding this issue, it is clear to me government officials included to censor the new york post legitimate reporting of the hundred biden laptop story. democrats on the committee so far characterized this hearing as unnecessary and waste of time. i'd invite any of my colleagues across the aisle to talk to folks because i can promise you they do not feel that way. my constituents are very concerned and rightfully so a social media company collaborated with the government institute and clinical party in certain social media accounts and filter news head of the election cycle. americans deserve this outright attack on the first amendment rights. mr. baker, your testimony focuses heavily on the fact that twitter acted lawfully in his reaction to the hundred biden laptop story but this is in the criminal trial, it's a congressional hearing. i'm here because my constituents generally concerned they will be kicked off the platforms for any statements that managers of the companies disagree with. they feel social media companies like twitter are forcing them to play a game they don't know the rules to. i want to know your opinion if you think it is appropriate for people in positions of power to determine what information is shared. if not, what criteria is acceptable for making those determinations? >> excuse me, it is a broad question, i'm not sure i can answer that effectively and address -- >> could you try? >> congress is in power restricted by the constitution of the united states. congress passes laws and the laws impact how private sector actors exercise their power or spend their money and that type of thing. government agencies have to act in accordance with the constitution laws you pass and executive orders, ways that people in power at large held accountable and have to comply with rules and regulations and the laws and the constitution. >> i would like to build the rest of my time to mr. jordan. >> mr. ross, i want to go back to your statement in the declaration of the fec, i learned the operation would involve hundred biden, who did you learn that from? >> my recollection is it's mentioned by another technology company in one of our joint meetings but i don't recall specifically who. >> you don't know the person's name? >> i don't even recall a company they work that, it was a long time ago. >> your company it was from a tech company not from someone from the government? >> to the best of my recollection, yes. >> anyone in these meetings who have today, do they ever tell you a hat and leak operation was coming? >> no. >> it didn't come up at all in the meetings? >> his name was raised in the meetings but i do not remember. >> okay. i want to go back to the question we had a few hours ago and i want to frame it the way -- did you tell the fbi they had no legitimate interest in enforcement of twitter's policy? >> i don't think -- i think i understand the question -- i don't recall ever having such a conversation with the fbi. >> did you think there's a problem with the fbi and say these violate your policies? a potential concern? >> i was always concerned the fbi adhered to the constitution laws of the united states. >> you didn't think that crossed the line? >> what crossed the line? >> what i asked you, the list that violate your terms of service. >> again, i making sure i can answer the question. had i thought they were doing something unlawful, i would have taken appropriate steps to address it. >> okay why were you reluctant to work with. >> it was my understanding the global engagement center department previous he has engaged in at least what some would consider offensive influence operations now that they are offensive that but targeted outside of the united states. on that basis, i thought it would be inappropriate for twitter to engage with the state department that's engaged in active grass. we are dedicated for the line influence matter who it came from and we found the american government was engaged in interference we would be addressing that as well. >> judgments time has expired but i want to thank our panelists for being here, i know it's been a long day. we apologize for electricity going out, that's never happened in my six years in congress but before we close, ranking member and i are going to have brief closing statements. i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for your endurance and patience today. i hope you don't feel as bad today as it seems to look right now but it's going to be over soon. i want to start with a simple thing that will be sympathetic to you, i began the long day with this is even more important that we have members threatening witnesses with arrest and prosecution for clearly imaginary defenses that might make sense in their mind but i don't know what they would be so twitter is a private first amendment protected media entity and you make your own decisions i fox news and i might get kicked off of fox news or they might not cover me or "wall street journal" or msnbc, i've got no right to go there so i think there is legal fallacy and logical fallacy that pervades most of the questioning today and my friend the chairman and my friend certainly knows i think there's state action requirement, no state action here. as an attempt to jerryrigged state action claiming it's really the fbi that committed whatever offense is there but what we have? today's witnesses, each and everyone testified no u.s. governmental official directed any of them to sense or remove or take down the new york post story. that was their mistake. today's witnesses testify the biden campaign did not direct twitter to take action against the new york post story. three, the hearings were predicated on the idea directing twitter to take down to new york story to protect biden but once again in a single one testified the fbi medicated with twitter about the new york post stories. this has been a wild cyber goose chase all they. it turned up absolutely nothing but there was one serious thing said said that the violence and chaos upon this institution not far from where we sit today january 6, attempted a presidential election and stole someone not elected as president was facilitated by twitter and other social media entities and specifically rejecting employees to take seriously all of the signs include in the insurrectionary action that took place. that's a serious problem we will have to deal with in the series and i go back. >> i will conclude by saying reminding my friend ranking member gone through quite a transition at the beginning of the during and you as well as your colleagues said this was a conspiracy theory after listening to the witnesses now you say it's a simple mistake in the laptop story. twitter is a private company that they enjoy special liability protection, section 230. they also according to twitter files, received billions of dollars from the fbi which is tax dollars i would assume and that makes it a concern. the reason we've had this hearing is because the laptop has been mislabeled by many in the mainstream media is being russia disinformation and it started with twitter as well as being tampered with you have several people that implied it was tampered with even the cbs news and other credible media outlets -- >> you don't think cbs? >> cbs news. >> cbs news forensic audit that shows the hard drive is legitimate it was not tampered with the these are misconceptions out there and they started because of the laptop story. the reason the laptop support is because there's evidence that should concern every american about potential corruption as well as evidence that would suggest there's a possibility this administration could be compromised because of the millions of dollars they've received from our adversaries around the world. we believe it's worth investigating and security is important. we had a hearing yesterday on our border and believe there's a crisis at the border and it threatens our national security. we had a hearing today we believe we need to make sure this administration is not compromised because of the millions of dollars they've received from our adversaries around the world that much of the evidence is contained in the laptop so i think this was a successful hearing. i appreciate the witnesses time. i know it was a long day and would never had electricity go out before but we appreciate your sincere testimony and without and without objection all members will have -- >> i apologize, i -- it's come to my attention unanimous request. >> without objection, so ordered. all members will have five days within which to submit the materials and submit additional questions for the witnesses afforded to the witnesses for their response. if there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned. [background noises] [background noises] >> cing up live on c-span networks at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span the house continues work on legislation that repeals to d.c. laws. the senate returns at 10:00 to consider judicial nominations for the fourth and third circuit urts of appeal on c-span 2. on c-span the at 9:45 a.m. at noon former fbi agents and legal experts testify on the justice department and other agencies becoming politicized. you can also watch these events live on the frec-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> c-span's american presidents website is your one-stop guide to your nation's commanders and chief. find short biographies, video resources, and imagest tell the stories of their lives and presencies all on the easy to browse c-span website, c-span's.org/presidents to explore the catalog of resources today. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio app just got easier. tell your smart speaker plate c-span radio -- play c-span radio. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a fast pace report of stories of the day. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span powered by cable. >> c-span is a your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter. >> one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. building 100 thousand miles of new