relationship existedly, that s the only that s a really the sad takeaway from the hearing. for us these are very serious allegations for us all. yeahll, the the united states government is not allowed to engage in censorship, but wee have at least 80 different employees that may have been ce, participating and identifying citizens to be censore bd to be suspended, to be banned. it got so intense that twitter i employees complained about it and said thaart they are pushin, and probing everywhere. that s a quote. so we should be concerned about our government and the businesso of silencing citizens. pee but there was not even peep oflo objection coming from the democrats. wa tell you, i was surprised.u, i was you know, the poll ames show tha the american people want to investigate whetherte f the t fbi is engaged ino they political activities, but also they want to investigate censorship. but suddenly the democratiocratc
party has become this anti freeo speech party.crat and i come family from a longw what h democratic family in chicago. i don t know what happened d to my party. believe i mean, it used to be that the democrats believed in free speech is the very touchstone of what the party meant. now, all you hear fromship. democratic leaders is calls for censorship and supporting itthe fbi and working with thehi largest censorship system in the history. of this country. yeah, they become statists professing, trying to stop misinformation and disinformation. n andonly if it s not exactly wt they want you to say. if anyone is credible,u to to tk about this and give a legaluch. opinion to you.ay s h jonathan turley, thank you wa all right. steps yesterday s hearing was just the latest steps taken by the now the new republican led house to hold the fbi and doj accountable for their countless failures and overreachesilures e here to discuss, fox news legal analyst greg charite and former florida attor
and , you know, with with with my questioning, it waswhatd just sort of otherworldly. the question to me was, whattwi these twitter files say abouwht censorship by surrogate, which is what i was testifying on andw what i talked about.itte the case law. has those are twitter files. the the twitter files has twitter has confirmed the authenticity of those files. efore,the day before. former twitter officials confirm any of these factsan. and the members simply asked, what is this say about, yo censorship? u ner woand the response here w well, you ve never worked fory twitter. it s likone wouldn t testify in the pentagon papers unless i worked at the pentagon. it. you re right. you re right. they never should have published it because they didn t work at the pentagon to begi i n with .e an so it is it is reallyf an fascinating. was there any part of any democrat that, you know,u the party of the aclu, whicht ci was supposed to be about civil e liberties and free speech? i mean, i ve l
here.d greg, you heard what jonathan turley had to say. when one side of the aisleo is so overwhelming in reflexively defending the weaponization, what changesp can you hope for? well, i think the only remedy here is to expose a malign behavior of government agencies like the fbi clearlyga engaged.joha jonathan turley calls in turt censorship by surrogate. i call it censorship by proxy. it s pretty much the same thing. you know, h the united states supreme court has repeatedly and consistently said thaovernment agencyt a govy like the fbi cannot direct or encourage private citizens or o private entities, a companye like twitter to to do that.t and that the first amendment prohibits the government from doing. that s a violatio n of the constitution. theree are a couple of remedies.s
the hearing that none ofing. the democrats wanted to talk about the subject of the hearintainly tg certainly sh my testimony, which is this censorship programat fbi that ti appears to have supported, helped direct. this may be the largests co censorship system in the history of this country.f tt and we have proof thathe unite the united states government sent lists of names of citizenss and postings that they wanted to be censored. and soorhe d the democrats did l want to talk about that. so they attacked the witnesses. offi was not the only one .rren i got off light.d on you know, the three members arei two current members and one former member before me, claire mccaskill on msnbc accused those members of beingzn russian sympathizers and one being a putin lover. right. 2.0 and it s red scare sort of 2.0. it s trying to get people not to look over here by saying, yo there s a russian over there. ys