webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

judiciary comm hse

oddly? blank 918

see generic node (house and senate)

see weaponization jordan benghazi BS

https://judiciary.house.gov/

For the 118th Congress:[129]

--

---

an 7 23

Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) called out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for a history of threatening witnesses at a hearing on government censorship Thursday.

At a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, Plaskett interrupted witnessRobert F. Kennedy Jr. to note that he was being given more time to speak than expected.

"Is it going to be 10 minutes for every witness?" she asked.

"We'll give you five minutes, but we're pretty lax with this," Jordan stated.

"I've seen you gavel down on quite a number of witnesses," Plaskett noted. "Let's just watch the time for all the witnesses."

"And if you want to cut him off and censor him some more, you're welcome to do it," Jordan jabbed.

"Oh, that's not my job. That's your job," she replied. "Why don't you threaten a witness so that they can not want to be a witness?"

Most recently, Jordan threatened FBI Director Christopher Wray with contempt.

https://www.alternet.org/trump-jim-jordan-insurrection-committee/

badash no twt vid?

This is about one client. Donald Trump': Jim Jordan hammered over  'Insurrection LLC' committee

David Badashand The New Civil Rights Movement March 29, 2023

:{U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) unleashed massive criticism of Jim Jordan Wednesday afternoon, accusing the House Judiciary Committee Chairman of working solely for Donald Trump.

In his opening remarks of a Judiciary subcommittee hearing Swalwell, the Ranking Member, slammed Jordan for refusing to comply with a legal subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, and criticized the subcommittee for holding a hearing – not on gun violence and mass shootings – but on what the California Democrat said was issues to help the ex-president.

}:

Congressman Swalwell blasted Jordan and his “Committee to Obstruct Justice” on a wide range of issues, including obstructing justice, ordering a district attorney to commit a felony, and lying that Attorney General Merrick Garland labeled parents “domestic terrorists.”

:{“Well, here we are. Another partners’ meeting of Insurrection, LLC,”Swalwell said as he began his remarks. “That’s what this is. This is the newly formed largest law firm in Washington, D.C. Only has one client, maybe a second client that we’re going to learn about today, but that client is former president Donald Trump.”

“Their job,” he said, referring to Jordan’s Judiciary Committee, subcommittees, and his controversial Subcommittee of the Weaponization of the Federal Government, “is to litigate every one of [Trump’s] petty, petty, petty grievances.”}:

READ MORE: Watch: House Dem Mocks Republicans by Thanking Them for Taking Time Away From ‘Trump’s Memorial Service to David Koresh’

“It’s now 321 days since this subpoena was sent to Jim Jordan, that he did not comply with,” Swalwell said, pointing to a large blown-up copy of the subpoena, with the word “subpoena” enlarged exponentially.

“So it’s comical that we are here today, under Jim Jordan’s leadership, asking people why they don’t want to comply with subpoenas. The guy won’t comply with the one that was sent to him 321 days ago, witness to a crime, the crime that has led to more arrests than any investigation in America,” Swalwell observed, referring to the January 6 prosecutions.

“He’s a witness being asked to do his patriotic duty and respond to a subpoena 321 days later, refuses. Also, since the last hearing of this Committee to Obstruct Justice, Chairman Jordan is now in interfering in an independent criminal prosecution. There’s an investigation in Manhattan, also in Atlanta, also at the Department of Justice, into the former president and Jim Jordan has sent a letter to the independently elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg of Manhattan. He is asking Alvin Bragg to commit a felony.”

“Why is he asking Alvin Bragg to commit a felony? To help Donald Trump. Why is it a felony? Because if Alvin Bragg were to turn over what Jim Jordan is asking of him, Bragg would be violating New York law that says you cannot turn over grand jury proceedings, but that’s what they’re asking them to do. Again, the law doesn’t matter if your client is Donald Trump.”

“The other day Jim Jordan was asked, ‘Well, what do you think of the former president who put out on Truth Social the other day, essentially an another call to action? A January 6-like post when the former president said this posting, Jim Jordan was presented with this post by the former president that calls for ‘death and destruction.’ And Mr. Jordan said that he would ‘need his glasses.’ He was looking the other way. Jim Jordan looking the other way.”

READ MORE: Here’s How Five Republicans in Congress Are Responding to the Mass Shooting of 3 Children and 3 Adults in Nashville (Video)

“Well, we have blown up on the screen and we’ve put it right here and I’ll leave it for Jim Jordan. This is what Donald Trump said, Mr. Jordan,” Swalwell said, reading the e-president’s social media post:

“‘What kind of person can charge another person? In this case it former president of the United States who got more votes than any sitting president in history and leading candidate by far for the Republican Party nomination with the crime when it is known by all that? No crime has been committed and also known that potential death and destruction and such a false charge can be catastrophic for our country. Why and who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA?'”

“Again, I’m gonna leave this up here in probably 200 font. So Mr. Jordan doesn’t need his glasses to read it,” Swalwell added, referring to news that Jordan recently refused to comment on a Trump social media post claiming he first hadn’t read it, then when a reporter showed it to him, Jordan said he couldn’t read it because he didn’t have his glasses.

:{

“The same individual who posted this also posted this photo. There you go, Donald. Trump. Real tough guy holding a baseball bat, next to a picture of that independent prosecutor that Jim Jordan wants to commit a felony, Alvin Bragg.”}:

“But you won’t hear from this Committee to Obstruct Justice, any condemnation of what Donald Trump posted. They can’t condemn him. They can’t. So in their silence, they condone it. And in these posts from Donald Trump, he incites more and more Americans to commit violence like a woman who was arrested yesterday, near Times Square with a knife seeking to carry out an act of violence in Donald Trump’s name.”

Swalwell blasted Chairman Jordan for repeatedly falsely claiming that Attorney General Merrick Garland had labeled parents speaking at school board meetings “domestic terrorists,” a lie made by many Republicans and conservatives.

READ MORE: New WSJ Poll Is Devastating for DeSantis and His ‘Anti-Woke’ Policies

“No parent has a right to threaten a school board volunteer. If a threat is brought to the FBI, it’s their duty to investigate those threats. We’ve also learned from all the document production from DOJ and the FBI in the Department of Education, that there is not one instance where the Department of Justice called any parent or a group of parents, ‘domestic terrorists,’ as has been claimed by Jim Jordan.”

:{And he criticized House Republicans, who, under Jim Jordan, had posted a tweet in support of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Kanye West.

“It’s also about a tweet that Jim Jordan posted back in the fall. ‘Kanye. Elon. Trump.’ Now after that tweet was posted, Kanye said he’s going to declare ‘DEF CON three on the Jews.’ The tweet stayed up for months. Everyone was like, ‘Hey guys, turns out your hero Kanye West hates the Jews. We all stand with Israel. Please take down the tweet.’ They didn’t take down the tweet. They kept the tweet up. Day after day. Jewish community they’re hurting, they say, ‘Please don’t take, please don’t put this tweet up.’ It stays up.”}:

He also blasted the GOP for holding hearings with witnesses they invited who are anti-police, despite their motto of “backing the blue.”

“Last week, we had a hearing where you could call anyone in America when you have the majority, the power of a subpoena. We had a hearing about the ATF. These guys brought a witness who had just recently tweeted, ‘fuck cops.’ Cops. That’s what this guy tweeted. Anyone on Earth could have come to that hearing and they brought someone that said, ‘fuck cops.’ Then one of their colleagues, this is what she’s selling on her social media: ‘defund the FBI.’ So we went from backing the blue to backing the coup.”

Swalwell concluded his remarks by slamming the committee for doing nothing to reduce gun violence in the wake of Monday’s school mass shooting.

“So we’ll waste our time today on this exercise on behalf of Donald Trump and perhaps Elon Musk, but everyone on their side is going to have to go home this weekend to their constituents and their constituents are going to ask them one question: Three little babies died this week in a school in Nashville. No other committee in Congress has jurisdiction to do something about that except this committee. So you’re on the Judiciary Committee. Three kids are dead. They’re gonna be buried this week. What did you do about it? Did you show up to the Judiciary Committee and fight for those kids? Or did you show up and fight for Donald Trump? They showed up to the first hearing after Nashville and they’re fighting for Donald Trump.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

yikes 118th

https://truthout.org/articles/gaetz-wants-reading-of-pledge-of-allegiance-before-judiciary-committee-meetings/

no lnx

wednesday, Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz introduced a new amendment to the House Judiciary Committee hearing rules, which would require lawmakers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting.

:{

}:

Gaetz’s proposal was likely aimed at embarrassing Democrats on the committee, who opposed the requirement.

The pledge has been used as a political weapon numerous times in U.S. history,to label those who don’t participate or who oppose its use as unpatriotic.

Nativists and white supremacists have also used the pledge to attack people they deem “un-American” based on their race or immigration status.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-New York), who previously chaired the Judiciary Committee, objected to Gaetz’s proposal.

“I don’t know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day to show how patriotic we are,” Nadler said.

RELATED STORY

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy addresses the media outside his office at the U.S. Capitol on January 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C.

NEWS | POLITICS & ELECTIONS

Kevin McCarthy Appoints 3 Election Deniers to the House Ethics Committee

The new chair of the committee signed on to a lawsuit from Texas that sought to discount millions of votes in 2020.

By Chris Walker , TRUTHOUTFebruary 1, 2023]

Predictably, Gaetz and other committee members fired back, noting that Nadler and others aren’t always on the House floor when the pledge is recited. Nadler responded by saying that there is documentation of him saying the pledge many times.

:{

}:

Later that day, after theJudiciary Committee’s hearing, Gaetz attacked Nadler on social media for opposing his amendment. “The Pledge of Allegiance is not a waste of time,” Gaetz said on Twitter. The account representing the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked Nadler and Democrats for opposing the idea.

During the meeting, however, Rep. David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) turned the issue on its head. Cicilline proposed adding wording to Gaetz’s amendment on reciting the pledge specifying that no person “who supported an insurrection against the United States in any way” should be invited to read the pledge before the committee.

Republicans voiced their disdain for the idea, interpreting it as an attack on some members’ votes against certifying the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, the day the Capitol was attacked by a mob of loyalists to former President Donald Trump. Gaetz claimed that Democrats “may be disqualifying [their] own members” through such an amendment, perhaps referring to the fact that Democrats have voted against certifying electors in previous presidential elections (though not nearly in the same numbers as Republicans in 2021).

Cicilline said it was “interesting” that Gaetz’s mind went in that direction, since his proposed amendment was referring to people in general, not solely lawmakers.

:{

}:

“I think we should all agree that no one who participated in insurrection should lead the Judiciary Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance, so it shouldn’t be complicated to accept this amendment,” Cicilline said, adding:

This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution. It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.

Cicilline’s amendment was ultimately defeated, while Gaetz’s amendment, requiring that the Pledge of Allegiance be read before each committee hearing, was passed.

Had Cicilline’s amendment passed, it likely wouldn’t have been enforced, as it would have given power to determine whether or not someone is an insurrectionist to the Judiciary Committee Chair, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Only one person in the U.S. so far has been successfully barred from holding future office for violating the insurrectionist clause of the 14th Amendment — former Cowboys for Trump leader Couy Griffin, who helped coordinate the attack on the Capitol.

Notably, Trump himself could be barred from holding office in the future under the insurrectionist clause. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has promised that the organization will seek to have Trump listed as an insurrectionist under the terms of the 14th Amendment.

In an open letter to Trump in November, Bookbinder warned that if Trump announced another presidential run, CREW would take appropriate action to bar him “based on [his] engaging in the insurrection that culminated on January 6, 2021.”

“The evidence that you engaged in insurrection as contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment — including by mobilizing, inciting, and aiding those who attacked the Capitol — is overwhelming,” Bookbinder wrote, weeks before Trump announced his 2024 presidential run.

CHRIS WALKER

Chris Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on the American people.

subcomm

https://judiciary.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?SubcommitteeID=14905

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/impeachment-endgame-buckle-up-its-gonna-get-uglier/

no lnx

...So it looks like it’s going to be up to Republican members on the committee to make his case for him. Judging from what we’ve heard from various prominent Republicans over the weekend, we can expect that this next phase will see a ratcheting up of resistance to the proceedings and more antics from the backbenchers on the Judiciary Committee. They have some real characters who are ready to turn this into a wild and crazy trip down the rabbit hole.

We don’t yet know how Nadler plans to run the hearings but I think everyone hopes he follows Schiff’s example. A draft of possible impeachment proceedings from September indicates that Nadler plans to allow committee staffers “designated by the chairman and ranking member” to “ask questions of witnesses for a total of one hour, equally divided across the parties (in addition to the normal questions from members),” so it’s likely that the hearings will at least have an hour or so of meaningful exchanges.

But that’s going to be tough. This committee is one of the most rancorous in the House and it has twice as many members as the Intelligence Committee. Many of them are showboating egomaniacs on a good day. Both Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who were highly combative during the Intelligence Committee hearings, also sit on Judiciary, so we can expect more of their red-meat performances. And we can be sure that Trump’s most loyal guard dog, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, along with borderline crackpot Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, will be looking for ways to upend the proceedings.

As Judiciary member Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Sunday, “it’s a bunch of brawlers sometimes on the Judiciary Committee, so it should get pretty hot and under the collar as we go along. I don’t think things have been done the way they’ve been done in the past, Mike, and so it causes some rancor and it should be pretty — much more feisty, I would say than the Intel Committee was.”

Nadler has his hands full, to say the least. But if anyone thinks that the circus atmosphere will be over once the House votes on impeachment and it moves to the more staid and dignified Senate, they should think again. Republican senators are behaving little better than Gaetz and Gohmert. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has vowed to call Hunter Biden to testify on the premise that “we’re not going to live in a country where only one party gets investigated.” (Which must have made Bill Clinton shake his head in wonderment, considering that Graham was one of the House managers of his impeachment trial.)

But Graham has to battle another Southern senator for the role of most outrageous Trump defender. That would be Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who has been currying favor with Trump by appearing on the Sunday shows making rash claims about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.

Ben Rhodes

?

@brhodes

Republicans literally spreading Russian disinformation manufactured on some troll farm. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1201183435554992129 …

Aaron Rupar

?

@atrupar

.@SenJohnKennedy: Dr Hill is entitled to her opinion

TODD: When does opinion become fact?

K: I believe reports Poroshenko worked for Clinton

T: My goodness, you just did exactly what the Russian op is trying to get Americans to do! Are you worried you've been duped?

K: No.

Embedded video

This is crazy talk, but it’s very likely where the impeachment process is headed both in the House and the Senate. The most sober and dignified part of the process is probably behind us, unfortunately.

Heather Digby

==

==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, also called the House Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities. The Judiciary Committee is also the committee responsible for impeachments of federal officials. Because of the legal nature of its oversight, committee members usually have a legal background, but this is not required.

In the 116th Congress, the chairman of the committee is Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York,[1] and the ranking minority member is Republican Doug Collins of Georgia.

History

....

majority

minority

==

https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/hate-crimes-and-rise-white-nationalism

Witnesses

Ms. Eileen Hershenov

Senior Vice President Policy, Anti-Defamation League, Washington, DC

Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha

Clayton, NC

Ms. Eva Paterson

President, Equal Justice Society, Oakland, CA

Mr. Neil Potts

Public Policy Director, Facebook Inc., Washington, DC

Ms. Alexandria Walden

Public Policy & Government Relations, Google, LLC, Washington, DC

Mr. Mort A. Klein

President, Zionist Organization of America, NY

:{Ms. Candace Owens

Turning Point USA, Washington, DC}:

Ms. Kristen Clarke

President and Executive Director, National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC

Documents

116th Congress

==

who invited her?

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/trump-fan-candace-owens-goes-down-in-flames-as-rep-ted-lieu-plays-her-bizarre-hitler-remarks-in-a-public-hearing/

no lnx twt

For over a year Republicans and right-wing activists have been promoting the false claim that conservatives are being “silenced” and marginalized on social media platforms. GOP lawmakers love the idea, despite it being entirely false, because it allows them to continue the victimization belief that is at the center of Trumpism: “If only liberals and brown people weren’t part of America we could go back to the way things were” idea. Things were never the way they think they were.

On Tuesday the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism, which was also to “foster ideas about what social media companies can do to stem white nationalist propaganda and hate speech online,” according to the Committee.

Democrats invited representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, Google, Facebook, and other organizations.Republicans invited Turning Point USA’s communications director Candace Owens.

Owens is infamous for her remarks that appeared to be supportive of Hitler, in which she said: “Whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler.”

“But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” Owens, speaking in London at a TPUSA recruitment event, said. “The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalise. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism.”

In fact, Hitler didn’t want to just have “things run well,” he wanted to – and did – exterminate tens of millions of people, including Jews, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, and many more.

Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) played those remarks during Tuesday’s hearing.

.@RepTedLieu plays recording of Candace Owens: "I don't know Ms. Owens. I'm not going to characterize her. I'm going to let her own words do the talking. So, I'm going to play for you the first 30 seconds of a statement she made about Adolf Hitler."

Owens responded, only to embarrass herself further. Her remarks were so offensive the Chairman of the Committee, Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was forced to interject and instruct her that she was not allowed to disparage Members of Congress during a hearing in the manner in which she did.

Embedded video

CSPAN

?

@cspan

Candace Owens: "I think it's pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip…That was unbelievably dishonest…I'm deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me."

41.1K

10:55 AM - Apr 9, 2019

20.8K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Owens accuses Rep.Lieu of being dishonest and playing a selected clip from the entire video. It should be noted that the question that was asked of her when she made her remarks appearing to defend Hitler had nothing to do with Hitler. She chose to bring up Hitler.

Her remarks when publicized were so offensive that Turning Point USA chapters wrote letters denouncing her.

==

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/once-again-congress-entertained-debunked-accusations-that-conservatives-are-censored-online/

Members of the House Judiciary Committee gathered this morning to entertain, once again, the repeatedly debunked accusations that social media websites like Facebook systemically censor conservative viewpoints on ideological grounds.

This morning, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and his colleagues hosted representatives from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter for a public hearing during which it was advertised that company representatives would “answer questions on their content moderation practices and how they can be better stewards of free speech in the United States and abroad.” Although the hearing did include a hodgepodge of inquiries about censorship, algorithm design and suspected Russian meddling in the 2016 election, many GOP members of the committee used their time to hammer tech companies with mythical nonsensestraight out of Infowars (speaking of which, Infowars host Alex Joneshas claimednumerous times on air during the last week that the White House and members of Congress have asked him to produce a report on the bias conservatives say they face online.)

In a tweet advertising the public hearing, the House Judiciary Committee posed the question, “So, why am I getting shadowbanned?”:[twit]

[View image on Twitter[twit]:{

}:](https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1019217049116119040/photo/1 "View image on Twitter")

:{Twitter Ads info and privacy:(style="position:absolute !important;overflow:hidden !important;width:1px !important;height:1px !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px) !important"):}:

The House Judiciary Committee hosted a similarly themed meeting in April with pro-Trump video bloggers Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, who are best known by their on-screen personas “Diamond & Silk.” In retrospect, tech companies were wise to decline invitations to attend the April session because it ended up being an unmitigated train wreck.

But for whatever reason, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter decided that this morning they would indulge GOP congressmen, who entered the discussion with claims that conservatives are being filtered off of social media—which is a claim that Republicans and conservatives routinely make in order to justify their never-ending persecution complex and fetish for punishing those who do not bend to their will.

In April, ThinkProgress thoroughly debunked Diamond & Silk’s claims that Facebook was censoring their content. Yesterday, Media Matters released a study of 463 Facebook pages that found partisan pages have almost equal engagement numbers and further put claims of ideological censorship to rest.

Twitter senior strategist for public policy Nick Pickles wrote in prepared remarks to the Judiciary Committee that accusations that Twitter uses policies designed to de-rank “those who are simply looking to disrupt the conversation” on its platform was a plot to censor conservative voices are “unfounded and false”:

Ultimately, everyone’s comments and perspectives are available, but those who are simply looking to disrupt the conversation will not be rewarded by having their Tweets placed at the top of the conversation or search results. Early results demonstrated that this approach has a positive impact, resulting in a four percent decrease in abuse reports from search and eight percent fewer abuse reports from conversations.

Some critics have described the sum of all of this work as a banning of conservative voices. Let me make clear to the Committee today that these claims are unfounded and false. In fact, we have deliberately taken this approach as a robust defense against bias, as it requires us to define and act upon bad conduct, not a specific type of speech. Our purpose is to serve the conversation, not to make value judgments on personal beliefs.

Some tech companies have, however, attempted to curb the spread of deliberately false information and malicious conspiracy theories on their platforms, which may be limiting the conservative movement’s reach given that a significant share of modern conservative media’s messaging relies on outlets that misrepresent and distort the truth.

Goodlatte questioned whether the market share that the three companies hold on the social media industry would make those companies less inclined to listen to concerns about their platforms and suggested that users who believe they are censored don’t believe that they can simply use a competing internet service.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who regularly sympathizes with the fringes of right-wing politics, demanded that Facebook’s representative explain why Gateway Pundit and Diamond & Silk saw their web traffic decline on social media sites. [twit]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) went on the offensive during the hearing and accused the tech company representatives of appearing on Capitol Hill this morning in order to assist Democrats in vilifying Russia. He asked site representatives to name any other countries that used their platforms to interfere with elections, and when representatives told Gohmert that they would follow up with more information, he jeered at them.

“You came prepared to help the Democrats establish about Russia, but you can’t point out any other country? Is that right?” Gohmert said to Facebook’s representative.

“Are you only here to condemn the Russians?” Gohmert asked YouTube’s representative.

“You did not come prepared to answer any question about any other country but Russia, is that correct?” Gohmert asked of Twitter’s representative.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) accused social media companies of having “repeatedly censored, removed or shadowbanned conservative journalists, news organizations and media outlets that do not share their liberal political views.” Smith also accused Google of blocking “references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion” and asked, “When will it stop?” Smith then lamented the fact that some social media organizations have received help identifying hateful activity on their platforms from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)claimed that Facebook and YouTube’s policy of using third-party entities to combat misinformation was “opening up a Pandora’s box” because “what one person may think is fake news, somebody else believes is the gospel truth.” While questioning the authority of these third-party groups, Poe mistakenly referred to the fact-checking site Snopes as “Snoops.”

Tags: Alex JonesBob GoodlatteDiamond & SilkLamar SmithLouie GohmertSteve KingTed PoeCensorshipconspiracy theoriesFirst AmendmentYouTubeGateway PunditInfoWars

==