Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!
During the Judge Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley expertly trolled Democrats and their lackeys in the corporate media and in Big Tech for trying to downplay, if not outright censor, the revelations published by the New York Post about Hunter Biden and the Ukraine-based oil and gas company Burisma.
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, among other things, have peppered Judge Barrett, who currently sits on the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with hypotheticals as a way to get her to pre-commit to ruling in a certain way, which would constitute a violation of judicial ethics. Against that backdrop, Hawley cleverly decided to turn the tables on the Dems when his turn came to question the legal scholar.
“This morning Senator Leahy asked you about the Emoluments Clause. There allegations about foreign influence and since he asked you about it- he asked you if it was best described as an anti-corruption clause…and he referenced the president and various allegations about foreign influence.
“Since he asked you about it, and since he asked about foreign influence in government, I think it’s only fair that I ask whether hypothetically speaking, just hypothetically, if there were let’s say a vice president of the United States, who hypothetically, had an adult son, who hypothetically worked for a foreign oligarch, who then sold access to his father, the vice president, and his father then intervened in a case to make sure that oligarch wasn’t prosecuted. Hypothetically would that constitute the kind of foreign corruption the Constitution is concerned about?”
Judge Barrett, who — among her many other accomplishments — has mastered the art of the impassive, dignified demeanor (which is difficult to do), almost laughed, but responded that “I can’t answer hypotheticals.”
“Well I thought you might say that. And I’m glad you don’t and won’t because who knows, that case may come before you,” Sen. Hawley noted.
Hypothetically speaking… pic.twitter.com/7OuPgVck5g
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) October 14, 2020
Sen. Hawley has consistently called out Big Tech for censorship and has championed the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, an existing loophole that prevents users from filing lawsuits against these enormous platforms based on a premise that they are not functioning as publishers.
Unlike some members of his party who seem asleep at the switch, the senator has introduced legislation that would, in general, remove this provision unless Big Tech agrees to operate in good faith and provide specifics that establish neutral content moderation procedures. He is also a leader in condemning the CCP for cracking down on the pro-Democracy movement in Hong Kong.
Hawley’s proposed bill has taken on more significance given the way that Big Tech has sought to suppress the Post‘s Biden story.
Fresh wave of backlash when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey falls short of apology for stifling NYP’s Hunter Biden story https://t.co/YFq9Rg9MKY
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) October 15, 2020
Next week when the full Senate returns we should VOTE on my bill allowing Americans to sue #BigTech for censorship & unfair treatment
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 14, 2020
So #BigTech monopolies donate massive money to Biden/Harris, Biden gets the monopolies to censor negative stories about him, and then points to the monopolies as experts. Talk about collusion
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 15, 2020
Earlier this week, Hawley blasted his Democrat colleagues on the panel for engaging in what he considered religious bigotry against the potential Supreme Court justice, who is a devout Catholic.
- Facebook joins Google, Netflix in requiring all US workers to be vaccinated - July 29, 2021
- Michigan Dem lawmaker who called ‘Big Gretch’ his ‘homie’ reports $221 campaign spending at strip club - July 29, 2021
- Irate Geraldo fights with The Five hosts after Gutfeld questions his intent: ‘… I’ll kick you in the ass!’ - July 29, 2021