George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley testified Thursday before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the alleged “weaponization” of the federal government, offering his expert legal analysis on Twitter working with federal agencies to censor Americans.
“The Twitter Files raise serious questions of whether the United States government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in our history,” Turley would testify. “The involvement cuts across the Executive Branch, with confirmed coordination with agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA. Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of this censorship system is breathtaking, and we only know of a fraction of its operations through the Twitter Files.”
In an attempt to discredit Turley, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the woman who lead the DNC when it rigged the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, attacked the law professor’s credentials by asking him if he had ever worked at Twitter or had “any specific or special or unique knowledge about the inner workings of Twitter?” She would go on to claim that he was only offering “opinion and conjecture” on Twitter colluding with the federal government and had no “specific or unique knowledge” to qualify him to speak on the issue.
Appearing Friday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Turley pushed back at the attack, calling Wasserman Schultz’s efforts “completely absurd.”
“The congresswoman was asking if I’ve ever worked at Twitter as a condition for my talking about what the Twitter files,” he said. “It’s like saying you have to work at the Pentagon if you want to testify about the implications of the Pentagon Papers.”
“The point of witnesses before committees is often to give legal analysis based on what is known and what could be found in this investigation,” Turley explained. “The exchange she was referring to was a member who expressly asked me about the Twitter files and what this suggests about what I’ve called censorship by surrogate”
Falling back on fact, the one thing Democrats often don’t like to talk about, Turley went on to discuss what the facts showed and how it potentially violates the constitution.
“She went into this issue of, ‘Well, you’ve never worked at Twitter. How do you know what goes on at Twitter,’ which is completely absurd,” he said. “The whole premise of my testimony was that Twitter has now authenticated and confirmed these facts. These facts are coming from Twitter. These are Twitter files. And the facts indicate that they had weekly meetings with the government. They indicate that the government would send long lists of citizens and others to be targeted, censored, to be in some cases, banned. Those are very serious allegations that raise constitutional questions, which is why I was there to discuss it.”
He would sum up the effort seen Thursday by Democrats on the subcommittee as an attempt “to avoid talking about censorship and the government’s role in it.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
