Josh Hawley Questions Biden Nominee On Censoring Americans On Social Media

Forbes Breaking News

At a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned nominees from President Biden about using social media to censor Americans.

Transcript

00:00 Thank you, Senator Hassell. Senator Hall, you're recognized for your questions.

00:02 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the nominees. Thanks for being here.

00:06 Mr. Cooker, let me start with you. Are you familiar with the case

00:10 Missouri v. Biden from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

00:13 I'm vaguely familiar, sir, from what I've read in the open press.

00:18 Well, let me refresh your memory. This is the case in which first the federal district court,

00:25 then the federal court of appeals, held that the White House and assorted other various

00:30 federal agencies violated the First Amendment of the United States, illegal actions, unconstitutional

00:37 actions by coercing and colluding with the biggest social media corporations in the world

00:43 to suppress and censor protected speech. Let me just read you a few passages.

00:47 Officials from the White House began communicating with social media companies, including Facebook,

00:52 Twitter, YouTube, Google, in early 2021. From the outset, that came with requests to take down

00:58 flagged content. In one email, a White House official told a platform to take down a post ASAP

01:04 and instructed it to keep an eye out for tweets that fall in the same genre so that they could be

01:10 removed. In another email, an official told a platform to remove an account immediately and

01:16 said he could not stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. The court

01:21 goes on to find -- these are findings, by the way, not allegations, findings. Those requests for

01:26 removal were met. The court goes on. The White House did not only flag content, they started

01:31 monitoring the platform's moderation activities, too, and they often asked for and received

01:37 frequent updates to the platform's moderation policies. They not only continued the platforms

01:43 to take down content the officials flagged and provided requested data to the White House,

01:48 they also changed their moderation policies expressly in accordance with the White House's

01:53 wishes. Bottom line here, the court found that the White House successfully pressured and coerced,

02:01 once again, the biggest corporations in the world to censor Americans. And here's how the court

02:08 summarized it. They said it was a coordinated campaign of unprecedented magnitude, orchestrated

02:15 by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. That's

02:20 pretty strong language. This is pretty bad stuff. Do you think that this is wrong, Mr. Coker? Do

02:27 you think that the White House meeting with social media corporations and pressuring them

02:31 to censor protected speech by Americans is wrong? >> Sir, with regards to ONCD, we do not have a

02:41 role related to that. We're focused on the digital infrastructure and the digital ecosystem.

02:48 And that's where ONCD is today. And if confirmed, I presume that's the roadmap that ONCD would

02:57 continue to follow. >> You wouldn't see it as any part of your remit to meet with social media

03:01 corporations? >> I would meet with whatever entity, if confirmed, that could help build

03:11 and maintain a more defensible digital infrastructure and a more resilient digital

03:17 infrastructure. >> You would be against any efforts to use your office or any other office

03:23 you have put input in, in the White House, if you were to be confirmed here, to censor

03:28 or manipulate or otherwise engage in unconstitutional activities? >> I am a proponent,

03:37 a strong proponent, of First and Fourth Amendment free speech and privacy.

03:44 I do not see any role in ONCD in that area. But again, if I could speak personally,

03:53 censorship is not an area that I personally believe in. I'm an advocate for constitutionally

04:00 protected speech. >> Good. I ask you because cybersecurity is often cited, and you can see

04:06 it in this decision, is often cited as a reason to censor. I mean, this is part of the rationale

04:13 that the White House and the FBI and DHS all used, according to these federal courts, to go to these

04:19 big corporations and say, you've got to do what we tell you to do. And the finding of the court was,

04:25 the government basically turned these corporations into an arm of the federal government. I emphasize

04:29 the biggest corporations on the planet with the most extensive control of speech on the planet,

04:36 and our government, our government, used them, turned them into an arm of itself, and went,

04:43 in some cases, post by post, and said, take this down, take that down, censored this person.

04:50 In my home state of Missouri, parents who were trying to circulate a petition

04:53 about school policy with regard to masks had their posts taken down at the direction of the White

04:59 House. This isn't a novel. This happened. And for all I know, it's still happening in this country.

05:06 So I just want to make sure, Mr. Coker, that you're going to be a voice for the First Amendment.

05:11 And if somebody comes to you and says, you need to go and meet with these social media companies,

05:15 and you need to do this stuff, you need to tell them, take down those posts, I don't like that,

05:20 we're threatening you, you'll say, no how, no way.

05:23 >> Sir, I took my first oath to the Constitution when I was 17 years old,

05:28 and I've taken it periodically ever since. I am, there's no stronger advocate for the

05:35 United States Constitution to include all amendments than I am, sir.

05:39 >> Well, good. Well, you would be a breath of fresh air in that regard in this White House.

05:42 Let me ask you something else. Am I right in thinking that you have served, maybe you

05:48 currently serve as a senior advisory group member within ODNI, Office of the Director

05:52 of National Intelligence? >> I have worked some projects for ODNI.

05:58 >> Okay. Have you been involved in any discussions regarding ODNI's obligation

06:03 to declassify information about the links between the Wuhan Institute for Virology

06:09 and the COVID-19 pandemic? >> Not at all, sir.

06:12 >> Okay. Do you know what I'm referring to here?

06:14 >> No, sir, I don't. >> Well, we passed a law, I say we,

06:19 I mean this body passed a law, we passed it unanimously out of the Senate. It was passed

06:23 by the House of Representatives. It was signed by the president. I happen to know something

06:28 about it because I wrote it. And it requires ODNI, requires not requests, requires ODNI

06:34 to declassify, I believe the language that we settled on is any and all information,

06:39 pretty broad, any and all information related to the origins of COVID-19.

06:43 ODNI has not complied with that statutory obligation. They had a deadline, they blew

06:49 right through it. When they finally did give us information, they gave us a five-page summary.

06:54 They gave us no actual information, none of the detail required in the statute. They have

06:58 basically, I know this is a family hearing, Mr. Chairman, they've basically given us the finger,

07:04 put it that way. I mean, it was just too bad, we're not going to comply.

07:07 I can't tell you how destructive I think that is, not just to the relationship between the White

07:14 House and Congress, but to the basic rule of law, the American people have a right to expect the

07:20 laws will be followed. And also when it comes to something like COVID-19, that their government

07:24 will be honest with them about what they know. That's what this law requires, what they know.

07:28 So if you're confirmed, will you commit to us, Mr. Coker, that you will comply with statutes

07:36 duly enacted that this body, Congress, enacts and writes into law?

07:40 Absolutely, sir.

07:42 All right, very good. Thank you. I'll have some other questions for you all. I'll submit them

07:46 for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Category

Transcript

Recommended