Biden Admin’s Civil Rights Assistant AG: Uninformed about Big Tech’s Free Speech Limitation Case
OAN’s Brooke Mallory
11:00 AM – Tuesday, December 5, 2023
A recent hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government became contentious when Kristen Clarke, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, maintained that she was unaware of a major case involving repressed free expression.
The primary plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden, Jim Hoft, is the founder of The Gateway Pundit.
In the course of the hearing concerning the supervision of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for monitoring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, Representative Dan Bishop (R-NC) questioned Clarke concerning her ignorance of the Missouri v. Biden case, which is scheduled for review by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
The Supreme Court said in October that it will hear the case of the parties involved in Missouri v. Biden after granting “certiorari.”
However, it also lifted the injunction that had prevented the government from keeping Americans under censorship. The censorship regime can be reinstated by the government while the case is being heard by the court.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit concerns whether the Biden administration, which vigorously began censoring citizens during the COVID-19 lockdowns, is permitted to utilize federal government resources to blatantly censor Americans. The lawsuit has exposed the involvement of several government departments and officials in dictating to social media corporations what content should be restricted, who can be banned, and what types of expression are acceptable.
The Missouri v. Biden case is regarded by legal experts as the most significant case involving free speech in the last ten years or more. The Biden regime’s activities were deemed by a U.S. District Court to be “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Clarke said that she was oblivious to the legal proceedings. Rep. Bishop questioned how the head of the Civil Rights Division could be ignorant of a case that a U.S. District Court had characterized as a significant matter involving free expression. To better grasp the matter, Clarke asked for further information.
The discussion went as follows:
Rep. Bishop: Ms. Clarke, in the Biden v. Missouri case in the district court, the court explained, “If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history.”
The court issued a preliminary injunction after concluding that the plaintiffs had a reasonable chance of winning their case at trial. The Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction over the matter following the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation.
Naturally, any civil litigation refers to any criminal investigation or prosecution that the Civil Rights Division is now conducting against the individuals involved in that action at the FBI, CISA, the White House, and their accomplices.
Clarke: Congressman, I’m not familiar with this litigation, but happy to bring your question back.
Bishop: So, let me just make sure I understand that you are not aware of the Missouri versus Biden litigation that is currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Is that correct?
Clarke: Unfortunately, I’m not. Congressman.
Bishop: Assuming that you’re not aware of that, what reason would there be that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department leader is unaware of what a United States District Court has described as the most massive attack on free speech in the United States history?
Clarke: If you could share more of the facts, that could be helpful, Congressman.
Bishop: Otherwise, you just don’t know, is that correct?
Clarke: That’s correct. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a case that I’m familiar with.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
What are the implications of the preliminary injunction preventing the government from censoring Americans during the Supreme Court review of the Missouri v. Biden case?
Ft the injunction preventing the government from censoring Americans while the case is under review by the Supreme Court?
Clarke’s response that she was unaware of the Missouri v. Biden litigation sparked concern among committee members and legal experts alike. How could the head of the Civil Rights Division, responsible for monitoring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and protecting free expression, be oblivious to such a significant case?
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit raises crucial questions about the limits of government censorship and the use of federal resources to restrict Americans’ freedom of speech. It has brought to light the involvement of various government departments and officials in dictating content restrictions and banning individuals on social media platforms.
Legal experts consider this case to be the most significant involving free speech in the last decade, if not more. A U.S. District Court even characterized the Biden administration’s actions as “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Representative Bishop’s questioning aimed to understand how Clarke, as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, could be oblivious to a case of such magnitude. He referred to the court’s evaluation of the case as potentially involving the most massive attack on free speech in U.S. history.
The court had issued a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs’ chances of success at trial, and the Supreme Court later assumed jurisdiction over the matter. This litigation undoubtedly carries implications for any ongoing civil or criminal investigations conducted by the Civil Rights Division against the individuals involved in the case.
Clarke’s admission of unfamiliarity with the Missouri v. Biden litigation raises questions about the Department of Justice’s awareness and involvement in significant cases relating to free expression. It raises concerns about the division’s ability to uphold and protect the constitutional rights of American citizens.
Going forward, it is essential for the Civil Rights Division and its leadership, including Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, to prioritize their role in defending and promoting free speech. The Department of Justice must remain vigilant in monitoring and addressing any infringement on Americans’ right to express themselves freely.
The Missouri v. Biden case serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles to preserve the fundamental principles of free expression enshrined in the United States Constitution. It highlights the importance of a robust and independent judiciary in safeguarding our constitutional rights and holding the government accountable.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...